Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pinkville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Pinkville

Voice your opinion (talk page) (15/0/0); Scheduled to end 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pinkville (talk · contribs) - Pinkville has been editing Wikipedia for nearly three years, during which time he has made over 7,000 edits. He has done excellent work writing and creating articles emphasising the history of photography and more particularly its early history in the far east, and was principal author of three featured articles: Pierre Rossier, Adolfo Farsari and Felice Beato. He has also worked on articles on very different and sometimes contentious subjects, such as Howard Zinn, about which he has at times been drawn into arguments, in which he has conducted himself well. Pinkville has participated carefully in AfD discussions, rarely offering a "per nom" vote and instead tending to make substantive additions, whether an appeal to WP policy or guideline, or pertinent facts that others have not noticed. Every part of Pinkville's work so far persuades me that he is a knowledgable and clear-thinking user who would not abuse the tools. His track record and demonstrated maturity show that he would be a good choice. Epbr123 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. I'll answer all questions as carefully and thoughtfully as I can. (A minor point, I won't be participating in any RfA or RfB while my RfA is happening, and I recommend that no current candidate participate in mine, though of course anybody is free to oppose my candidacy if they prefer.) Pinkville (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'll start with particular caution, learning the operations and implications (and potential pitfalls) of each administrative function as I go. I intend to begin by closing Prods, eventually moving on from there to other tasks as I become more familiar with the Administrative domain. Because of Wikipedia’s (increasing) vastness, I mean to concentrate on helping in the administration of the WP features and functions that I know well. Pinkville (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've enjoyed editing and collaborating with other editors on articles in my particular interests (early photography, history, politics, etc.), but I believe my best contributions have been on sometimes contentious AfDs and perennially contentious articles such as My Lai Massacre, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein. In the latter articles I have particularly been involved in maintaining WP:NPOV (often with regard to WP:Weight) and WP:Verifiability. I think I’ve helped to keep these articles fair, informative, accurate, and encyclopaedic, while promoting a readable writing style. Pinkville (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
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: My first Wikipedia edit (as an anonymous user) was in 2002, and I've edited regularly since the middle of 2005, so I have certainly experienced my share of conflicts and stressful Wikipedia situations. In addition to some heated exchanges at the articles I mentioned above, a conflict at André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri comes to mind because it is both recent and within my particular field of interest. I've been involved in mediation cases and an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents sockpuppet/racism case. In such disputes, I have at times become irritated. Both to avoid showing this irritation and to lighten the atmosphere and increase chances of reconciliation, I've once or twice simply stepped away from the table to come back later, refreshed. I've also called on other editors to help amicably resolve disputes that had become frustrating and too heated. I think I've refined an approach to preventing such conflicts from escalating; where some time ago I might have been more susceptible to dispute, I'm now committed to finding peace - while still working out the issue at hand. I have a more detached manner that tends (I hope) to promote calmer discussion in contentious situations. Regardless, if I were in such a conflict again, I'd be sure to participate only as either an editor or as an administrator, never using administrative tools in a dispute in which I was a participant as an editor. If, as an editor, I was involved in a situation dire enough to require administrative intervention I would leave it to another, uninvolved administrator to intervene. Pinkville (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Optional question from Malinaccier
4. Looking through your past 500 contributions, I noticed only about four separate AFDs that you had edited. At the moment, I'm not quite convinced that you have enough experience to be trusted with the deletion button--but I'm going to give you a chance to prove me wrong. Please tell me what you've learned about closing XFDs (AFD in particular) from casual observations.
A.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pinkville before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support Sure - looks like a great candidate. Could use the tools. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Trustworthy, competent, and could use the tools. No problems here, Anthøny 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Per my previous positive interactions with this user that suggested no potential impediments to adminship. AvruchT * ER 23:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support for an editor who's not afraid of engaging in disputes where appropriate but whose edit history (and relative brevity of talk page archives) demonstrate that he's primarily a writer of encyclopedic articles. He says that he believes "[his] best contributions have been on sometimes contentious AfDs and perennially contentious articles such as My Lai Massacre, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein", a statement that I find odd or more likely just modest: he has certainly been energetic and constructive there, but consider his compact yet informative and excellently sourced articles on such nineteenth-century (and thus untrendy) Japanese photographers as Ueno Hikoma and Uchida Kuichi (for which the equivalents in Japanese-language WP are much weaker and non-existent respectively), and his three FAs Pierre Rossier, Adolfo Farsari, and Felice Beato (or four; see de:Diskussion:Felice Beato). Not that I have anything against gnomery, and not that adminship is or should be a reward for FAs; but if you think that writers are (and thus that the writers' PoV may be) somewhat underrepresented among administrators then here you have somebody who in addition to his other pluses is a first-rate writer. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support. I often notice this editor doing good work. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Yes, this is the kind of users Wikipedia needs . macytalk 00:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support- Good, dilligent Wikipedian. The FAs are just a bonus. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Thoughtful and thorough. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 01:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Why not? Dlohcierekim 02:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support - Net positive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. Looks like a great candidate. --Kaaveh (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support well-rounded nom. Vishnava talk 07:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Appears to be a fine candidate. --Ecoleetage (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support based on their acceptance statement. Indicates high level of clue - candidates should not be participating in the RFA process whatsoever whilst they are under nomination. xenocidic (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support. Contributions look good. R. Baley (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral