Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pgk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HoodedMan (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 1 January 2006 (→[[User:pgk|Pgk]]: Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pgk

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pgk|action=edit}} Vote here] (33/2/0) ending 0:01 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Pgk (talk · contribs) – I've never been good at starting these things. Well, to start the New Year, I thought that Pgk deserved to have the AdminPowersTM bestowed upon him. He certainly deserves them! Despite being just 3 WikiMonths old, he has amassed 7000 edits, plenty of which are to all namespaces. He tags speedies ([1]) already and is always bugging me for blocks and deletes on the Wikipedia-en-vandalism IRC channel (whose alternative bot, he coded in Python, incidentally). I have wanted to nominate this well-rounded and nice user for ages but since he would have failed with comments like "too little time", I thought that now would be the best time. --Celestianpower háblame 17:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Nomination accepted --pgk(talk) 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Extreme "What he said" support --Celestianpower háblame 17:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support. FireFox 17:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support. I have a lot of trust in this user's judgement and his interpretation of policy. He has approached me many times with requests for a block or the speedy deletion of a page and I can't remember a time that I didn't agree with him about one of those requests. Of course, being an admin involves more than just blocking and deleting but based on these experiences I've had with him, I have no doubt he'll be a good, trustworthy admin. --JoanneB 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. One of the best vandal-fighters we have. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 19:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support Good lord yes, excellent vandal fighter --Jaranda wat's sup 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Orangest Furry Alien Support I enjoy working alongside pgk, great fun and great anti-vandal device. --Alf melmac 00:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Hot damn, that's a lot of edits. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (Remember, edits is not always the main factor.) NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support good editor that fights vandalism. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support good editor and vandal fighter, misuse of tools unlikely. (Please see additional question below) xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Awesome editor. --King of All the Franks 01:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support -- Francs2000 01:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong suppa Support - The guy's already got the mop stuff since the day they started! They know what to do and what not to do! I support Category:Orphan Administrators - w/o a nomination. Enjoy! -- Szvest 01:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  15. Support Great vandal fighter Olorin28 02:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Yeah 3 months isn't long, but he's been a world of help with his new bot on IRC and I think he'd use his powers well. He knows when to block and when not to.
  17. Need more admins. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-1 07:22
  18. Support I've had the impression that hes been here longer, he shows experience. Banes 08:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support-- Bonaparte talk 09:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support--MONGO 10:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Despite being around for 3 months, I feel in my gut that we can trust Pgk with the admin tools. I don't see a reason to make him wait another 3 months or whatever when he's already proven he has what it takes. Mo0[talk] 11:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, a good user who deserves the tools. Ral315 (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Pgk has shown a firm grasp of policy over the last three months, and he would make excellent use of the admin tools. Rje 14:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - it's about time! Izehar 15:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Of course! By the way and off-topic, he has coded a portable replacement of the vandalism bot in python. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 16:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Trustworthy editor, will make a great admin. -- Jbamb 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I meantioned that in my summary ;). --Celestianpower háblame 17:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --Terence Ong Talk 17:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. - Phaedriel 19:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Hmmm, let me think about it for a minute... ... ... SUPPORT!!! BDAbramson T 21:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, no reservations, plays a good game of whack-a-vandal. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. This vandalfighter deserves to get his arsenal enhanced with more powerful tools.SoothingR 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Absolute Support. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose too little time freestylefrappe 01:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have total respect for you more than I have for Pgk (because of our intereactions and what I got to know about you), but really they have done too much in too little time. Cheers -- Szvest 01:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  2. Oppose While Pgk appears to be a tireless vandal fighter and I applaud that, I'm getting concerned about the vast number of recent elevations to admin for people who have only worked on the project for a few months and amassed a slew of edits because they are vandal fighting. I don't think edit counts are a good reflection of anything to be honest. I hope Pgk will take my vote in good spirit as I applaud the effort but I think this has just gone too far with folks who need to have some more time in before being given this kind of responsibility. --Wgfinley 02:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is suggesting a nomination be based on edit counts, but you are opposing a nomination on the basis of your disgust for edit counts. Can't you find an actual reason to oppose? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-1 07:22
    • I'm not entirely sure I understand your view point, to me the question on adminship is will giving the person in question admin rights have a positive effect on the project, of the recent admins I can see nothing to suggest any of them getting admin rights having any negative impact. I have done varous other editing as well as vandal fighting, but yes the edit count will be inflate by the amount of reverts, warnings etc. This however refects the volume of the problem out there, Wikipedia is growing fast, if we limit ourselves to just selecting those who have been here a longer time then it won't be long before the current admins are overrun with no "acceptable" candidates available or willing --pgk(talk) 11:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't think being on the project for three months is enough experience to be an admin, there's no policy or procedure on it, this is my own personal opinion based upon the results of several other elevations with a similar amount of time editing. I also don't believe we have a lack of admins, if anything there appears to be more wheel warring going on with admins than anything else. Adding more certainly won't fix that. --Wgfinley 23:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. As a lot of my time has been spent fighting vandalism via RC Patrol, I would initially expect to continue to work around that area, so blocking and unblocking users, page protection (and semi-protection), fixing cut and paste moves and speedy deletions.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm probably most pleased with the contributions to RC Patrol, I've produced an alternative IRC bot to help with this and spent much time removing vandalism, tagging speedy deletes, copyvio's etc. It's also the area I am probably least pleased with since I signed up for an account with several articles/areas I was interested in, but end up getting largely sidetracked from that.
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've not got into much in the way of conflict, generally I'm pretty laid back so don't let things get to me too much. Most things can be resolved through discussion and compromise.

Additional Questions for the candidate

4. How long do you feel sprotection should be applied to an article? (added by xaosflux Talk/CVU)
There is no simple answer to this as it will vary from case to case, but I consider any protection (semi or full) to be a last resort and as such should be removed as soon as the short term problem is likely to have been resolved. So for example a simple single vandal switching IPs and attcking the same article or two, should only be an hour or two. If it's still a problem protection can always be reapplied. --pgk(talk) 11:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pgk&oldid=33524178"