Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gogo Dodo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Gogo Dodo

[edit]

Final (65/2/5) Ended Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:07:59 (UTC)

Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Gogo Dodo for adminship on Wikipedia. Gogo joined Wikipedia on April 15, 2006, and has made over 10,000 valued contributions to the encyclopedia. I first encountered the user at WP:AIV, where he frequently reported misbehaving vandals. Unlike many others, Gogo's reports [1][2] were accurate and helpful to admins such as myself. Gogo is a friendly, civil, helpful user who is courteous and polite to all users (whether it be the vandals or the experienced editors). Gogo is not only a fantastic vandal-fighter[3][4][5] , but he is a valued contributor to the article[6][7] and project namespaces[8][9][10]. For all of these reasons, I have strong confidence in Gogo Dodo, and I believe he will make out to be an exceptional admin. Nishkid64 18:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It is an honor to be nominated. I accept. -- Gogo Dodo 08:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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: As a vandal fighter, my initial focus would be in areas that I am most familiar with: WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, WP:RFPP and CAT:RFU. I would read WP:AN and participate in the discussions/actions after learning the process by observing the senior administrators. It has been awhile since I have participated in WP:AfD, but after observing senior administrators close discussions and understanding the usual process flow, I would like to help there, other XfD areas and CAT:PROD. Beyond that, I would help wherever there is a backlog. I would like to contribute wherever I am needed.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am admittedly not a great content contributor to Wikipedia (you're not likely to see a FA coming from me anytime soon), but I have made what I feel are useful contributions. I wrote most of the episode descriptions for Survivor: Panama and Survivor: Cook Islands. I have also done substantial work on List of The Unit episodes, List of Dirty Jobs episodes, and List of Deadliest Catch episodes. I try to do various Wikignome things after reverting vandalism like adding Infoboxes to vandalized high school pages and other cleanups.
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 have not been involved in any major conflicts. The closest would be that I started the Wikipedia side of the incident with Rory096. See the ANI archive and Rory's 2nd RfA for details. Other conflicts I have had have been resolved on the relevant Talk pages without any major issue. Before I had registered, I did have a conflict with another IP that I resolved by going to WP:3O.
As for dealing with future stress, if things get heated, I walk away for a bit, think about the situation if it's something I have not encountered before, try to make a logical argument in defense of my position, try to solve the problem, and then determine what I have learned once the situation is handled. If that doesn't work, there is always a longer walk and a bowl of ice cream. =) I try to look for the humor in any situation and keep a good positive outlook on things.
4. Optional question from James086:
Would becoming an admin help you in discussions or content disputes? i.e. should people listen to you more if you become an admin in XfD, content disputes, on talk pages and other similar discussions?
A: No, being an admin does not give an editor a bigger voice with regards to editing on Wikipedia. My input on content disputes or XfD would be just as valuable as an anonymous editor or one who just created their account. I would hope that my arguments supporting my stand on an XfD or content disputes would convince people that I am correct or at least accept my point of view. If I'm wrong, I would hope an editor would point that out. Unfortunately, there probably will be an inadvertent time when merely being an admin will carry extra weight due to a new editor figuring that being an admin makes my position correct or the end of the discussion. If you're asking "Would you throw your admin status around?" No, of course not. I'm not one who would say "I am admin, bow before me." =)
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support Seems to be a very proficient vandal fighter and is just the sort of person who would use the tools right without making a big deal. Also impressive in other areas. Looking at the talk page, also seems to be very willing to offer help when it is asked for - which is very often, I might add. Bubba hotep 09:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Edit conflict Support Looks like a good vandalfighter with a good spread of edits in the main spaces. (aeropagitica) 09:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I'm satisfied with the approach you take to vandal-fighting, and impressed with how frequently you take the time to warn vandals appropriately. I see no red flags, so there's no apparent reason not to support. :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 11:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I went hunting through the user's last 3 months of activity looking for red flags, but wasn't able to find anything concerning. Indeed, I came across a competence, humility and lightheartedness that made me reasonably comfortable. Gogo, you seem to be doing a great job. If you want to pick up the mop, I have no issue with it. --Brad Beattie (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Thought you already had the bit support. Excellent vandal whacking and wonderful demeanor when dealing with others; unlikely to abuse the tools. Shell babelfish 13:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I am Seadog ♪ and I support this message.
  8. Support always see him reporting vandals, can't see why not. Good luck! --Majorly (Talk) 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support seems like a very great candidate, give him a mop! ← ANAS Talk 14:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per above. Dedicated editor, good record, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support looks good to me. -- danntm T C 16:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Terence Ong (C | R) 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A great vandal fighter and contributor to the 'Pedia. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 17:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Seen this user whacking vandals many times. Good work. --Húsönd 18:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Looks good. NauticaShades 19:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. edit conflicted Support - whee, vandal stomper. And an article writer. Yes please. riana_dzasta 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Nominator Support. Somehow, I ended up as support #17 instead of Support #1 lol. Nishkid64 21:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support; user is a fine all-around contributor and a proficient countervandal, has need of the tools. Heimstern Läufer 21:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - he is an experienced editor and vandal fighter, and I am glad that he has been honest about his experience at WP:Afd. 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:53 25/11/2006 (UTC)
  20. Support - We need more dedicated vandal fighters, and they need the tools. Ed-it 22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support; seems obvious to me. Will be a fine admin. Antandrus (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Running around with no pants on SUPPORT!; I was about to nominate this user myself, but I was beaten to the punch. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 22:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Slay vandal, win vote. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support due to the answers to questions (that was exactly what I was asking) and his civility with vandals. James086 Talk | Contribs 06:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. support --Dario vet 13:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support User is a good vandal-fighter, and I'm sure this user will also make a terrific adminstrator. Hello32020 15:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Go get a life! You've only been around since April, and you've made 10,000 edits. That's 50 edits a day- one every 30 minutes of your life, including sleeping. So go get a life! Then again, if you REALLY want to become an admin, which will make you make many more edits and rot your brain.... then I support you for adminship. I'm really supporting you- that was just a comment.  :) SupaStarGirl 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, may I know what is your official stand here? Do you support or oppose this nomination? --Siva1979Talk to me 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Rudjek 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Dedicated vandal-fighter Dinojerm 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Strong candidate, Vandal fighter who could use the tools. Canadian-Bacon t c 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, dedicated vandal-mopper, obvious need for the extra tools. Kuru talk 01:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, very careful and polite vandal fighter-- the way it should be done. We could only benefit from making him admin. Ashibaka tock 02:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Looks good. Sharkface217 02:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. support prety good user. Cocoaguy: Talk 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Frickin' awesome....! Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 03:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Axl 08:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Looking at the contribution record, I like all the vandalism reverts. I think we can benefit from your adminship. Please treat the office with respect. StayinAnon 08:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Merovingian ※ Talk 09:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Good editor and vandal fighter. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 14:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Wikipedia will benefit with Gogo Dodo as an admin. Rettetast 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, very catchy username, and always good at AIV. DVD+ R/W 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, good vandal fighter, we need more admins with kind of dedication 10000 edits shows. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. This user is great vandal-fighter, as everyone else has said, and takes the time to use the correct warning, usually with the "-n" informative add-on. Additionally, s/he is always civil. Srose (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Bucketsofg 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support MER-C 06:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --Casper2k3 07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support strong candidate who seems very dedicated to cleaning up vandalism.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support John254 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support reverting vandalism is a good thing. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support admin tools help with vandalfighting. --Daniel Olsen 20:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Good contributer and an asset to Wikipedia. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Vandal fighter and polite? With 10K edits? Heartily support. IronDuke 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support--MustTC 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong support for The Alliance, of course. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC) - duplicate !vote - Tangotango 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support- No reason not to. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support- I have come across Gogo many times in the Survivor articles. He is always active in inmproving, editing, discussing arguments, and just being a great editor. editor review me!-TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 23:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong Support Vandal fighter? Yes sir! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Friendly, impartial and policy abiding vandal fighter! Memmke 09:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Gogogogogogo! — CharlotteWebb 15:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support due to good editing and wonderful Tiny Toons username. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. We need more fearless mopslingers like Gogo Dodo. Sandstein 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Supporti'm not familiar with this user so i'm basing my vote on the answers to the questions and the user's talk page. it seems like this person is always ready to lend a helping hand. i'm a new user and i think that'll help me too.good luck! - RebSkii 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose The majority of this user's support for adminship comes from his vandalism reverts. While a noble and needed cause this does not, in my opinion, qualify a person. User does not demostrate that he is fluent in the real requirements of an admin: indepth sysop understanding, an ability to understand and participate in article writing, dispute resolution, the often delicate art of combating POV and a firm grounding in enforement of the policies of wikipedia outside of blatant vandalism. There is no real established way that wikipedia will be improved my giving these types of users the reins of adminship. Despite this I heartily thank Gogo Dodo for his user level efforts at improving wikipedia. NeoFreak 22:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Stomping, fighting, and so on, have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. ... aa:talk 19:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to elaborate? NeoFreak 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd like to know too. It has everything to do with maintaining it, which is what admin has the tools to do - like swatting vandals fast. Bubba hotep 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Avriette does not realise that adminship has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, and has opposed for the same reasons many times before [11], [12], [13] on the same basis that this is an encyclopedia. Correct, it is, but this site would collapse without users keeping it correct, and admins are there to help enforce this. --Majorly 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If they have no experience with articles and policy, how do they know what they're enforcing? Zocky | picture popups 15:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I believe either one, with a little bit of the other, is fine for an admin candidate, they don't really need both. But the nominee has neither. -Amarkov blahedits 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral leaning towards support - looks good, but a majority of edits seem to have been done with a script-supporty-automated thing (I'm missing a word in my vocab), also falls a little short of my criteria for rfa canidates of 9 months experience --T-rex 17:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning strongly towards support - I would think an ideal admin would be involved in pretty much everything and not centered mostly around one subject (i.e. vandalism reverting). However that's just my opinion of what an admin would be. Since I can see no reason why he wouldn't be a good admin, I'll keep neutral but leaning towards support definitely. -WarthogDemon 22:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, leaning towards support per WarthogDemon.  Jorcogα  04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, not leaning towards anything. Vandalism fighting using scripty stuff, while nice in cleaning up the encyclopedia, doesn't show that someone can use admin tools well. After all, you can't just mechanically do administrator things with an automated tool. I also can't overlook 1 Wikipedia talk edit; an admin candidate should have more policy discussion than that. -Amarkov blahedits 06:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. While the vandal fighting is recommendable, I would prefer that this user becomes more familiar with process before becoming an admin. (Radiant) 09:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Moved to neutral; I would still prefer more experience but see no reason to oppose. (Radiant) 23:12, 28 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gogo_Dodo&oldid=1270530451"