Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Alison

Final (92/1/2); Ended Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:04:06 UTC

Alison (talk · contribs) - Nomination: I have decided to nominate Alison for adminship because I feel she could do a great job with the administrative tools. Until a few hours ago, her username was actually Ali-oops, but she made a decision to change her name.

Alison is an active vandal-fighter, and her user page is semi-protected as a result. Alison has many contributions to Wikipedia, including setting up Wikipedia: WikiProject Irish Maritime; and she has contributed greatly to articles involving Ireland, pharmaceutical, and LGBT issues. Her Wikipedia-edits include her input on WP:RFCN, WP:AIV, and WP:AN/I; as well as input on several WikiProjects; not including the one she set up. She has been here since 2004, and very recently passed the 7000 edits mark. Alison is level-headed, and likes working with other users; she is also extremely friendly, and has a sense of humor; qualities I think more admins should have. Acalamari 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that I am able to co-nominate Alison to become an administrator, I actually encountered her when she reverted some vandalism on my userpage, at the time I thought she was just another one of those RC patrollers, but after delving deeper into her contributions, she is also a very accomplished editor. During correspondence with people, she tries to add a bit of humour into the wiki - something which is all to often lost here. Her wikipedia space contributions are also very good, and she is always very reasoned in her arguments - most probably because of her excellent knowledge of policy (which has probably come because of her length of time on and dedication to the project). Alison would use the tools extremely well, although I doubt very much that it would change her, it would only add to the work she is able to carry out Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept - Alison☺ 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I'm on Editor review. As there are some important comments over there, I'm going to keep going at both for the moment. Adding it here so people are aware and can view its content for themselves.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I spend a lot of my time on WP reverting vandals and have been involved in this since I started here. As admin, I'd spend quite some time monitoring WP:AIV, WP:RPP and clearing admin backlog. I'm a bit of a wikignome (un)fortunately and that kind of work I find to be very satisfying. Lately, I've been contributing on WP:RFCN where I've found it fascinating as it's an excellent place to see subjective interpretation of policy in action. I also regularly patrol Lupin's Recent IP Edits and revert vandalism where I can. Everyone gets fair notice and not always simple boilerplate {{uw-test}} text. I like to take the opportunity to help someone who may be just new at editing. I love to help where I can and my edit history tends to show that I readily get involved in all sorts of issues.

I've not been as active on WP:AN/I as I'd like to be. In the future I can see that changing, admin or otherwise.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I recently spent a gruelling few hours straightening out all the citations and references on the Transsexualism article, as well as providing journal citations for critical areas. I'm proud of the way it looks and reads now. Also, I worked hard on the recent Steve Stanton article (which, incidentally made DYK shortly after. The collaboration involved in rapidly bringing that article to fruition was intense and highly enjoyable. For me, the pleasure is in working together with others & this is why I focus my article creation work on Irish and Pharmacological matters where editors work closely together. Recently, I created WP:IMAR which, though in its infancy, is up and running already. We are planning targetting articles for GA status and having a COTW. Starting a project that other editors enjoy and contribute to has been amazing!
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: Yes, I have. I was deeply involved in dealing with the RMS troll back last year. A blocked user created an entire range of socks [1][2] and began hitting controversial articles and edit warring again and again and again for months on end. I found myself becoming frustrated by the endless reverting/reporting/discussing and spent little time on article creation. To counter that, I set myself a target of a certain quantity of article creation and improvement just to 'come down' from reverting Robert's vandalism. Ultimately, RMS gave up.
Recently, due to my work on reverting vandals, my userpage became a vandal magnet [3]. When that got sprot'd, they turned to my talk page [4]. I don't stress on it any more - in fact, it shows I must be doing *something* right! :)
It needs to be pointed out that I ended up in conflict with one of the main editors of the Steve Stanton article. This has been resolved now & details can be found about that on my current editor review.
General comments
  • Some coments, I wish Ali all the luck she needs to be an effective admin. Viewing some of her edit histories, she is strong on the programming side of editing, cleaning tags etc. Although she generally comes across as wp-positive, I do notice some failings in her approach to some editors. She has a tendency of not being autonomous, and will rush to support an "old pal", then she plays the little "miss fix-it" roll, trying to conciliate etc. This approach has no place on WP and can cause the obvious probs etc downline. Also she called someone an idiot lately, well an admin should never use that word. Maybe that idiot is empowering Ali by being an idiot, so making Ali appear so high on her horse. Maybe this Ali should thank the idiot. Also she should read WP:PEACE. Otherwise, I wish her good editing, and a good admin. And generally I like Ali, which of course is neither here nor there in this poll..86.42.148.197 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi again. Yes, I called an anonymous vandal an 'idiot' yesterday.[5] Said IP-hopping editor has vandalised User:Gwernol's userpage maybe 50 times over the last few weeks. [6] (the 128.186.xx.xx IP) as well as doing the same to mine, including making some increasingly nasty edits to my userpage. I'm not sure if this qualifies them for Idiot or not but I certainly take your point - Alison☺ 19:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Can I withdraw above, I was being graciously puerile, and selective. 86.42.157.10 18:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. First to get here support. I have seen Alison around doing great work and believe she'll make a fine admin. Most experience in vandal areas but has enough XfD contribs to show understanding of deletion policy. Will use the tools well. WjBscribe 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Indubitably, one of the greatest uses here, based on Talk responses, XfD contribs, and dispute resolution. ALTON .ıl 04:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Seems have very well-rounded contributions and a good attitude. John Reaves (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Unabashedly Support. Alison would make an ideal admin, and her ability to find good venues of compromise and a lack of arrogance and hostility are traits that I think all editors should aspire to. She exhibits a perfect balance of boldness and discretion. - WeniWidiWiki 05:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Never had the pleasure but all the boxes appear to be ticked, and good editors good admins usually make. Best of luck! Rockpocket 06:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support++ ~ trialsanderrors 07:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support, excellent editor, no concerns. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support works for me --Herby talk thyme 07:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Out-of-the-box support The Rambling Man 07:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - But of course. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. The kind of editor who will make a great admin. auburnpilot talk 08:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support May I compliment you on the thoughtful and tolerant way in which you dealt with a difficult problem relating to User:Manopingo. Clearly will be a great admin.--Anthony.bradbury 08:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    CommentUser:Manopingo is not a real person. He was just a caricature, and tested this classy Wikipedian, I knew she'd win hands down;)-Manopingo 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support without any reservations, a fine user, will make a fine sysop. --Matthew
  14. Strong support as co-nom, great user Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 09:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support should be fine. Good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 10:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support definitely admin material. - Anas Talk? 11:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. SupportWill be a great administrator. Good luck. --Meno25 11:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Clear and fine. Just like the Emerald Isle. Bubba hotep 12:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Been around for a while; good editor and vandal-fighter.↔NMajdan•talk 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support, yeh, I'd support Alison. Although I had my disagreement, I carry no irk!-Manopingo 13:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - One of my favourite Editors...--Cometstyles 13:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - Appears to be a well rounded experienced editor. Would put the tools to good use. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Strong support as nominator I'm late; and since I am the nominator, I should have been blocked indefinitely if I had opposed. Acalamari 16:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Instant support Hang around Alison's talk page for a couple of days and you'll see why she would make a great admin. She happily tackles controversial topics, accepts constructive criticism and coolly bears trolling, is a major vandal-fighter, highly active on all projects she is a member of... and already provides input in admin-oriented areas of WP. No-question support. Fvasconcellos 16:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. We've never crossed paths, but after a review of Alison's talk page (see here and here) and some of her recent contributions (examples here and here), I'd gladly give her the mop. -- MarcoTolo 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Coming out of wikibreak support I know Alison slightly and have been impressed by her contributions. Here is civility, here is welcoming, here and here are effective uses of vandalism policy (vandal reversions are common and easy to find). If she has any dark secrets then she has hidden them very well. The fact that she is Irish, and that I like Irish people will not influence me. --Guinnog 16:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support. From what I've seen, Alison has been an exemplar of editorial sageness. Strong writing, plays well with others, and reasonable in disputes. Aye, I say, aye. Pigmandialogue 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. I've been watching several articles she has been invloved in and observed her calmness and sensible dealings with many other editors. ww2censor 18:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support per above, an excellent Wikipedian. Regarding Dragons flight comments, in my very limited understanding, copyright infringement would be a very big deal, however this is a different concept than plagarism. Addhoc 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support per the nominators. Yuser31415 21:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Strong Support. Alison is a well-rounded Wikipedian with an excellent grasp of policy. Calm in the face of vandalism and trolling, she manages to AGF when mere mortals give up in frustration. I have no reservations in giving her the tools - she knows how to use them, and will use them to protect and improve the 'pedia. Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - Her posts exhibit careful thought of the issue before her and regard for the feelings of others. Along with her experience, she will make a fine admin. -- Jreferee 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Good answers and edit history. --Kukini hablame aqui 23:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. I agree with Kathryn, although the mustache-twirling ABF side of me [probably resembles Terry-Thomas] wonders: "Maybe she's too nice, too reasonable". Still, if Alison is willing to do the unpleasant work, that's fine by me. I slightly shared in Dragons flight's concern, but the answer below settles that for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Good record and clear that there is no concern that there will be any misuse or abuse. Agent 86 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Strong Support I've seen you around in many places, and can definitely trust you. You also (seem to) have a good grasp of policies and Wikipedia in general. I think you will make a fine and productive administrator. Cbrown1023 talk 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. A prolific contributor, seems well-versed in policy, good record of civil interactions, and if you will forgive the allusion, an insanely great admin candidate. --Kyoko 00:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support I wonder about the semi-protecting your user page, but that is no reason to oppose given the reasons to support. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    In this case, the sprot on her userpage is a badge of honour. There is always a certain percentage of vandals, no matter how politely you warn them, who lash out and retaliate when warned. Alison does such a good job of protecting the 'pedia from vandals, and has stopped so many, that her user page gets hit a lot. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    As Kathryn said. My page went through three sprots in rapid succession [7] over the period of a month. As each semi ran out, the page was hit again and the semi got longer. It got to the state where one IP-hopping vandal was hitting the page maybe 10 times a day and editors were just wasting their time reverting. Per WP:PROT, I decided myself that it should be sprot'd to put paid to that time wasting. Of course, my talk page gets hit instead but I get over it :) - Alison☺ 02:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    Ok. That makes sense. I stand corrected. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  40. Strong support. zero » 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support very balanced contributer with no problems on her record. I have often noticed her to be very civil. I doubt this user would abuse the tools.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Garion96 (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support —Moondyne 05:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support per Ryan. I've seen Ms Ali-oops around and am confident she has the skills and knowledge to be an outstanding admin. Sarah 10:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Even though there were the odd bumps in the road, she's a fine candidate for adminship. James.Spudeman 10:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 10:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  48. Acceptable, but please make more judicious use of the 'minor edit' checkbox in the future. >Radiant< 11:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  49. Terence 14:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Excellent candidate. Xoloz 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support -- Gogo Dodo 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support; Slade (TheJoker) 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support. Michael 19:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support Appreciate all you do to fight vandalism - WP will be even better-defended against vandalism when you have the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support. Good editor, shows extreme patience in difficult situations. Sam Blacketer 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support - looks like a great editor who already does admin-type work. Give her the mop and bucket. Johntex\talk 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support as I can find no evidence leading me to believe Allison will abuse the twiddled bit. She seems very well-rounded in her experience on WP, and I trust her with the mop. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support → I haven't found why I shouldn't ;-) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 07:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support Good users, no qualms. James086Talk 09:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support based on her contributions .. definately trust Alison with the extra buttons - Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support. Outstanding editor. A Train take the 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support. Very good editor. I've liked what I've seen. ElinorD (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support The bitchstar says it all.  ;-) Well-rounded in her contributions, very civil with other users (and vandals). ShadowHalo 06:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support! —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 07:32Z
  65. Support Real96 09:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support have seen her around doing everything, great worker, would do well with the tools. WP:100 please! :) – riana_dzasta 10:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support I have only good thoughts about Alison ... except why did she move from Ali-oops? I loved that name Abtract 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support, deserving the mop and bucket. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support Thoughtful and smart. And I do love me some vandal-fighting troll magnets. IronDuke 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support Everyone agrees on this one. I guess... --- SAndTLets Talk 21:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  71. Probably unnecessary pile-on support per all above. The response to the oppose neutral down there clinched it for me. Coredesat 23:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support I think she will do well with the tools. The need for vandal fighting is something that will only exponentially grow and will get worse as Wikipedia keeps on moving. Yes, please… Give her "The Mop" JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support Necrowarrio0 00:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support. Three years of experience and balanced contributions show that this person is ready for the administrator tools. Yamaguchi先生 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support per everyone else.--Wizardman 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support. Looks like a mature, balanced, intelligent editor who will make a great admin. semper fictilis 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support 7000 edits, friendly, serious vandal fighter, mainspace, RFPP. Almost all the qualities of an admin.--PrestonH(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!) 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support Great user! -Mschel 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support I think Alison is a great candidate for adminship. Her contributions indicate that she has no problem performing repetative tasks and she will only do good with the extra tools. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  81. omg oppose. --Deskana (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  82. Pile-on of-course support. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  83. Strong support -- ideal candidate. Lots of experience dealing with contentious people and situations yet has shown good judgement. Thanks for serving. --A. B. (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support -- we had a conflict with the Steve Stanton article, but that was much more my fault than hers, and has been resolved amicably (see here & here. Everything else I've seen on her talk page reflects dedicated, good service to Wikipedia. I would urge care regarding issues brought up by opposing & neutral voters here. But mostly -- good on ya, Alison. --Yksin 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support. -- DS1953 talk 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  86. Support -- good editor, and experienced. Djegan 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support. See no issues. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  88. Support; everything looks good. Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  89. Support This editor's edits actions reassure me that she has, and will continue to exhibit trustworthiness and good judgement. Good Luck! -- Avi 05:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  90. Support, per Xoloz. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  91. Support Will be a good admin. Dionyseus 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  92. Support --Rye1967 11:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Sorry, but you're not experienced enough yet. I'm not one to talk, but there's a lot of administrators who face problems quite early. J O R D A N [talk ] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (re-inserted by User:MarcoTolo at 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC) per J O R D A N's comment on the talk page).
    Hi Jordan, may I ask why you think the candidate hasn't enough experience? She has 3 years experience and 7,000 edits Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    User:JCraw has clarified his position on my talk page here. Mystery solved - Alison☺ 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    'crat comment: I am invalidating this vote per this =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per Dragons' flight. Copyright apathy is very bad. — CharlotteWebb 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. I can't recall every interacting with you before a few days ago, but I found those interactions very off putting. Ryanpostlethwaite was revealed by me to have plagarized. The identified problems were addressed, which is a good thing; however, I was surprised by the way you jumped to his defense. Your attitude suggested you thought it all no big deal. No, I don't think one should "presume innocence" [8] when it comes to the question of whether or not there were additional acts of plagarism. Clearly that is a circumstance that warrants close scrutiny and investigation of past contributions. (For the record, after investigation I don't think there were other problems, but it is not something to just assume away.) And later you were the first to defend him again when I mentioned that I would give his future edits closer scrutiny, as if his being "contrite" [9] was more than enough reason to ignore the past pattern of bad behavior. I am stunned that the community would promote someone (i.e. Ryan) who had recently committed plagarism, and quite disappointed that some members of the community, including yourself, seem to act as if plagarism is no big deal. Dragons flight 05:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Let me state clearly first that I believe that plagiarism and copyright infringement are both far from being "no big deal". I often check suspicious article text for violations and regularly use {{copyvio}}. Here's just one example that comes to mind; there have been many others. What Ryan did was clearly wrong. However, I don't believe he did this for personal aggrandizement. Furthermore, not only his contrition but his efforts to repair his damage and to neither make little of it nor attempt to cover it up speaks volumes in itself. That's where my reference to AGF comes in. However, that I assume good faith does not make me naïve; I personally dug through much of his edit history myself just to be certain (sorry, Ryan!). In short: copyvio is a big deal and I remove it where and when I see it. - Alison☺ 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Bravo. The Rambling Man 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral leaning to support - I really really really want to support you, but I've already put off my RfA standards once this week already for another brilliant editor, & don't want to do it again just in case some cataclismic event occurs. I think you'll understand... Well, you've had a long history here (early 2004! wow!), but you've managed to rack up very few Wikipedia namespace edits & very little in way of its talk either. You have a high percentage of user talk edits & you also have no GA's or FA's. But as I said, you are brilliant & I don't think you'd ever abuse the tools. I just thoguht I'd express my sall concerns as you are in no danger of losing this RfA. Don't hold it against me... Gulp... :) Spawn Man 08:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
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.