The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Woodym555[edit]

FINAL (58/0/0); Scheduled to end 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Woodym555 (talk · contribs) - Woodym555 joined the project in July 2006. After a few months as an occasional contributor he began to edit more regularly, showing his worth as a fine content contributor. Be it featured articles, pictures or lists, Woody has developed content that can rightly be described as among the best Wikipedia has to offer. He has a sound understanding of policy and process, and with more than 100 edits to the help desk, he has shown that he can handle the projectspace side of things perfectly well. I am confident that giving him the mop would add further still to the value he gives the project. Oldelpaso 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept and thank Oldelpaso for his nomination.Woodym555 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would hope to use the admin tools to enhance my current contributions . I would be able to help out with edit requests to protected pages, help to move articles that need moving and block persistent vandals when needed. At first i would hope to take it slow, build up some experience and then move into the more contentious and complicated areas. In terms of specific backlogs i would try to help out at protected edit requests, the WP:CSD category when it becomes backlogged and in closing AFDs when needed. Mainly, i intend to carry on editing as i have been, but using my admin tools to help enforce the current wikipedia policies when needed. Woodym555 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I suppose my best contributions have been the articles that i have got to featured status. A complete list of all my articles and interests can be found here. Given my interest in British Military history, i would have to say that i am proud at how Victoria Cross was transformed from this into this. I am also quite happy at how Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope has transformed from this. Those two articles were ones that i thought an encyclopedia should have and the state of those articles was what specifically enticed me to wikipedia. Since then, the "addiction" has taken hold. If I take an article on, I usually have the end-goal of turning it into a featured article or topic. This is what i have done with the Victoria Cross Featured topic and what i intend to do with the Aston Villa F.C. related articles in colloboration with User:Everlast1910. We have been working on the Villa articles for a while now and our current tally stands at 1 FA, 3 FLs and 1 GA.
On a different level, i think that my work on template standardisation for the WP:FOOTY project has been something of a success. I helped to create the Template:Football manager history so as to prevent the bottom of the players articles from becoming overly crowded and complicated. On some pages there were over 6 navboxes, each with different configuration settings that were distracting for the reader. The new set of navboxes introduced have helped to streamline and standardise these articles and make them generally more accessible to the reader. That can only be a good thing. Woodym555 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Anyone who has tried to expand and improve on articles that have passionate supporters (ie military history and football) will run into some sort of conflict. When i first started to improve the main Aston Villa F.C. article, it was after something of an edit war. Football supporters are very passionate about their teams, and that makes it hard for them to write without a subtle point of view bias. They think you are trying to besmirch their clubs name. I found that the best way to deal with this, is to show that you are well-intentioned and that you only want the best for the article. If i know that a topic will be controversial, i will usually create a Sandbox so that editors can see what i intend to do. This technique worked for the Aston Villa and Royal Navy history sections. And that leads me onto where i have had my most obvious conflict. A large chunk of text pertaining to the Battle of Cartagena was added to the Royal Navy article without sources. This was reverted by others and then re-added. I persuaded the ip address to register and then discuss the changes on the talk page. The Talk:Royal Navy/Archive03#Battle of Cartagena rumbled on for about a month and a half, mainly regarding the veracity of the sources. In the end, we all came to an agreement, the text was added and both articles were improved because of it. I feel glad though that the debate occured on the talk page before any edit war occured, and that the problems could be rectified through discussion. That is how i try to deal with stress and prevent conflicts, most editors are more amenable when you don't just revert without warning, if i feel the revert could be controversial i discuss it on the talk page or leave an extended reasoning as can be seen in The Villa archives. Woodym555 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?
A: The current policy pertaining to admin actions can be found at WP:WHEEL. Ostensibly, a wheel war is one where an admin reverts another admins actions without discussion, i.e. a One-revert rule. As can be seen through my contribs I usually discuss before reverting additions of text that I may disagree with, or I feel they may run against consensus. I think discussion is much more productive than simply reverting another editor's actions. A lack of discussion breeds hostility and it is unneccessary. I would apply the same process that I currently apply to text, to any problems that I may have with another admin's actions. I would discuss my reasoning with the admin concerned and I would then listen for their reasoning and we would discuss a way forward. I think that the recent actions of Jimbo regarding ZScout show that wheel warring cannot and will not be tolerated on wikipedia and that discussion should always take precedence over reverts. Woodym555 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. (Optional question from Revolving Bugbear): You come across a page which has been tagged for speedy deletion using ((db-reason)), citing the reason to be "Hoax". You know for a fact that the contents of this article are patently and unequivocally false. What do you do? Does it make a difference if the article has links to sources (no matter how dubious)?
A: If the article makes a claim of notability, no matter how dubious these may seem, then I would nominate it at AFD. I would also put the ((hoax)) template on the article as well. I would then go to the author to see if he has any reliable sources backing up his claims and asking him to put them on the page. It must be noted that it would be hard to be unequivocally sure that an article is a hoax, nor indeed whether the hoax itself is worthy of an article. That is up to the community to decide and for a consensus to be formed. Woodym555 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Woodym555 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support I was invovled in the discussions at Royal Navy, and Woody handled the situation well. I think you mean "veracity" of sources however... David Underdown 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed now, whoops! :) Woodym555 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support This user is a good article writter, has plenty of experience here, and there is nothing that leads me to believe he/she will abuse the admin tools. Good luck!--SJP 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Give 'em the mop! Tiptoety 22:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Only seen good things from Woody. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I know him due to his involvement in the WikiProject Football, and I can ensure he is definitely a great user. Good luck! --Angelo 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Looks good DoyleyTalk 00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support - great contributor at WP:MILHIST. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support He's clearly been a good contributer in the past and there's no reason to think this should change once given admin abilities. Nick mallory 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Excellent contributor. I strongly doubt that he will abuse the use of the mop and bucket. AngelOfSadness talk 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Good contributor. Daniel 01:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A great contributor who is an asset to this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Very solid contribs. I see no problems. Phgao 02:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support, good editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlog. Somebody needs to – Gurch 06:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Belated nom support. Oldelpaso 07:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Neil ☎ 09:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support well rounded contributor. Doczilla 09:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support NHRHS2010 talk 10:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Good contribution to Victoria Cross featured topic. OhanaUnitedTalk page 11:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Woody has helped me a lot over the time he's been here! A great person to work on an article with, it shows with all the Villa articles ;) Everlast1910 13:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Very impressive conflict resolving, and voices on the Help Desk are always appreciated. Good luck! GlassCobra 13:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose, didn't capitalize "i"s in the answers. Article contributors should know that when used as a personal pronoun, "i" is capitalized. *Cremepuff222* 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support satisfied with answers to questions and no evidence tools will be misused.--MONGO 16:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - I'd have to agree. I especially like your mature and experienced answers to questions provided. Rudget Contributions 19:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per "adminship is no big deal", and there are no red flags at all here. K. Scott Bailey 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support John254 23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Great editor.   jj137 (Talk) 00:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support great answers, and overdue. You'll do well :D CattleGirl talk 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - seems fine to me. - Philippe | Talk 02:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Excellent user. Acalamari 02:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Absolutely. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 12:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Give 'em the mop No reason not to support. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 13:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Seen what you do already... obviously. Jmlk17 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - yes, a great editor, good luck! The Rambling Man 16:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Good answers, strong contributions. Will make a fine admin. Lara❤Love 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Very strong answers, great experience, what's not to love? Icestorm815 18:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support when a candidate wants to work on CSD, I look carefully at deleted edits to see if the candidate has a good grasp on speedy deletion. This editor has the goods. Carlossuarez46 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support good, good.--Sunderland06 11:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Among the many other good things, shows proper understanding of speedy deletion criteria ... a virtue which is in short supply sometimes. Would be a good admin. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 12:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - This user has just helped me just a moment ago in a issue, and seems like he wouldn't treat admin tools badly. Davnel03 12:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support. @pple complain 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Dedicated editor who actually works to improve the quality of articles to featured level. An example for us all. Cla68 23:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - good experience and positive answers to questions. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I see this user occasionally at WP:FLC and he seems like a hard working user who would do good. -- Scorpion0422 03:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, a thoroughly excellent editor. Kirill 05:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - qualified candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support I've seen this user doing great work especially at WP:MILHIST. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support with lots of experience as an editor, no concerns. Bearian 17:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. El_C 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Aye Capt'n! -TabooTikiGod 11:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Good answers!  Folic_Acid | talk  15:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Great Wikipedian. Always helpful, and often a voice of reason at WP:FOOTY. I'd be proud to have this guy as my admin. - PeeJay 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support — I view candidacies with unanimous support as prima facie evidence of a good candidate. WODUP 06:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support – Experienced affable editor, no concerns. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support As per Wodup and track is good and user has been a very active contributor of late.Pharaoh of the Wizards 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category