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

Pinkville[edit]

Final (54/0/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: Closing an AfD is a judgement call (not merely a vote tabulation) founded on policy and guidelines, with the recognition that there are more possibilities than just "Keep" or "Delete" (the nominator may have withdrawn the nom, the discussion may be referred to a relevant talk page as a content dispute, the article may be improved and saved before the five day period expires, the article may be merged with another, converted into a redirect, moved to another title, userfied, or transwikied (the last is the only option that hasn't come up in an AfD to which I was a participant, I believe). When an AfD has no complicating issues (an example is the Keep for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazuo Nishii, with unanimity - apart from the nominator - in the vote, an unremarkable and rational discussion, demonstrable notability, easily found reliable sources, etc.), the judgement call is fairly straight-forward; a brief closing explanation on the part of the (non-participating) admin/user is posted, the article is kept or deleted accordingly, and the admin/user performs the necessary finishing touches (which may include deleting redirects, deleting/keeping the talk page and any subpages, archiving the AfD discussion, etc.). But the closing admin/user often has to deal with the possibility of sock puppetry, new users whose sole contributions are to the article under discussion, arguments based on opinion unsupported by fact, arguments based on original research, arguments lacking Verifiable and/or Reliable Sources, arguments that run counter to Wikipedia Policy (including, notably, policies for Biographies of Living People), violations of a Neutral Point Of View, possible Copyright Violations, etc. It's worth noting that the dead may rise again: the AfD may come under review or a kept article may be nominated again for AfD or a deleted article may be recreated - for good or ill. I've seen all or most of these issues arise in various AfDs, with the closing admin/user having to evaluate the evidence and the merits of the arguments before presenting the result of the discussion.
That's what I've learned in "casual observations"... Since gaps in experience are unavoidable, I've also consulted the Wikipedia pages on deletion policies and related issues (Verifiability, No Original Research, Neutral Point Of View, etc.) and I have often gone back to those policy/guideline pages during AfDs (and other discussions) to confirm and update my understanding. Naturally, on occasion I've also consulted other experienced Wikipedians for their help and will continue to do so in future (whether I'm an administrator or not). For no particular reason, I haven't participated in many AfDs in the last two or three months (while concentrating on other matters), and the majority of my AfD contributions (also Categories for Discussion and a Deletion Review) took place in 2006 and 2007... We'll see what the rest of 2008 brings! Pinkville (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Shereth
5. You say that your primary admin duties from the outset will be helping to clear out prodded articles. Lets say you come across an expired prod for an article that you believe would pass muster at an AfD but has nevertheless gone through the prod period without any objections. What action would you take, and why?
A. There are a number of possibilities, depending on the specific circumstances. Assuming the proposed deletion process has been properly followed, my first action would be to check that the article hadn't been previously Prodded, or restored from deletion, or sent to an AfD. In any of these events, the article is not eligible for deletion by Prod and I would keep it or send it to AfD. If there was no previous history of this kind, and if the article seemed salvageable (i.e. I disagreed with the Prod), I would remove the Prod tag, contact the editor who added the Prod tag - placing a Deprod-disagree tag on their talk page, post my reasons for objecting to the Prod on the article's talk page, and begin editing the article to address the concerns raised in the Prod... and I might nominate the article for deletion at AfD, in the expectation that the ensuing discussion would address, clarify or confirm the original concerns of the Prod (and any additional concerns that came up). If I felt the article should be deleted, but that discussion was warranted (perhaps it's a borderline notability issue, etc.), I'd remove the Prod tag, nominate it for AfD, place either a Deprod-afd or a Deprod-contro tag on the Prodding editor's talk page, and post my reasons for sending it to AfD on the article's talk page. Another possibility is that an article has been tagged with both a Prod tag and an AfD tag , in which case (because AfD takes precedence over Prod) the Prodding editor's talk page would be tagged with Depro-reprod and the article sent to AfD.
In many cases in which a Prod is not a clear-cut candidate for deletion, the key is to open things up to discussion, with productive communication leading to either the improvement of the article or its deletion in keeping with a clearly stated rationale. Pinkville (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From thedemonhog
6. Why "won't [you] be participating in any RfA or RfB while [this] RfA is happening and … recommend that no current candidate participate in [this one]"?
A. RfA/RfB candidacies should be - and should appear to be - fair and transparent. It should be clear that there is no interference or influence between contemporaneous RfAs/RfBs, no sabotaging or mutual back-scratching, etc. Pinkville (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. You have made only 300+ project space edits. Why?
A. The bulk of the work I've done at Wikipedia has involved writing detailed and carefully researched articles or additions to articles, mostly on fairly obscure 19th century photographers (and related subjects) working in Japan and other parts of Asia. Until I and two other editors created WikiProject History of Photography, there was no Project to create articles dealing with the practice, practitioners, photographs and history of photography (the older WikiProject Photography deals with the "quality and organization of Wikipedia's images", and the Photography Portal serves a different function). There are very few editors - maybe no more than three or four at any given time - working to add substantive content on pertinent photography subjects,* and so WikiProject History of Photography is still nascent... Those of us who are interested in the subject work together (informally) and try to fill in the content gaps, and I consider all of my work on photography articles to be a part of that Project. I'm interested in contributing to several other Projects (I've even signed up), but time hasn't allowed me to do much in those domains, though I've worked now and then on WikiProject Architecture, and my work on photography in Asia has led me at times to work with WikiProjects Japan and China. Maintaining and developing a Project takes a lot of time and energy that - in the case of photography, with few editors - is probably better devoted to adding encyclopedic content, especially when key areas remain unrepresented. Pinkville (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* There are plenty of editors and articles dealing with photographic equipment and products, but these aren't within the scope of WikiProject History of Photography.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Sure - looks like a great candidate. Could use the tools. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Trustworthy, competent, and could use the tools. No problems here, Anthøny 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Support. I often notice this editor doing good work. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Yes, this is the kind of users Wikipedia needs . macytalk 00:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  8. Support Thoughtful and thorough. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 01:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Why not? Dlohcierekim 02:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Net positive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Looks like a great candidate. --Kaaveh (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support well-rounded nom. Vishnava talk 07:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Appears to be a fine candidate. --Ecoleetage (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  16. Support. Contributions look good. R. Baley (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Wonderful, experienced, trustworthy editor who has more than a clue. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Rudget (Help?) 15:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. We could always use civil admins! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Easily meets (and surpasses) my criteria. Happy to support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. You've swayed me over completely! Your answer to my question was very well thought out and it is clear to me that you know what you're doing. Keep it up! Malinaccier (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - meets my standards esp. as a long-time user who raises no concerns. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - No concerns; liked his answers to the questions. It would be good to have more admins who have a strong record as article writers. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Shapiros10 WuzHere  01:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong support per Q2 and articles noted in nomination. Here for the right reasons. giggy (:O) 01:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support all looks good. --Stephen 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, answers to questions show that this user understands the proper role of an administrator. Contribs looks good, this user has a clue. Shereth 02:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, looks like a decent editor with a decent history. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support No reason for concern. In addition, I'm impressed with how thoughtful the answer to Q5 was. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. He's good. Axl (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Will do well as an administrator. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per the answers to Q4, Q5, and Q7. They show that he has a grasp on the policies that govern what administrators do, and they also show that he is very civil. He is also willing to work on XfD's, which is greatly needed right now. Razorflame 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, looks well rounded with good contributions, would be a boon with the tools. MrPrada (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Seems to be able to be trusted with the tools. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Well-rounded and trustworthy. SpencerT♦C 15:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support -- Per the answers to the questions. Particularly Q4...--Cameron (T|C) 17:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per above. GlassCobra 18:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Works for me. MBisanz talk 21:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, can be trusted with the tools, no reason to oppose. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 14:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, per Auawise. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  22:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Complete absence of any reason to stay neutral, let alone oppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - It's very nice to be able to support a well rounded candidate. I also commend someone writing such obscure articles, they need to be done! Good luck being an admin. And for the crat reading this, I support per actually reading the nom and looking at his contributions. Beam 01:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Very sound, more than ready for new admin school! — Athaenara ✉ 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per strong arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I, Claudius (film). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support A good case study for not !voting by edit count. Plenty of other candidates would be racking up opposes for c.300 Project space edits, but not only is this user experienced, they clearly understand how policies work. I have no trouble trusting this user with the tools. --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Ashton1983 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support skilled .DKNY89 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support trusted editor. BlueQ99 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Deli nk (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Of course. Acalamari 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. No reason to think Pinkville will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I find no reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Neıl 龱 10:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per review and answers above.  Frank  |  talk  12:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I won't blot your copybook with an oppose, but I don't normally support users with such a low level of contributions to Wikipedia namespace. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category