Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pagrashtak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Pagrashtak

Final (53/3/0) ended 03:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) – Pagrashtak has been with Wikipedia since July 2005 and has in that time contributed over 3700 edits. He is a very active member of the CVG WikiProject, where he helps out a lot with maintenance issues and the discussion page. It should be noted that he is by no means limited to editing video game articles though. He did play a major role in getting The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker promoted to featured articles. Pagrashtak has also been quite active on WP:FAC, WP:TFD, WP:AFD, WP:RFA, and I think he has a sound understanding of Wikipedia processes and policies. jacoplane 22:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept; thank you, jacoplane. Pagrashtak 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support First support. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Has done good work in the CVG field. Thunderbrand 02:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support - tends to be a bit reversionist, but otherwise it's all good. - Richardcavell 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. --Rory096 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support — BUT, you need more interaction with others; you have <300 user talk edits. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, would benefit from the tools.--Adam (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, resolved issues. Vulcanstar6 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Well-rounded wiki-career, fine editor. Xoloz 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A Select Start! Now your nomination gets 30 free supports! ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Here's two thumbs up for a committed Wikipedian and a fellow gamer. (^'-')^ Covington 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Fine editor. DarthVader 07:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 08:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. I recall bumping into the user somewhere, mfd maybe, and he had a good grasp of whatever it was that needed doing, so based on that I'll support. Hiding talk 08:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support - already was one, no? --Celestianpower háblame 10:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support --Rob from NY 12:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. I thought he already was an admin Support--ac1983fan-Talk 13:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. A well-balanced and experienced editor, he clearly knows what he needs to know. Rje 14:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, level-headed contributor. ProhibitOnions 14:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support--Jusjih 15:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Moe ε 16:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. — FireFox • T [18:49, 11 April 2006]
  24. Support - Sango123 (e) 21:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support --Deville (Talk) 02:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support, great CVG Wiki Project participant. Royboycrashfan 04:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support good editor --rogerd 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support I've seen you around - you deserve the Master Sword mop. -- stillnotelf is invisible 05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support, looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support John Reid 17:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Certainly Flowerparty? 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support - Chairman S. Talk 22:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support _-M o P-_ 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support - no issues seen, seems pretty active all around to me -- Tawker 23:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support, no reason not to. SorryGuy 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. Give him the mop and pail. Bucketsofg 12:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. Why not? Good job. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. I have played a minor role in the Zelda articles, and have seen Pagrashtak contribute to articles, talk pages, FACs, FARCs and so on in a civil way. In line with criteria, he passed with flying colours. Batmanand | Talk 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. User has demonstrated a good balance of WP activity. More talk entries would be a Good Thing, but the user interaction Pagrashtak has had seems appropriate, helpful, and balanced (overall). -- MarcoTolo 22:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Can't think of any reasons NOT to, so hand 'em the mop! TruthCrusader 12:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support MatriX 14:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support - Hahnchen 01:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 07:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  47. Image:Hand with thumbs up.jpg —Khoikhoi 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Though focus seems to be on video games, I think the most important qualities are to understand policy and to have good dispute resolution skills, and I think that the handling ESRB issue shows a reasoned, civil demeanor that would carry over well to the execution of admin duties in other areas. — TKD::Talk 20:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. One of the most friendly useres in existence. Tarret 02:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. I've seen this user's work, and I think he would make a great admin. -Danaman5 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support You've got my support. Fine editor, should be fine administrator. --FloNight talk 00:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support a great editor, excellent admin potential gidonb 02:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

swayable Oppose, Im sorry pag, i like you, but my desicion is based SOLELY on the fact that (from your answers to the Q's) it seems like you dont need the tools that admins have to achieve what you have said you want to. Vulcanstar6 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[1]. --Rory096 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, ok... . Vulcanstar6 03:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
He means Pagrashtak can use the admin tools to help organize and delete orphaned images. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
i already voted support, i see that now. Vulcanstar6 03:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Not active enough with the Wikipedia community. Masssiveego 05:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This user has been influential in organising the CVG community on wikipedia, however, they have kept to that side of things. Needing the responsibility primarily for image tagging and FAC, both of which they can participate in with talk pages to all but the actual deletion stage, doesn't influence me enough, as a somewhat conservative type person, that they need the adminship powers yet. Ansell 03:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, examination of his edits to various namespaces suggests too much focus on a narrow range of topics. Bears an unfortunate resemblance to a certain editor with whom I have had bad experiences. Consider exploring the rest of the encyclopedia, and I may support at a later date. — Apr. 16, '06 [06:17] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    "too much focus on a narrow range of topics" -- That's ridiculous. We shouldn't ask people to edit topics about which they know nothing. --kramtark 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    Should we be giving admin powers to people who only have experience in one area, and may be called to any of the many other areas on wikipedia to decide issues? Should we categorise admins by the areas that they know things about so they are qualified in certain areas? Ansell 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    A philosophical aside. 'may be called to'? Individual admins on Wikipedia aren't summoned; they go where they please. A post on WP:AN will usually result in a response or reaction from one or more admins, but there's no mechanism to compel a specific admin to deal with an issue. Wikipedia is growing to the point where I doubt there are many (any?) individuals who are familiar with all of its policies and minutiae. A good admin doesn't need to be familiar with all aspects of Wikipedia. Rather, a good admin is one who has the sense to recognize when he is in over his head and to seek assistance where appropriate. Food for thought. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    Food for thought yes, but you haven't rebutted my original argument that this person hasn't been around wikipedia enough to know when they are going to be in over their head. Its not a personal issue with the admin, just their lack of diversity doesn't show me the traits you pointed out that a good admin would have. Ansell 22:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • See Pagrashtak's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • As I'm sure it will be a question, I'd like to address my low edit count in October and November. Around that time, I accepted a job that involved a cross-country move for me and my family. Between negotiating, packing, driving, getting set up in corporate housing, moving into a permanent residence, and getting settled, I didn't have much time for Wikipedia. I can say with confidence that I don't plan on doing that again any time soon, so I don't forsee another Wikibreak of that length. Pagrashtak 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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, 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: My interaction with WP:FAC introduced me to fair use rationale and appropriate image tagging. That got me interested in image work, so I think I'd start with deleting images marked as having no source or no licensing tag for seven days, as well as helping with images in Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons. I'd also start closing some discussions on WP:TFD, which now has a backlog, starting with those that have easily interpretable results, and moving on to more contentious discussions as I become more comfortable with the process. I think I'd close other XFD discussions from time to time, and I'd naturally continue to fight vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I helped The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask obtain featured status after it was nominated, which in turn inspired me to practically rewrite the entire The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker article, which then obtained featured article status with no objections. Before you dismiss these articles for being about video games, I invite you to read them: I'm quite pleased with the "Development and history" section of Wind Waker.
I created the article Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set not too long after I joined Wikipedia, because it was an important part of my previous job. It's a nice medium-sized article that I think might not yet exist if I hadn't written it. I only wish I had known back then of the importance of adding references, as I no longer have access to the work materials I used to write it.
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 did have a conflict recently regarding the use of ESRB rating images in infoboxes. I suggested to the CVG WikiProject that we should stop using ESRB rating images in infoboxes, as the images are claimed under fair use, yet their inclusion in infoboxes is decorative. This was agreed upon and I started removing them sections at a time. A user who was not aware of the discussion saw me removing the images; he reverted the entire batch and rewrote the guidelines himself. I reverted the change he made to the guidelines, as that had been determined by consensus, but did not revert the articles immediately, as I did not want to start a multi-article edit war. You can read the discussion that followed on the CVG WikiProject's discussion page, which involved a few sockpuppets from a couple of users. After the matter had been cleared up and it had been reaffirmed that we should not use the images in the infoboxes, I restored my edits. You may observe how I handled this situation to judge how I handle conflict.
As for stress, I will admit I was disappointed to find a mass reversion of my edits, but I haven't really experienced much stress here at Wikipedia. If I ever sense that I'm getting stressed about something, I step away from Wikipedia for a minute or two rather than write something I'll regret later. Unlike work or life, I can always take a step back from Wikipedia when needed, so there's no use getting stressed about anything, if you ask me.
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.