Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Poccil

Poccil

Final (2/3/4) Ends 06:08, October 1 2004

Since being here on June 2004, and with over 3400 edits, I feel I should become an administrator so I can edit Wikipedia more efficiently. Nomination withdrawn. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 20:26, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. -- orthogonal 03:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC). Since we have a well-known and easy to use method to remove abusive sysops, why not give him a chance?
2. El Chico! ^Talk 12:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) He seems like a good admin to me.

Oppose

1. CryptoDerk 06:36, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
2. Seems too quick to judge. I'd like to see a bit more experience in terms of length of time as a member, too. --Slowking Man 07:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
3. A quick glance at Poccil's archived talk page convinces me that this nomination should not be approved. BCorr|Брайен 19:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. I agree with BCorr above. Most of the complaints on the archived talk page are more than a month old, so one could argue that Poccil has learned from her/his mistakes, but there's also a very recent complaint about British/American spellings despite the fact that the relevant policy had already been pointed out to her/him. So I'd propose to wait a little to see whether Poccil is willing to stick to community policies before reconsidering the nomination. Fpahl 15:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Yes, there is a strong contribution base. Yes, you've been here long enough to be an administrator by most Wikipedian standards. However, I am wary by your description of "wanting to edit Wikipedia more efficiently", and I don't see as much community involvement as I would like to see in an administrator. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:38, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
2. Agree with Grunt. --Lst27 23:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3. There are detractors and credits to be given. --MerovingianѤTalk 15:37, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
4. Talk page archive has me worried. {Ανάριον} 14:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments Poccil has over 4500 edits and has been here since June 17.

My assessment is that he's quick to add delete, notable, and insane tags to articles which don't deserve any of them, he has changed british/american spellings when not called for, he has deleted parts of articles when they were fine, and he was even warned by Angela less than a month ago. His talk page is filled with complaints about his actions.

I'm not sure why he needs adminship to "edit more efficiently".

That being said, he seems dedicated and good intentioned, but I'd like to see a period of time where he uses good judgment in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I'd have no problem supporting him in a month if there were few complaints. CryptoDerk 06:36, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)