Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Punkmorten

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] Punkmorten

final (53/2/0) ending 07:30 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Punkmorten (talk · contribs) – Punkmorten is an excellent, well rounded contributor who has done plenty of work in the main article namespace, he is an active and sensible voice on AFD, and he has done a lot of great new page patrolling. For those concerned with edit count, he has over 7500 of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. Punkmorten 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. 7500 edits is more then enough to earn a promotion. -- Eddie 07:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support for a candidate on RFA should not be on the number of edits. A vandal can have 2000 edits, 500 of which are vandalism. Does that mean he has enough edits "to earn a promotion"? NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    Also note that of those 7500 edits very few are on talk pages. That might be cause for concern since that is where an admin often needs to interact. in this case it does not stop me voting support but worth n oting none the less. David D. (Talk) 22:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Looks all good. Shanes 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Cant think of a good reason not to. Banes 08:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Sure thing. Athletics on Wikipedia? That's Punkmorten. Most of athletes-related articles are created by him, great success in CSB. I can only recommend him to other voters. - Darwinek 10:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support --Terence Ong Talk 10:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Everything looks pretty good, except there could be a little greater participation in Wikispace talk pages...that's where the policies and guidelines are made. JHMM13 (T | C) 12:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Looks fine. --Kefalonia 14:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Extreme support. I'm mystifyed why there are so few votes.  Grue  15:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Wonderful editor, trustworthy. Xoloz 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support to the max. Punk and I have collaborated on a few wide-ranging music-related cleanup projects, and he's one of the finest people I've met on Wiki.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 16:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support no doubt--MONGO 18:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Looks Good. - Nick C 20:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. -- Phædriel 23:09, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. Back in Oct, Punkmorten was asked to start using edit summaries. I skimmed his last 750 edits are so, and they all seem to have edit summaries, which is a great thing and shows the user listens to people's suggestions. Also, he has quite a bit of experience with AfD. -- PS2pcGAMER 23:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per nomination, and I like the 100% edit summaries, as listed by Mathbot. Looks like a good user, although I haven't bumped into him before.--ViolinGirl♪ 00:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Well rounded editor, active in the editing of article and project namespaces. Would make a great administrator. — TheKMantalk 00:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Thought he was one. --King of All the Franks 00:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Harrumph -- MicahMN | μ 03:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support per everyone else. --Ghirla | talk 10:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. He is very level-headed and works well with other editors, making him a perfect candidate. Rje 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. Solid editor, good edits, lots of contributions. Will make a great admin. -- Jbamb 15:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. KittenKlub 17:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. --Ian Pitchford 19:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Experienced and fair. Kingturtle 20:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support - Sango123 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support excellent edits and fights hard to maintain the edits as the vandals pass through. David D. (Talk) 22:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support DaGizza Chat 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support good editor --rogerd 04:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support; everything looks good; fine candidate. Antandrus (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. Neutralitytalk 06:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Supposrt: --Bhadani 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support no problem.Gator (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support as above, no good reason not to. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support as per above. Looks excellent. --Jay (Reply) 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. Great contributor. PJM 22:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support, my prior experience of this user suggests that he would make an excellent admin -- Francs2000 01:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support sounds good to me Gryffindor 17:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Yodo 14:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    Unless evidence is provided, please leave this decision to the closing bureaucrat. Guettarda 15:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. djorgensen 17:15, 07 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. A moderate voice on AfD. I don't always agree with him, but he's always civil about it. Ifnord 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Yes. --Chris S. 09:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. A bit curt sometimes but almost never condescending. Experiance is nothing close to a problem. I've run into him(general term) several times on the Wikipedia namespace and he has over 1000 project edits! He also seems to have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Glad to offer my support. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. - Bobet 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. Solid contributor. You shouldn't have to put up with stuff such as that of below.--Ali K 13:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. Valuable contribs on AFD. -Colin Kimbrell 22:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. -- DS1953 talk 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, because I can't see any reason why this person should be an admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Ha ha ha! - Darwinek 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Rob Church Talk 01:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Would any of you guys care to elaborate? -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Mathbot 16:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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. I would be most active in the fields concerning the deletion process, where I already spend time. I often do new pages patrol and check for speedy deletion candidates, and I participate in Articles for Deletion where I would help in closing debates. This strikes me as important as the AfD load is increasing. Kate's edit counter reveals that I presently have 868 deleted edits to my name, the vast majority of which are (ex-)articles which I tagged for speedy deletion or AfD. If trusted with the admin tools I promise to use them with care, on obvious candidates only.

Moreover, I would follow the example of the administrators I have interacted with and help non-admins if they should request my assistance. And help out with copyright problems. Punkmorten 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. If I should single out one particular article I am proud of, I would say List of Prime Ministers of Norway. I did not create it, but it used to be an incomplete, inaccurate and confusing list which I spent a good deal of time improving. The same could be said about List of cities in Norway. Looking at my entire list of contributions, however, I think what really stands out is that I create a lot of new articles, often countering systemic bias. Unfortunately I haven't really been involved in the Featured article process, but my stance is that someone has to attend the neglected articles as well. After all I started editing by browsing through requested articles. Punkmorten 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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 participated in any edit war. While a couple of edits have caused other users to leave comments on my talk page, in those cases I have decided not to take the editing any further. I intend to remain calm in the future.

It should also be noted that I have improved my use of edit summaries. A quick check tells us that I have used them in about 999 of my last 1000 edits. Punkmorten 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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.