Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin
final (77/1/0) ending 01:05 23 March 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has agreed, after some urging, to let herself be nominated for adminship. Her contributions reflect a commitment to making Wikipedia an accurate and neutral resource and discouraging people who want to undermine these principles. She has shown patience and perseverance in dealing with such people and works very hard not to vent frustrations, even under provocation. I have always found her to have good sense in understanding and applying Wikipedia policies, and trust that she could do the same as an administrator. --Michael Snow 01:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Thank you, Michael, I accept the nomination. I'll be filling in answers to the questions below over the next couple of hours. SlimVirgin 01:13, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin (talk · contributions)

Support
 * 1) Michael Snow 01:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 01:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Shanes 01:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely. SlimVirgin is an excellent editor in many ways, but I'm particularly pleased with her thoughtful attitude and her dedication to verifiability.   — mark ✎ 01:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Very thoughtful and conscientious contributor. older ≠ wiser 01:39, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Mrfixter 01:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support.  Good addition. --BM 01:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) She's been active enough that I recognize her even in my own semi-activity. Her contributions show lots of activity on talk pages, which is a good thing for an admin. Isomorphic 01:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oh definitely. Her potential admin abilities even make up for the fact that she likes long-legged hamsters. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 01:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Absolutely. Remains courteous and reasonable without compromising her position on the quality of the encyclopedia. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) How can I say no? She has shown a great ability for working with others and an understanding of policy. Rje 02:18, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Impossible for me to leave without some loose ends to tie up. Most definitely support! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Without a doubt. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Very good editor.-gadfium 02:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Soitenly. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) yep. Michael Ward 03:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) You mean she isn't already? --Carnildo 03:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Sure. Carbonite | Talk 03:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Certainly. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 03:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Maurreen 03:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Another name I recognize. - RedWordSmith 03:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Obviously. Neutralitytalk 04:03, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Sure. Certainly. Obviously. Any cliche will do. JuntungWu 04:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, i thought you already were. Well, then it ain't too late. Danny 04:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) SlimVirgin is everywhere! Now seriously, I've seen SV doing some really top-drawer edits.  Strong support.  -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) (w) 05:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Slim who? Oh, there she is! El_C 05:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, my vote's not needed at this point, and yes, it's a cliché, but I thought she was already, too. —Korath (Talk) 05:36, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support and feel free to add the cliché of shock and surprise of your choice. Still, I like these easy votes. - Lucky 6.9 06:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support. RickK 06:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. jni 08:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) chiming in dab (ᛏ) 09:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) All edits I've seen are good. Jordi·✆ 10:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support. I can't think of anyone more suited to being an admin; she's not only a dedicated editor, but brings a cool head and a conciliatory approach to difficult situations. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Warofdreams 11:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Stress-tested, reliable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Keep Trivia: the user's name comes from an awesome petrified Javanese princess and not a yucky smelly cigarette. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 13:18, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support; never seen an edit by this user that wasn't npov and for the good of Wikipedia. This is the kind of person I want to have admin powers! Dan100 14:23, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support. Will make a great admin.  I am especially impressed with her ability to handle conflict situations.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:13, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) A no-brainer. This vote is, I mean. Of course. Support. --Plek 15:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Total support. Companions of Arctic Snow Poodles are alright with me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) You know you're doing something right when the database is locked for part of the day and you still get 41 support votes the first day alone.  This is an easy call -- Support.  SWAdair | Talk  07:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Everyone's said everything already. Mo0 [ talk ] 07:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) I have always found SlimVirgin to be a fair and generous editor, given to productive discussion rather than unnecessary conflict. These qualities become a good administrator, and SlimVirgin will surely serve with excellence.--Pharos 08:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. I agree with the statements above.  AllyUnion (talk) 13:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) What do you mean I never check RfA anymore? See!  I do too check it.  Support. Geogre 15:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support -- Doesn't look like she needs my support.  You'll be a great admin!  I'm just worried you'll ban me for forgetting to cite a source! --Jewbacca 16:28, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support.  Excellent editor, good conflict resolver, stronge supporter of Wikipedia policy, very clear-headed comments on Talk: pages. Jayjg (talk)  18:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) --M7it 21:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. --Viriditas | Talk 00:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Chris 73 Talk 06:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Definitely, for patience and panache. -- Hoary 07:35, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
 * 25) Support.   ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Absolutely. Very concientious editor. - Taxman 15:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Sure. Bishonen | Talk 15:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Hell yeah! Snowspinner 18:18, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Agree with all the above. Mgm|(talk) 22:31, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - Guettarda 23:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Andre ( talk ) 02:51, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support, strongly. I'm glad SV finally accepted the nomination. -Willmcw 07:03, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) This vote is not needed, but still... utcursch | talk 08:02, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support--Comrade Nick  @ )---^--  11:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Absolutely. Very clueful about Wikipedia's social structure in general. In particular, she handled the harrowing battle with the LaRouche POV-pusher brilliantly, and brought the ArbCom a very usable case - David Gerard 12:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support emphatically. Slim is a dedicated and officious editor with a mind towards the maintenance of community standards and the blunting of attempts to corrupt the project's NPOV. I believe Slim will be an unqualified success as an admin. Wally 18:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, surely. ugen 64 21:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. A very good user. Amply qualified to be an admin. Good luck. Xtra 01:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly support. Antandrus 04:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support strongly. A gem of an editor, brandisher of the NPOV sword with a gentle touch. We need more like her around. --Zappaz 06:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support. Excellent editor, and creative problem solver with wiki troublespots. --MPerel( talk 20:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Problem solver is right.  +sj  +  05:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Absolutely. Lst27 ( t a l k )  23:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, yes. -- Scott eiπ  10:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Top quality Wikipedian. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Consensus and accuracy minded Tjc 12:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. SV is beyond patient and works hard for consensus.--FeloniousMonk 19:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Meets my admin criterion, jguk 20:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Yup.   BanyanTree 00:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Seems to have too aggressive and determined an attitude against other POVs, which is troublesome when someone on the other side has been banned—does that mean people who disagree with her end up going to the ArbCom? Not a good sign. The best articles are the products of collaboration with people who represent a variety of views. Everyking 16:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * See, I told her to avoid Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) like the plague, but she just would'nt listen! Damn you Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr., damn you to hell! (whoa, I'm still hung over, but how? Oh, right, the booze ). El_C 21:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you read what the LaRouchian (singular, not plural) was up to in that case, and that it was his second case? - David Gerard 12:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Slim filled me in on that. He certainly exploited Wikipedia's (overly-lax) goodfaith; as I commented on earlier, this relatively marginal man/movement continues to recieve more exposure on Wikipedia than whole countries with millions of inhabitants. But at least now, with Slim's prodigious efforts, it isn't such a glowing exposure. El_C 00:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no sympathy at all for LaRouche's politics, but I'm strongly opposed to what I see as poorly disguised efforts to ban people based simply on their views. I believe the contributions of the user in question had a positive effect, if only to stimulate the further development of the content. Everyking 00:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I take the opposite position: I think, overall, it ended up being a tremendous drain of energy for all concerned, except proponents of the movement, who even now remain noted in a way that is vastly overrepresentative, to the point of unencylopedicity, as per their current, actual notability. In important ways, it illustrates the seemingly irreversible damage (even after NPOVing) that can be brought on by one, single crank. El_C 01:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)


 * A. I'd like to help with the issue of vandalism, bearing in mind the importance of not blocking IP addresses that belong to public libraries, as lots of editors rely on these. I'd also like to help tackle the issue of determined POV pushing, not the occasional insertion of POV from ordinary editors, but from people who arrive here with the sole purpose of promoting a certain position. That can be tricky to handle in a way that's fair to everyone.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?


 * A. I've written one featured article, about Bernard Williams, the moral philosopher; and a second was nominated today, Night (book), which is a novel written by Elie Wiesel about his time in Auschwitz. I've found that going through the FAC process has helped me see articles from different perspectives, which can be a hard thing to learn.


 * 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 will deal with it in the future?


 * A. Shortly after I arrived here, I wrote an article that brought me to the attention of some editors who were followers of Lyndon LaRouche, though we found out later the accounts were probably sockpuppets of the same person. As a result of that, I became part of the effort to curtail LaRouche-related editing of Wikipedia, and eventually some other editors and myself took these user accounts to the arbitration committee, which banned them from editing LaRouche articles for a year. I learned a lot about dispute resolution as a result of that process, and also became very familiar with No original research and Neutral Point of View, particularly how the policies hold up in practise when they're under attack. My aim is to become an editor who can find ways to achieve consensus without compromising on accuracy, so that editing disputes are always respectful and constructive.