Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Allen3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Allen3

final (14/1/0) ending 14:47 1 July 2005 (UTC)

Allen3 has done an impressive amount of work in stub sorting, and if you follow the peer review page, you'll see he does a great job maintaining that. He's also made good contributions to Rum. His edit history certainly demonstrates reasons for us to grant him the additional trust. - Taxman ^Talk 14:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. I hope I am able to live up to the trust you are showing me. --Allen3 ^talk 15:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. - Taxman ^Talk 14:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. He's a stub-sorting machine! Good work maintaining Peer Review. Though a bit slim on user interaction, what I've seen has been unfailingly polite. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, a good editor and already does a fair amount of janitorial tasks. Sysop tools are likely to come handy for him. --Sn0wflake 21:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. This is a no-brainer (um... the vote, that is, not Allen3!) Grutness...wha? 00:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Good user, will be a fine, courteous and thoughtful admin. — mark ✎ 10:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. Cool. JuntungWu 02:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Hedley 20:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. Know mainly through his efforts on WP:TS, and came across very well. violet/riga (t) 22:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
9. Although there are only a few examples in Allen3's edit history where he/she interacts with other Wikipedians, I believe they show a careful, consistent, conscientious, and courteous contributor. Here are some examples of Allen3's contributions which I feel support this sentiment:[1][2][3][4][5][6]. It is worthwhile to note that these are some of Allen3's earlier contributions. This for me is indicative of Allen3's dedicated approach towards Wikipedia. I do not feel the small number of written contributions made to articles an adequate or sufficient reason to deny Allen3 the opportunity to engage in Wikipedia's administrative matters. Based on the contributions made by Allen3 to date, if Allen3 were to become an administrator, I trust Allen3 to be an exemplary, mature, levelheaded, and respected one. Finally, I have no doubt the trust and support we are demonstrating here will be positively reciprocated many times over if administrative rights have been enabled for this user. For these reasons, I fully recommend a support for this candidate. HappyCamper 22:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
10. Very active in janitorial tasks, stub-sorting, and peer review. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
11. Merovingian (t) (c) June 28, 2005 11:41 (UTC)
12. Support. A very fine and valuable contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 13:24 (UTC)
13. Support. Users maintaining a service page should be applauded. PedanticallySpeaking June 29, 2005 17:54 (UTC)
14. Support. lots of good stub-sorting work, and HappyCamper's cited examples of good editorhood. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 13:39 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 18:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   • As always, we may want to note that this user is opposing every RfA without apparant reason (except for a user page suggesting that 'admins are evil'). Hedley 20:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
     • This assertion isn't true. Boothy443 voted to support the admin candidacy of FCYTravis. Apart from his unusual reluctance to explain his votes, it appears to me that Boothy443 is simply much more selective about who he would like to become admins. --Unfocused 28 June 2005 19:43 (UTC)
       • That would be a very generous interpretation of Boothy's intentions. What appears more likely is that a few token support votes were added to protest that support votes never get questioned. In any case, an oppose with no explanation of why is certainly not very helpful in establishing consensus. - Taxman ^Talk June 29, 2005 14:03 (UTC)
         • I don't see it as a "very generous interpretation", I've read his comments on the issue and assume good faith rather than suggest that some of his votes are covert actions designed to disguise his true intent. Unfocused 29 June 2005 14:57 (UTC)
           • Yeah, I read the conversation, and unless you are referring to something not in his talk page or archives, he basically refused to answer beyond saying I can vote however I want, and I don't have to explain it. Remember, he did vote oppose on every single nomination at the time, and as far as I have seen has never responded to why he did that. Of course it is very important to, and I do, assume good faith. I do that until an editor actively gives good reasons not to assume it anymore, as Boothy has. We should carry this conversation elsewhere, so if you want to respond further, my talk page would probably be a better place. - Taxman ^Talk June 29, 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• According to WP:KT, Allen3 has approximately 6500 edits. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:51, 23 Jun 2005 (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. In addition to the work with stub sorting and peer review that I am currently doing, I see my self helping to work off some of the backlog on WP:VfD. Overall I see administration privledges as a means to enforce the decisions and policies of the Wikipedia community, not as a license to advance my personal views, even if the two might differ.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Working with Grutness and others to sort all the articles formerly tagged as substubs, and moving them to stub categories were they are more likely to find editors capable of improving the individual articles.

B. Some of the better examples of my editing style are available at rum and Bernard Ebbers.

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 how will you deal with it in the future?

A.To date, all the editing conflicts I have been in have been minor. When someone leaves me a note telling me that they disagree with an edit I made I try to respond with either the reason I made the change, or on occasion an agreement that I may not have made the best choice. When someone reverts my edits I try not to change things back myself. Instead I have noticed that most of my edits that have been reverted are in turn put back by a third party. I realize that not everything on Wikipedia will go the way I want it to. I accept this and as a result don't have much wikistress. Finally, walking away from a conflict for a couple hours helps to provide perspective and help to diffuse most problems.