Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pepsidrinka

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

Pepsidrinka

edit

Final: (84/2/0) ended 05:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pepsidrinka (talk · contribs) – Pepsidrinka has accumulated over 3100 edits throughout his tenure so far at Wikipedia, averaging thirty-two edits per day. I have often seen him helping out on articles related to Islam and Pakistan, but his skills have also been put to good use on the articles for deletion page as well as on the newcomers' help page. His recent Tireless Contributor Barnstar shows that others have noticed his unrelenting efforts too. Pepsidrinka's experience, desire to improve Wikipedia, and willingness to help out where needed makes him an eligible candidate for adminship. joturner 03:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Pepsidrinka 05:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Pre-emptive support for an all-round first-class Wikipedian. Green Giant 04:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I will second Green Giant on that. Nazli 06:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. NSLE (T+C) at 05:49 UTC (2006-03-19)
  4. Support — Great editor, should be great admin. Feezo (Talk) 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 06:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Good user. Just try to get more user talk edits.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 06:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support He will be a great admin - Richardcavell 07:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Suport First-rate Wikipedian. Solid user, and unlikely to abuse tools. --Andy123(talk) 08:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Been here long enough to know WP policy. Unlikely to abuse adminship. haz (user talk)e 09:46, 19 March 2006
  10. Support. Great interactions with Pepsi. Will be a good admin. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 10:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Suppport. Great contributer and thanks for reverting a lot of nonsense. --Thorpe | talk 12:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A good editor. --mmeinhart 13:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A great contributer. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support as nominator. joturner 15:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --Terence Ong 15:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per above. --Myles Long 15:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. A great editor, and soon, a great administrator. Weatherman90 16:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, speaks two languages that look like utter gibberish to me. JIP | Talk 17:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, good editor. --Fuzzie (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, promising. --Tone 19:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support good editor, good candidate --rogerd 19:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support GizzaChat © 19:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support of course. He's new but does good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Sorry, I prefer Coke Support everything appears to be in order.--Alhutch 20:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I met Pepsidrinka recently at MFD, and I have observed that he is very civil and responds well to criticism. --TantalumTelluride 21:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. SushiGeek 21:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support A good, civil editor with a lot of experience. JoshuaZ 21:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Jaranda wat's sup 21:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Kirill Lokshin 22:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Rob Church 23:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Weak Weak Support Almost neutral. Because of my standards I have for voting, you don't meet admin criteria yet, but because of your outstanding behavior and flawlessness (if thats a word) I support. Besides, I don't see any real reason to oppose. Moe ε 00:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, he has a level head on his shoulders that shows in his edits to oftentimes controversial areas. I think he's fabulous admin material. -- Samir   (the scope) 01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. SupportRobert McClenon 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, I too prefer Coke, but despite this, he has shown to be remarkably civil and helpful. :) -Dawson 01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Rama's Arrow 02:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Per above, Islamic wikiworld needs more good admins and Pepsidrinka seems to be an ideal candidate abakharev 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per above --Khoikhoi 04:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per above --Masssiveego 04:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Looks good ×Meegs 05:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support definitely a good guy. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 06:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Looks like a good addition. Nephron 07:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support I don't trust people that drink Pepsi and you are borderline with my own criteria for admins but becasue a large number of people I trust are saying great things about you above then you have my vote.--Looper5920 11:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. I am disturbed by the anti-Pepsi sentiment displayed here support. This user has shown a good knowledge of Wikipedia processes and a willingness to take on some maintenance tasks. And damn you Coke drinkers, but drinking Pepsi is a GOOD thing dammit! --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Looks good, although a little new. Prodego talk 20:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, good editor, and from what I've seen on Talk pages and AfD has a very balanced viewpoint and can handle themselves in a disagreement... but all that soda will rot your teeth!--Isotope23 21:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Joe I 23:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per nom. --Jay(Reply) 02:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support a perfect record and a great user. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support--Jusjih 03:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Pepsi sucks, but Pepsidrinka doesn't. youngamerican (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. See no cause for concern. Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support --Latinus 23:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. -- Agathoclea 23:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support -- Seen this user around a lot, I like it when users stick out in a positive way. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 00:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per above. Yamaguchi先生 01:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Alphax τεχ 06:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Pepsidrinka has been a quiet but steady force for sanity and NPOV in the Islam-related articles. If he can keep his balance there, in what may be one of the most contentious areas of WP, he has what it takes to be a good admin. Zora 08:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, with every confidence Deizio 12:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. just fine. pschemp | talk 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support -- DS1953 talk 16:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 19:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support from another Pepsi drinka. I've seen good stuff from you, too. Sandstein 19:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Familiar with this editor from afd contributions, great work. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Ugur Basak 22:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Per Zora. - Taxman Talk 00:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Sango123 (e) 02:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support --Mmounties (Talk)   02:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support — Of course! Have seen him around. Good editor. deeptrivia (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Meets my requirements. Good number of edits in a period of 4 months alone. Very impressive. Good Luck. Crna tec Gora 04:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support --hydkat 06:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support --Ahonc (Talk)   08:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, even though Pepsi is ftl. --Rory096 08:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong support per everyone else! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Tintin (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Aye Hiding talk 10:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Ofcourse - Ganeshk (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Have encountered this user on RFC. Level-headed, good editor. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Good solid editor. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. — FireFox • T [18:42, 24 March 2006]
  82. Support Full support Joelito 00:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support -- Saravask 20:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support a thinker. John Reid 05:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose No...[1]...are you kidding me...the 9/11 commission's reports on the events of 9/11/01 are only "plausible" and that the "amateur researchers" that refute this are not "conspiracy theorists"? "Again, the 9/11 story, though plausible, cannot be called 100% fact" LOL...no way can I support a POV pusher like this one...no way...oh, did everyone hear me? NO way.--MONGO 05:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mongo, a single, arguably POV, edit does not make him unqualified as an admin. It also could look slightly retaliatory when there is a dispute on a page, someone steps in to make a single edit and you respond by immediately jumping to his admin page to vote for opposition. JoshuaZ 05:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When an editor uses the misinformation this one has and reverts an established editors contribution such as I made without discussion and with nothing but mislabeling my work...it is a POV push in the wrong direction. That is not the behavior I expect from an admin candidate. I don't simply revert other established editors work if it is factual. You want me to dig up more diffs? I almost never oppose a candidate.--MONGO 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have more possibly problematic diffs, it would be helpful to see them. JoshuaZ 05:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: would like to see more experience first, especially given some relatively recent mistakes such as changing established date styles in articles and controversial page moves without discussion. Jonathunder 03:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

  • A slight correction is needed in the nomination to not mislead anyone. I am not active per se on the newcomers help page, but rather in helping newcomers who place the {{helpme}} tag on their page (via the IRC channel #wikipedia-bootcamp). Pepsidrinka 05:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is what I intended (the IRC channel is linked from the newcomers help page). I don't want to change the nomination text because some people don't like when text related to votes is altered / tampered with. Everyone voting please take note of the clarification. joturner 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. I have taken an interest in, one by one, removing entries from the merge category, usually by performing simple mergers. Being an administrator, I envision I would take part in closing AfDs (and other 'fDs) when they end and deleting obvious "speedy deletes". Protecting articles that merit protection and the 3RR noticeboard would also be on my radar.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am particularly pleased on the recent makeover of Pakistan, though I most certainly cannot take all the credit (or even a significant portion). My best strenths lie less in adding content, and more in everything else (e.g., copyediting, adding sources, formatting).
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. Much of my wikistress has come from the many Islam-related articles. With the many POVs on Islam, especially in the world we are living in today, it can cause "conflicts" amongst the two sides. I have specifically dealt with this by turning to other articles of interest, specifically articles dealing with more secular topics that cause less animosity. Revert warriors irk me as well, though they more often than not violate 3RR and I usually don't have to deal with them for atleast another day.
4. Given the contriversial nature of some of our articles, how would you react to article dealing with cartoons about Islam? My vote if I have the time, will be weighed 60% on how your answer this question. No answer will mean I automatically oppose on the grounds we may be asking for a wheel war on questionable ethics. --Masssiveego 01:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. The issue has to be dealt with on a case by case issue. I'm assuming much of this question stems from the recent Danish cartoon controversy. Take for example, the Muhammad article. It is not neccessary, and goes agaisnt all precedent, to display the cartoons on the Muhammad article. No precedent has been set, and none should be set, to display satires on biographical pages. If the article is about the cartoons, like the Muhammad cartoons article is, it is fine and counter-intuitive not to show the cartoons. Please by all means, if I haven't sufficently answered your questions, follow up here, on the discussion page of this article, or on my talk page.
Comment Hmmm. When you say satires shouldn't be on biographical pages, is that a definitive not at all costs? Some biographies are not expansive enough that a seperate article would be warranted; indeed a seperate article could in some cases be a POV fork. Hiding talk 09:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. My reasoning for saying that satircal pictures should not belong on biographies was based on the Muhammad article. Though I feel strongly that, for the most part, they don't belong. In the grand scheme of things, Muhammad's life has not been impacted significantly enough by a satirical picture (e.g., the likes of those published in Denmark) to warrant a picture in an article about his life. However, perhaps an article on Santa Clause could deal with a satirical picture. Or maybe the biography of a satirist/caricaturist. Most cartoons do not stand the test of time, and are not-notable in the grand scheme of things. They also do little to assist the article, generically speaking. Take for example the Muhammad page. It is my opinion, and a consensus has been formed on the article's talk page for quite a while now that a picture of Muhammad does little to enhance the page. Recently, a Depictions of Muhammad page has been created, and it would be silly for me to oppose displaying picture of Muhammad on an article about pictures of Muhammad. Pepsidrinka 12:03, 22 March 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pepsidrinka&oldid=1140110349"