Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ginkgo100

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] Ginkgo100

Final (46/1/1) Ended Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:22:55 UTC

Ginkgo100 (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Ginkgo100 for Administrator. A member of Esperanza, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado, she has recently received Admin coaching from Steel359 and myself. Her talk page indicates she works well with others, she's an active contributor to Wikipedia, with over 3,000 edits, handles conflict well, and has been with us since February. Ginkgo100 has illustrated during her relatively brief coaching period that she is fully aware of Wikipedia policies, and I am confident she will not misuse the tools. She has always used edit summaries, even from the beginning, and has demonstrated a need for the admin tools, as she is a vandal-fighter. Ginkgo100 can be trusted with the mop; let's give it to her. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 19:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


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 voters:

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: The primary reason I would like to be an admin is to help with RC patrol, new pages patrol, and counter-vandalism work. Having access to tools like rollback and being able to block IPs quickly when necessary will be very helpful. I will patrol WP:AIV and am also interested in digging deeper at WP:RFI. I also anticipate helping with speedy deletions and backlogs (e.g. WP:ABUSE). --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 19:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have drastically expanded Asian arowana. I did significant research and also provided photographs of these rare animals. Eventually I would like to get this article to FA or at least GA status; this will depend on myself or other editors getting access to print sources not readily available where I live. I am also the creator and main contributor to Denver Zoo and have worked on a number of other articles. I am also proud of the photographs I contributed to illustrate other articles, many of which had no images at all.
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: I don't generally get stressed about contentious issues on Wikipedia. I have been involved in few disputes, as I believe it's much more effective to utilize talk pages to work things out than to edit-war. However, like every contributor I have run into disputes occasionally. Here are a two cases of disputes I have been involved in.
The most recent involved the article police brutality. I tried making some potentially controversial changes to this article, mentioning them on the talk page, but got no response until this. I left a comment on that anonymous editor's talk page here, and since I take accusations of vandalism very seriously, I also immediately opened an RfC. Interestingly, the anonymous IP never participated in the RfC, but at least I got some feedback and a rough consensus on what to do in the future.
I also had a minor short lived dispute with User:StuRat on vermiform appendix regarding unverified information. (Diffs [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). The discussion can be found at User_talk:StuRat#Vermiform_Appendix and Talk:Vermiform_appendix#Removed_.22fact.22. In retrospect, none of those sources is particularly reliable and if this issue came up today, I would not include them. I see someone else has removed the information from the current version of the article anyway. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 19:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: WP:IAR, to me, is a policy allowing informed, reasoned discretion on the part of administrators and other editors. The phrase "ignore all rules" sounds harshly anarchic, but anarchy does not express the actual meaning. For example, it might be necessary to block an extremely destructive (and rare) page-move vandal immediately, before applying "final warning" vandalism notifications and waiting to see if the vandal stops. Or an administrator might choose not to block after a user violates WP:3RR if there are certain extenuating circumstances, such as the violator's voluntary withdrawal from the edit war before the violation is detected. It is not a policy to be taken lightly, just as (to use an imperfect metaphor) a police officer does not take his/her ability to use discretion lightly.
WP:SNOW is a good rule of thumb that requires a great deal of common sense and good faith to be applied correctly. It is properly applied to obvious situations, not to cases in which there is real debate, for the purpose of making processes more efficient. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
General comments

Ginkgo100's edit summary stats as of 21:19, October 11 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Support Passes my criteria, and I am the first to vote †he Bread 20:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support answers to preformat questions displays clear thinking. Good response to my question. Meets my criteria.—Malber (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. (double edit conflict) Goddamn it! I started typing my vote first! RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    And I was the only one to update the tally! RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    However, assuming arguendo that goddamn is viewed as an expletive (I'm not certain I view it thusly), you are at least the first to swear here (horrors!); we're only seventeen expletives behind Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benon5! Joe 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. (insert cliche about thinking that she was one already) Support -- Lost(talk) 20:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Deb 21:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Seems like a perfectly good editor; answer to question one plus the edit history demonstrates a requirement for the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Good enough.--Húsönd 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support as nominator. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Good editor, giving my support. Hello32020 22:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Michael 22:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Everything looks fine here. Nishkid64 23:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Demonstrates the key criteria: need for the tools and trust. I agree that both elements exist. Agent 86 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per nom. John254 00:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Good editor who is likely to be a good admin. --Muéro(talk/c) 00:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 01:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support as co-admin coach. Impressive responses to various questions + scenarios brought up during the admin coaching. -- Steel 01:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support looks good to me.-- danntm T C 01:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 05:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support per nom. 1ne 05:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 06:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Solid answers to questions, good editor. Jpe|ob 10:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Good effort at admin coaching, good wiki mentality, excellent article contributions. And I'm confident in Firsfron's judgement. --Fang Aili talk 13:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support--perfect contributions, good dominate on wiki rules and seems neutral enough. Good luck to you. Mustafa Akalp 13:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support per nom. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong support per nom. Cynical 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support The additional tools given to her would only benefit this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Addhoc 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Response to Q.4 shows clear thinking and to talk of using discretion in conjuntion with WP:IAR shows a mature attitude. I've seen Ginko around the vandalism arena previously and looking back I'm hard pressed to find anything unseeming. On a side note, and as an RCP, I couldn't agree more with their position on deletion of talk page warnings. Khukri (talk . contribs) 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Although there aren't too many mainspace edits here, the user has made some key edits, some of which have been beneficial to the article's quality. Nishkid64 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Nishkid, you have already supported above. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Struck as duplicate vote - Tangotango 11:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support - we need more hands at CAT:CSD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Yeah, seems pretty good. Charlie MacKenzie 08:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support candidate seems to have the experience necessary to use the buttons, which I'm sure will prove to help her become a more efficient editor, and will therefore further help the project. Seems to be quite dedicated and trustworthy, as well based on my brief overview. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 10:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Well-rounded contribs, fine answers, no reason suggested that the user cannot be trusted. Marskell 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  34. Merovingian ※ Talk 23:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support  Doctor Bruno  01:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support per above. --Esteban F. (con.) 05:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support per nom --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support—per nom and comments above. Williamborg (Bill) 23:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support good work.User:Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  40. Passable Support for being here eight months. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support, seems like a good user. Experience is definitely sufficient. Good answer to #4, as well. --Coredesat 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Good mediator. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Per nom, now for the snowfall!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagle 101 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. Helpful in many different Wikipedia projects and a good contributor. Yamaguchi先生 01:44, 18 October 2006
  45. Late to the party, completely unnecessary, WP:SNOW support. riana_dzasta 16:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Lahiru_k 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I am wary to give the block button to someone who thinks removing talk page warnings is vandalism and grounds for blocking. >Radiant< 22:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Pardon my bewilderment, but can you please clarify your complaint? I do not think your paraphrasing accurately reflects what the nominee said. The nominee’s comments on the link you provided were in the context of “how one should response (sic) to a user that repeatedly removes warnings in a way that is inappropriate” (emphasis added). Even so, it is perfectly legitimate for an editor to think removing legitimate warning messages from one’s own talk page is a basis for blocking. That is what the {{wr3}} and {{wr4}} templates are about.Agent 86 23:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This is hardly "perfectly legitimate"; indeed, it has been subject of ongoing controversy for several months now, e.g. here. >Radiant< 08:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, could I clarify that according to this link the majority of editors voted in this manner [6]. I personally didn't support any of the four choices, but don't consider being in the mainstream a good enough reason to oppose. Addhoc 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely this is an example of "reasonable people may disagree". You're own link shows, Radiant, that some believe enforcement is necessary, and some do not. Why should an editor be penalized for expressing a rationale in favour of the former? Marskell 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If reasonable people may disagree, then I may reasonably disagree with this nomination. I am not aware of any attempt to penalize Ginkgo for anything. >Radiant< 22:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral per my criteria. A little more article building would be nice, but I am definitely leaning towards support. Themindset 18:08, 12 October 2006 (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.