Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tim Ivorson

Tim Ivorson

final (10/1/0) ending 03:45 31 December 2004 (UTC)

Tim has been here for more than a year and has made numerous edits to a variety of subjects, and has always been personable and agreeable (AFAIK). I think he'd make a great admin. Tuf-Kat 03:45, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Nomination accepted. Thanks to Tuf-Kat and those who have already voted. Tim Ivorson 16:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Support very much. I've disagreed with him many times at Talk:FOX News and found him fair and levelheaded. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 05:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. ℛyan! | Talk 04:06, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
3. Lst27 (talk) 23:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. 172 09:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Andre (talk) 21:00, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
6. Ta bu shi da yu 00:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) Absolutely. Will be a very good admin.
7. Support, good admin material. |Anárion|^(Pedo!) 08:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. MPerel 08:49, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
9. No objections. Carrp 15:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. CryptoDerk 03:44, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Although Tim has been here for a long time, I don't feel he has participated enough with the community to be ready for adminship. i would support him at a future date, however, after i feel he has enough experience working with and in this community. Kingturtle 05:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Tim Ivorson has 1333 edits; his first was at 07:09 on November 8 2003; and his user page is entirely in italics. --Ben Brockert 04:02, Dec 24, 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. If made an admin, I don't know how much I'd let admin tasks distract me from the ordinary editing of articles and from real life. It probably would't be very much. I expect that I'd have frequent regular looks at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested and Wikipedia:Requests for sysop attention. Deleting pages seems like something that I could do, but protecting and blocking isn't something that I have seen much of, so I might take some time to learn the policies.

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

A. I haven't been particularly prolific in adding to Wikipedia. I do like to think that my edits are improvements, though. Of my contributions, I have been most pleased with those to the articles about Craig Murray and Nicholas Soames. I am pleased with them, because I am more confient of making improvements when editing such young articles. Editing more mature and high-profile articles, like those regarding diplomacy and politics, seems rather daunting.

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. Nobody has caused me anxiety on Wikipedia yet. I have disagreed with others about edits. Until now, I have tried to refrain from engaging in revert battles and from making unnecessarily severe changes to contributions with which I don't agree. Though I think that compromising is often a good idea, I wonder whether partisans might take advantage of my willingness to. (However, I don't believe that I have witnessed such a problem on Wikipedia). I hope that real disagreements (not mere vandalism or failure to adhere to Wikipedia's conventions) are an opportunity for a superior synthesis. I expect that I'll proceed in much the same way. I will continue to fix what appears to be vandalism where I find it, without being at all annoyed by it.