Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TimVickers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jorcoga (talk | contribs) at 20:33, 18 February 2007 (Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

TimVickers

Voice your opinion (24/0/0); Scheduled to end 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers (talk · contribs) - One of our resident expert editors, Tim made his first edit in June 2006 and since then has distinguished himself as an invaluable contributor to articles on biology, chemistry, and medicine, and as a 'prime mover' in the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. He's been a primary author or major contributor to eight featured articles, and a critical part of the review process for many more, not to mention his many Good Article reviews and the dozens of articles out there that are well-written and well-referenced because Tim stopped by.

Tim also has a watchlist a mile long and an impressive record in fighting vandalism; his good sense and personal expertise are a major force in keeping the biology articles (among others) clean and litter-free. I've never once seen him forget a warning or misreport a vandal. What I find most impressive about his work in this area is that he's consistently polite and responsive to newbie questions on the talk pages of articles he watches, using even awkwardly formed questions or well-intentioned but unhelpful edits as a springboard for further article improvement (random recent example). Despite the high volume of vandalism most of the basic biology articles get, he's nevertheless avoided biting newbies or developing an itchy trigger finger, and goes out of his way to preserve helpful anonymous edits that were accidentally reverted (example). Tim is unfailingly mature, communicative, civil, and just generally a pleasure to work with, and I hope that the broader community has as much trust in him as I do. Opabinia regalis 01:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: I would like to second Opabinia's nomination. Tim has many gifts that grace us here at Wikipedia. Although a busy postdoc, he has devoted himself selflessly and tirelessly to developing the most basic and most important articles on infectious diseases, biochemistry and molecular biology. He is perhaps the best writer I've read here, with an intuitive feel for the right words, elegantly turned phrases and the appropriate level of exposition. When he attends to an article, it rises inexorably to FA status, not only due to his own intense focus but also because he is natural leader, drawing other talented contributors to improving the page. He is unfailingly patient and professional with all editors, belligerent and friendly, and has a deft, diplomatic touch. Noble, plain, direct and swift in word and action, Tim can be trusted with the powers of an admin. Willow 02:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and thank Opabinia regalis and Willow for their kind words. TimVickers 05:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would concentrate mostly on countering vandalism in molecular biology articles, particularly the featured articles. I frequently list repeat vandals for blocking on the request for admin intervention board and admin powers would allow me to deal with this myself. Since I am involved in editing most of the pages on my watchlist, I would not use the protection functions on these pages.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The articles on bacteria and DNA are personal favourites, but the immune system featured article nomination process link was particularly satisfying as it involved a large group of editors co-operating to bring an article to a very high level.
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: When I began editing Wikipedia I was involved in the failed GA nomination of the homoeopathy page. The strong and divergent opinions on this subject were a constant source of conflict. However, I worked quite effectively with one of the more knowledgeable and friendly experts on homoeopathy Peter morrell and tried to deal with the points and problems brought up in the review. At risk of advertising this nomination, I have asked him to comment, as I feel the opinions of people I have disagreed with in the past will be valuable in this process. A more recent example was the controversy over if the human article should list human being as an invasive species. This was discussed extensively on the [talk page] and I helped provide material to inform the eventual consensus decision that it should not.
Optional question from ST47 (talk · contribs)
4. You've been here for months, made thousands of edits, and devoted hundreds of hours to Wikipedia without pay or and tangible reward. Above you said why you wanted to be an admin, but why do you want to be a Wikipedian? What was your motivation for joining, and for staying?
A: The reason for joining was very different from my reason for staying. I joined when I did a search for Trypanothione in Wikipedia and found there was no article. Since this is the subject of my PhD and one of the things I know best, I created the article. It was Google that persuaded me to stay. If you search for almost any scientific topic, the Wikipedia page is the top hit. As people usually read the top hit first, we need to get this right. TimVickers 15:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support as nominator. I may be millions of years old, but I'm not letting anybody beat me to it ;) Opabinia regalis 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support per noms, after I read their statements properly. Please forgive me for being lazy :P. Yuser31415 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support for the very impressive list of encyclopedic accomplishments. Expert admins are a good thing to have around. Sandstein 07:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, has done good work and would make good use of the anti-vandalism tools.-gadfium 08:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Excellent and committed editor, Tim is an FA machine and involved in several projects, should have the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per noms. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 08:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support seen him about the place doing good stuff... good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 09:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support but please don't stop churning out the FAs! The Rambling Man 11:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I think that this user has demonstrated a need and can be trusted with the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 11:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support as co-nominator. A sterling editor and a golden Wikipedian. Willow 11:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support Excellent candidate. Does a huge amount of good work. Trustworthy, level-headed, and polite. I have read the bacteria article when it was nominated a while ago. Great article work indeed. - Anas Talk? 12:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Tim does some good work on medicine related articles. LuciferMorgan 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per Marskell's RfA; in other words, we need more excellent article writers as admins. — Deckiller 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. How-come-nobody-told-me Strong support Tim's FA work is truly invaluable, he is a great writer, responds well to criticism when it arises, follows through on others' suggestions to his work, and actually pays attention when vandalfighting (unlike a certain user responsible for the aforementioned reversion to enzyme). He definitely deserves the extra buttons. Fvasconcellos 14:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support This editor clearly demonstrates his outstanding commitment to excellence, and would be an excellent choice as admin.Filll 14:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per above. Hendry1307 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Always glad to see a good article-writing from a would-be admin. Coemgenus 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per Q4, the answer to which told me more about you than that long boring nomination. ST47Talk 17:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Trusted contributor. Will surely be an useful admin. Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 17:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Keep up the great work on scientific articles. Dar-Ape 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support It's good to have an editor who can help create Featured Articles who is also a subject matter expert in a biological area. Giving that person the ability to protect articles and block vandals doesn't seem like a risky decision. EdJohnston 18:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A user who shows knowledge of policy, actively contributes to the encyclopedia, participates in Wikipedia processes, and is civil to boot? Yes, support. --Kyoko 19:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support' looks excellent in both article writing and policy.-- danntm T C 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per everything above. Highly qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support very knowledgeable and effective contributor. YechielMan 20:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)20:33, Sunday, 18 February '07

Oppose

This is not a vote. Explain your reasoning, or your comment will be ignored. --Majorly (o rly?) 10:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment struck as trolling, user warned. All of that user's edits today are unconstructive or vandalism. Sandstein 10:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Neutral. I very certainly trust TimVickers, but ... can't all the work he's already doing be done easily the way he's doing it? Does he really need the admin tools? Yuser31415 07:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Changed to strong support. Yuser31415 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TimVickers&oldid=109138137"