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

Pmlinediter[change source]

Pmlinediter (talk · contribs)

End date: 12 September 2009, 11:00

Hello all. I’m here today to nominate Pmlinediter (talk · contribs) for adminship. He is a very helpful user here on simple and tries to help in all areas. He has written two good articles and helped to promote one very good article. Pmlinediter is very active on DYK and nominated several articles successful. During the last five months he made aprox. 3,500 edits and requested about 250 QDs. I fell, that we need new admins, because some good admins retired. The work doesn’t get less. I think Pmlinediter would be a good choice and also a good help for our team. He’s also an admin on SEWQ. I think he can be trusted with the tools. Good luck. Barras (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept this nomination. Thank you Barras for having the trust in me to nominate me. I hope that I can become an admin and help the community. Thank you for your consideration. Pmlineditor  Talk 11:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions[change source]

Optional from NonvocalScream (talk):

Q: Optional in the way of, I won't hold it against you if you don't answer. Here is are my questions... As far as blocking, how tolerant are you for mistakes... and are you apt to giving chances to editors? For example... if an editor who is indef blocked for vandalism and generic disruption comes back 4 months later, requesting unblock, admitting the misdeeds and promising not to recur, would you consider unblocking? Alternatively, for demonstrated immaturity disruptive to the project, how much tolerance for that?

A: It is very probable that I'll take this to WP:ANI for a community discussion. If the user had been blocked for immaturity/sockpuppetry/long term vandalizing, I wouldn't take the decision on my own. Pmlineditor  Talk 08:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Q: With regards to protecting pages... How do you decide to protect a page? In what circumstance, if any, would you find it acceptable to protect a page you are involved with?


A: Well, it generally depends on a case-by-case basis. I'd always prefer a WP:3O before protecting a page I'm involved with. However, if the page is being vandalized for a long time, then I'd probably protect it and will post a thread at AN. Of course, before protecting, I'd check WP:P. Pmlineditor  Talk 08:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Do you have to provide administrator assistance to all who asks? When would it be ok, if ok at all, to tell an editor "No, I won't be able to help, try the list of admins, of the administrators' noticeboard"?


A: Generally yes, but it depends. You can't possibly feed the trolls, neither can you restore a page deleted after an RfD. It is in such situations that I'll take it to AN. In general, yes, it is always best to provide administrative assistance. Pmlineditor  Talk 08:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[change source]

  1. Per my nom. Barras (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - He does quite a bit of article work; DYK noms, and promoting articles to GA/VGA status. Also quick at QD'ing articles. иιƒкч? 11:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Nifkeh? :-) -- Mentifisto 11:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - I thought he was an admin already. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Majorly talk 14:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per nom. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support 's about time. Very helpful. Smart and trustworthy. Great article work, and he knows what he is doing here at simple. Cheers.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose because you do not have enough MediaWiki: space edits. Until that number increases dramatically, I can't support you i'm afraid. ;). Goblin 18:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
    Shouldn't that be in the opposed section? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Research before you comment, especially during serious forums such as RfA. required reading —MC8 (b · t) 22:29, Tuesday September 8 2009 (UTC)
    That's an awful awful joke Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Matter of opinion. Please keep off-topic comments where they belong. — This unsigned comment was added by Microchip08 (talk • changes).
  9. Strong support - Possibly the best candidate we've had in a while. Pmlinediter has article work and administrative work under his belt, and that's what we need: Users who are interested in keeping the project going. I can only see the community benifiting from him getting the tools, and am sure he'll make a very good admin. I hope you stay for a very long time PM, because you are the kind of person we need here. You really seem to understand what SEWP is all about. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good choice, as he has experience. --Bsadowski1 04:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Great signature. Javert  Talk 08:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC
    Surely that's not the only reason you're supporting?  GARDEN  21:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not, it was my attempt at humour. Pmlinediter is an incredibly helpful user who will make a very successful sysop. All supports have an understood "per nom". Javert (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. SUL (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Good interactions.  GARDEN  21:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support based on positive interactions at other projects. User is a good admin at SEWQ, should do well here. Tempodivalse 22:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. fr33kman talk 23:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Definitely yes.-- Tdxiang 08:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Your QDs and reverts are of high quality. I see you've been personally attacked by at least one vandal and remained cool. I think you have what it takes to be a good admin. EhJJTALK 15:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: The user is highly active and will serve as a good admin! --Srinivas 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No problem. Malinaccier (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Looking through everything seems to do alot of work and do it well :) The tools could help. Close per WP:SNOW? :)Jamesofur (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    RFAs aren't usually closed per WP:SNOW , though I have to say, there seems to be clear consensus. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 11:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, can we get this to unanimous? —MC8 (b · t) 22:30, Tuesday September 8 2009 (UTC)
  23. Maxim(talk) 23:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

  1. I'd like to oppose this. PMLine has made some untrue prejudgements about me Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you can give some evidence or explanation of this? Either way (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just say that he is overly harsh and when I made one little slipup on enwp, he hounded me both here and on enwp.Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It helps when you spell the user you are making unsourced statements about correctly. It's good manners. —MC8 (b · t) 08:04, Wednesday September 9 2009 (UTC)
    Can you give some examples of this hounding? Either way (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The basic upshot is that I personally don't think a synop for him would be in the best interests of this project. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that you make accusations such as this but have no diffs to back it up. Just saying. Regards, Javert (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't excepting anybody to question my vote. I don't have to elaborate on my oppose anymore than anybody else has to elaborate on a support Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You do, however, have to back up statements such as "PMline has made some untrue prejudgements (sic) about me". I can't just go to an RfA and say "Oppose - he has done mean things" without some evidence to back it up. It's terrible form. Also, since RfA is a discussion and not a !vote, if you don't explain fully and provide diffs of accusations you make, your !vote will not weigh as heavily as those that do. Granted, this makes little difference in this RfA, but it's something you should think about in the future. Regards, Javert (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This belongs here instead of here. Note the redaction. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. If anything it belongs on the talk of this RfA. However, I consider the matter to be closed. Regards, Javert (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This very much belongs here at the RfA. Without adequate evidence, I suspect the closing bureaucrats won't be able to give your vote much weight. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect them to. There are 20 more yes votes than no votes. I just don't want this to be unanimous. Why must everyone deride my opposition? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason you feel that everyone is "deriding" your opposition is that you have now deleted your only reason for opposing apart from "I just don't want this to be unanimous", a little like saying "I prefer the colour blue". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that reasons needed not necessarily be given for support or opposition. IMO, I would feel better for the project if PMLine wasn't an administrator, but I accept that it's a given he'll make it Purplebackpack89 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons are usually expected for oppose, and they are usually expected to be more substantial than "I just don't want this to be unanimous" and they usually are expected to provide evidence of assertions (such as "untrue prejudgements" and why you feel "it would be better for the project if PMLine wasn't an administrator"). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm worried that PMLine will prejudge users, and except the worse of them if they err early. I can't point to any ONE thing that will prove that. I oppose for those reasons. Those are my reasons. Stop criticizing me for my oppose. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's like BLP; unsourced opposes are bad. —MC8 (b · t) 15:33, Wednesday September 9 2009 (UTC)
Lets do it like this. End of discussion. PBP doesn't need to give diffs, so let it be. Now let us leave things for the crat to decide. Pmlineditor  Talk 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

Category