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

Final: (27/0/0); ended 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Alvestrand (talk · contribs) - Alvestrand contributes to Wikipedia since December 2005. He is actually maintaining one of our Dead end articles lists and contributing to the Missing articles wikiproject. I'm pretty sure he won't abuse the tools ;-) and has the experience needed. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination.

Statement of principle: I am not seeking nomination. I have been nominated, and will accept if the community so desires, based on my understanding that an adminship is not a commitment to a specific amount of work, but a promise to use the tools properly if they are used at all. --Alvestrand 04:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'm mostly doing Wikipedia stuff in small chunks, spending 5 mins here and there. I'm likely to do admin stuff that fits that pattern - resolving simple backlogged things. The copyright violation backlog is one thing that I've noticed where resolving things more quickly would be a Good Thing.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: As noted above, I've made lots of small contributions. Backlog cleaning suits me - I've got lots of things requiring longer-term attention in my work, and the contrast appeals to me. Among bigger things, my most significant addition is probably initiating Relativity priority disputes - which turned a set of edit wars on Albert Einstein et al into an article giving good information on the "Einstein denier" phenomenon.

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: There was some stress involved in the relativity priority matter mentioned above - User:Licorne is now on permanent ban. Some notes I made at the time, with links to RfD and RfA, are on [1].

My second-biggest discussion was a run-in with an user who differed with the consensus opinion on what constituted a "link" on Wikipedia:Orphaned articles - see [2]. But I don't consider this a big matter - it was resolved within 24 hours. Otherwise, I don't think I've done much that has caused controversy.

--Alvestrand 04:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. What would you do as an administrator about ideological or profit motive attempts to manipulate Wikipedia? Bear in mind this statement from Brad Patrick as well as this news story, this conference summary, this press release, and these blogs. Durova^Charge! 04:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I'd consider each matter. We can't "let the terrorists win" by doing knee-jerk reverts or deletes just because someone with a name resembling the article's name has done an edit. In one recent case, Taft, Stettinius, and Hollister, I reverted additions that were nonencyclopedic, but I found later additions that were probably self-edits to be done in good taste and reasonable, so I left them alone. (Perhaps a mistake, since the account didn't ever reply to my note to them, and has made even more edits later.....) --Alvestrand 05:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See Alvestrand's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for Alvestrand: Alvestrand (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Alvestrand before commenting.

Support

1. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
2. Support I think I am in agreement with Snowolf on this one. Good luck! Jmlk17 04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Satisfied with the answer to my question, see no reason to oppose. Durova^Charge! 06:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Good edit summary usage, a good candidate for the mop and bucket, your answer to question 1 is a little weak but your still a good candidate. Best of luck! The Sunshine Man 11:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - work on dead-end pages indicates commitment to clearing backlogs. Addhoc 13:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Terence 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support I see no reason to oppose your nomination. Qualified for the job. Answers show a fair understanding of the way things run around here. —Anas ^talk? 14:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Consistent contributions since January 2006. Being prepared to help with copyvios is a plus too. (aeropagitica) 16:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Wonderful candidate; very happy to see such an experienced hand taking up the mop. Xoloz 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Rettetast 19:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Shanes 19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I see no reason to deny; no indication of future problems. JodyB _talk 02:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Good contributor here and to the Internet in general. CWC 10:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Good contributor, and his acceptance statement shows he understands the point of adminship. Kafziel ^Talk 12:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - as per Mailer Diablo! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support No reason to oppose this user. I know this has nothing to do with adminship, but "Alvestrand" is a good-sounding username. Acalamari 21:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support: Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also good. I also like acceptance statement. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Trustworthy contributor. -- Jreferee 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support per the other supporters. Captain panda 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support--MONGO 09:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. PeaceNT 15:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support but user should improve his edit summary usage. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - Let's see. We know his real life identity (he's a past president of the IETF and belongs in Category:Notable Wikipedians). Make him an admin if he's willing? Hell, we should probably pay him a retainer fee as long as he's willing to edit here and not over at Larry's project. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Joe I 05:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose not enough user talk posts also i am sorry it seems he relly do not want to be admin but because someone nominted him for it he said yesOo7565 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. Kafziel ^Talk 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken comment by user who's spammed all RfAs with awkward/irrelevant comments. Húsönd 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe it's bad for Wikipedia if the only administrators are people who want the job. And especially if most administrators are people who want the power. From what I've read, there's no risk of Wikipedia running out of adminship bits. So if the community's OK with it, I'm OK with being an administrator who isn't terribly active. I believe it's good for Wikipedia to allow such admins to exist, so I'm willing to be one. --Alvestrand 04:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.