Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wernher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wernher

final (27/0/0) ending 16:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wernher has been here over a year and has made about 7,000 edits, apparently without inciting any controversy. I asked him whether he would be interested in adminship about two weeks ago, and after careful consideration has decided to accept a nomination.

While Wernher has already indicated his acceptance of the nomination on my talk page, I will ask him to do so here as well. --The Uninvited Co., Inc.

Aye aye, that's right—like some time ago I told the esteemed speaker/writer above, now again I solemny declare that I accept the nomination. :-) --Wernher 06:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. gadfium 23:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. I've never had the pleasure of bumping in to Wernher, but judging by the edit history, a valuable asset to WP. Lots of good copy editing, all edit-summarised. Support. --fvw*† 03:21, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
    • Thanks for noticing! :-) I try to make a point of doing my summaries (have to be a good example -- I tire to the brink of blood_pressure++ from having to click on diffs on my watchlist ad nauseam just to rediscover that three fifths of edits are fixes of typos &c...). --Wernher 06:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Sure, I'm happy to support. Everyking 06:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. I'm in support as well. Ericthered 08:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. I support the candidate as I know Wernher for the nitpicker he is :) Harald_Hansen 9:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support Duk 11:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support --Dittaeva 14:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. Michael Snow 18:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. As someone who campaigns constantly for accurate edit summaries by trying to lead by example, I can't but support Wernher. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 18:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. -- Grunt   ҈  01:29, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
  12. Andre (talk) 02:09, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Cribcage 06:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. --Verdlanco (talk) 07:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. I heartily support Wernher's candidacy User:Lectrice007
  16. jni 16:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support. 172 18:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  18. GeneralPatton 21:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  19. M7it 22:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  20. Great nomination. Lst27 (talk) 02:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  21. Anyone with this many edits and no controversies must be a good user. --Slowking Man 03:31, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Rje 05:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  23. Went through a bit of Wernher's contribution history just now & what I saw seemed solid & appropriately tidy w/o any obvious and untimely controversies. Seems like a solid candidate to me... :) -- Olve 06:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  24. --Moffedille 18:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  25. This is exactly the type of editor I feel strongly deserves adminship Pedant 01:18, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
  26. Fire Star 06:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  27. Support . -BSveen 10:11, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • 8914 edits as of now. Shane King 23:29, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. 1) Reversion of vandalism and unintended misedits (the pages I frequent most often, i.e. the ones on my slightly geekish watchlist, tend to be more exposed to the latter). 2) Copyediting (I have a proofreader's eye for typos and a compulsive urge to correct them... not always a pleasure, for sure, but often handy when dealing with my own written work of course -- and, as you know from my huge pile of nano-contributions, the urge has found a constructive outlet on Wikipedia).
3) While not definitionally an admin-chore but important still the same: continuing my work of category and template maintenance, the latter including trimming/pruning to avoid bloated 'listboxes'. 4) TBA... --Wernher 06:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. To mention a couple of contributions I feel like drawing attention to now as winter is providing me with a long-needed break from football broadcasts on TV, I point you towards these: Biathlon*, Olympic medalists in b., B. World Championships, and B. World Cup medalists. The three medalist-list articles were a lot of work, with manual/eyeball-based 'data mining' from a lot of places, including a fair share of discrepancy resolution along the way: I now think that these lists are the 'net's most complete, consolidated, and error-free sources for that data.
(* Biathlon, beyond question, is the absolutely coolest sport on Planet Earth; just ask millions of Norwegians, Finns, Germans and Russians. The coolness, btw, is multifaceted, the World Championship being held in Siberia a couple of years ago... :-] )
Also, on a more geekly note, I have contributed quite much to the Commodore home computer articles (and [home] computer articles in general; obviously, it's a hobby of mine). See e.g. Commodore 128, chiclet and membrane keyboard. Re: my 'quest' to educate the world about Norway and Norwegians (hopefully non-POV, I should say), see my childhood home town Kristiansund, lying (necessarily) in my home county Møre og Romsdal, and also take a look at the List of Norwegian-Americans. --Wernher 07:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. I've had three or four edit conflicts in my time on Wikipedia. I have mostly tried to talk rationally to the other party, and if the discussion got a little heated I usually waited a couple of days, did some editing on other articles, and then reworded my view(s) and asked for others to comment as well. This has most often worked out well. Other times, I just let the whole matter rest, and several months later my view actually prevailed as seen by majority editing practice (admittedly somewhat satisfying, yes).
(My philosophy on this account is that I might well have only one life, probably not exceeding ~100 years of living, unfortunately, and I plainly cannot afford to waste a significant amount of that short time span by engaging in non-existentially-important quarrels. I guess the relevant buzzword is "quality time". Also, I don't have the mental energy to do much bickering; never had, really.) --Wernher 06:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)