Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pgk

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.

pgk[edit]

final (80/3/0) 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™[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)Strong Support, he will make an excellent admin with his involvements with Wikipedia. --Terence Ong Talk 14:43, 6 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!!! BD2412 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]
  34. Support. Vandalfighting is a Good Thing (tm), which should be made easier when possible.--SarekOfVulcan 23:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Definitely. Sango123 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support absolutely no question - easily long enough and edits enough to see that this is a very valuable contributor - opposing on basis of time seems to me to defy any logic at all --Doc ask? 00:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Works hard, keeps a level head, have a mop. --CBD ☎ ✉ 03:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I love users that work tirelessly to give vandals a good * kicking :). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Somehow, those oppose votes look like WP:POINT votes to me. —Nightstallion (?) 08:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Cool. JuntungWu 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. KHM03 17:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support. Again, as with Wiki Alf, Pgk almost always beats me to reverting vandalism, so even though I'm really ticked off, I'll still vote for you.--ViolinGirl♪ 18:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. (edit conflict) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pgk was added to my watchlist several weeks ago, before the page was created. I am pleased that I've made it back in time to declare my strong support toward seeing this individual promoted. Hall Monitor 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Does good work; doesn't seem likely to abuse admin powers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. I absolutely agree with User:Wgfinley's concerns, but I don't think this user is anything to worry about; he is a good user, and can be trusted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support as per all of the above. JeremyA 19:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 20:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Tireless counter-vandal (but be sure to consider the other sysop chores as well). Keep up the good work! — TheKMantalk 20:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. support yep. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Geez, <insert tired cliché> I really really thought he was one. Long over due. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support. Very much on the ball. PJM 05:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, per administrator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Interacted with editor in several areas of wikipedia. --Syrthiss 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Does good work. --Kefalonia 14:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Another thought-he-was-one-already moment –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. A top-notch vandal-fighter. I also like his use of edit summaries. Owen× ☎ 19:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. His contributions look good and he consistently uses edit summaries. I think he can be trusted with admin tools.--Dakota ~ ε 20:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support ComputerJoe 21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support. Thanks for pgkbot!--Shanel 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. I support WGFinley's right to have an opinion, and to share it with us without being hassled about it. But I also Support this editor's candidacy. Normally I would think 3 months too few, but not in this case. (says the newbie) ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strongest support possible, for one of the nicest and well rounded editors I have ever met in these wild frontiers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. SUPPORT!!! What a great guy, happy adminning! -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Support. Seriously awesome vandal fighter. delldot | talk 07:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support: nearly 8000 edits, infallibly consistant use of edit summaries, created an IRC bot with more personality than himself [2], and I thought he was one. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:10, Jan. 4, 2006
  65. Support. I thought s/he already WAS one.... Thank god somebody created this template.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. support. i appreciate Pgk's hardwork. admin tools will be of use to his/her work here. i don't understand the opposition due to limited time here. Pgk has been here for a quarter of a calender year. that is a long time in the wiki world. i feel pgk has a great understanding of how the community works. Kingturtle 20:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Great user, an amazing amount of vandal-fighting. Johann Wolfgang 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Often beats me to the revert on vandalism. Must be the bot, perhaps we can RfA it? CarbonCopy (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. A solid contributor, foe of vandals everywhere. NoSeptember talk 23:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Watch out vandals, Pgk's gonna have a mop soon. --rogerd 04:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support'. Normally I do not support those who have contributed just 3 months, but exceptions are made for exceptional contributors. Silensor 21:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Would make a quality janitor. --Jay (Reply) 22:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, without hesitation. -- Essjay · Talk 09:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Candidates who chase vandals and revert vandalism are excellent candidates for adminship. My experience is that the vandalism has been growing over the last months and RC Patrol has not scaled with it. We need all the extra hands, and Pgk seems to have eight of them all doing a marvelous job. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Sorry I am so late, other ongoing discussions have kept me away! Ian13ID:540053 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. I appear to be late to the party as well. Blame the egg nog. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 10:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support.Yodo 14:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    discounted for meat puppetry (Wikipedia:Sock puppet). Sciurinæ 14:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless evidence is provided, please leave this decision to the closing bureaucrat. Guettarda 15:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. (almost an oppose for making me scroll all the way down to support) but it was worth it --Adam1213 Talk + 14:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support sounds good, good luck. Gryffindor 17:12, 7 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]
    • Have you had an RfA yet? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[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]
        • "Don't believe we have a lack of admins" is not a rationale to oppose. At most it would be a rationale for Neutral. I'm pretty sure the majority of admins are not spending their time "wheel warring", and I'm not sure what Pgk has to do with this complaint of yours. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-2 00:30
    • Try to follow me -- I said that 3 months is too short of a time in my opinion to be an admin. The response is that WP is growing and the admins will be overwhelmed. My response is I don't believe the admins are overwhelmed and that there are so many of them that wheel warring is common. My rationale for oppose is 3 months is not enough experience, I'm sorry. --Wgfinley 01:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't said admins were currently overwhelmed, more that we are growing and will need more if they are not to become overwhelmed, we are growing. I still personally don't 100% follow your reasoning as I still don't see any evidence to suggest those admins promoted in a situation similar to mine are any more likely to get involved in wheel warring etc. --pgk(talk) 08:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guys, lay off on Wgfinley. He believes–at least, in my reading of his comments–that three months may not be enough time to absorb all of how admins should fit an and work within the Wikipedia culture and its policies. Further, I'd judge that he believes that we're not suffering from an acute shortage of admins at the moment, so we can afford to be picky. These are not inherently unreasonable beliefs to hold, whether we agree with him or not. Wgfinley's been around long enough to set his own personal standards for adminship, and there's something to be said for several months of 'steeping' in Wikipedia's culture—it's hard to absorb all of how Wikipedia works without being here a certain amount of time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies it's not supposed to come across that way, I'm really just trying to find out if there is any more specific underlying concern, if the only significant concern is length of time then that's fine. --pgk(talk) 19:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries; I actually was more troubled by the tenor of Brian0918's responses. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is my personal oppinion that admins are for enforcing, and are given tools because they are trusted by the community not to abuse them. We are not creating a caste system, and we are not rewarding users who write a great deal of content with the tools simply because they are good writers, which is not to say an admin should not be all those things. Adminship should be awarded to users familiar with our policy and who do not and will not abuse their powers. There are a good number of admins, but that is not to say we have enough, and there is no penalty to having too many trusted users who have proven themselves loyal and capable to the project. I believe that the tools should not be a reward for your friend, but more for someone who can be trusted to deal with issues fairly and quickly, which is the entire idea behind having more admins. I think that three months is a little bit short for my taste, but I support because I care not for time nor edits (hell, look at Redwolf24!), but because I trust that Pgk and others are able to use their tools well, understand policy, and are fair, and nothing else. Arbitrary concepts such as time and edit counts (within limit, of course), are of no value to me, and thus not a major factor in my descision. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Chasing around vandals, reverting them endlessly, does not admin material make. Show me that you grok the Tao of Wiki and I'll reconsider. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly appreciate that the vandal reversion is not an end in its' own right, it doesn't stand up on it's own, without the fundamental purpose of wikipedia (to write an encyclopedia) it wouldn't be necessary. I've interacted with various of the users and as some have noted I understand much of wikipedia policy, something I have gained over time (longer than that of my named account as I spent some time (on and off) prior to that either reading or some minor editing. Of course I still have more to learn and experience and probably always will have. --pgk(talk) 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.
  • Your username makes me think of the word package. And I don't think the 3 month point is a big deal. You've done a lot in a little amount of time. Bravo!--ViolinGirl♪ 18:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pgk&oldid=1080982169"