Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master of Puppets

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Master of Puppets[edit]

Final: (73/38/6) ended 18:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Master of Puppets (talk · contribs) – I'm nominating Master of Puppets for adminship. This excellent user has amassed over 3766 edits acccording to Interiot's Javascript tool. He is an active user, and looking through his contributions shows excellent user interaction and is always willing to help. MoP would certainly benefit from the mop, as he has been known to help with RC Patrol using Lupin's popups. His edits are wide and varied, and he is an active participant in RfA and AfD. All in all, he is an excellent user and a great addition to the admins. TDS email 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I very, very gratefully accept. _-M o P-_ 16:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator TDS email 16:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support have seen him around loads, seems to me he'd make a good admin └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cliché support. "I thought he was an admin already". --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Extreme support MoP deserves the mop!!! Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, of course.™ --Rory096(block) 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. More like this candidate, pleaseTM support! ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Thought he was already an admin support --Andy123(talk) 18:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom. --Tango 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to Weak Support after seeing Mackensen's comment. I'd like to see a response to it. --Tango 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per all the above, thought he was an ad... nevermind. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 19:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 19:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak support only thing holding me back here is Mackensen's comment. AndyZ t 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I'm going to have to write a standard page about good article editors and admins not necessarily being the same thing (they can be, but don't have to be). Helping out with blocking (WP:AIV), actually deleting the pages/closing most AfDs etc does need admin tools. Vandal whacking is a lot easier and more complete with admin tools. To be honest I thought you were one already as well (TM). Petros471 20:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support JoshuaZ 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  13. Strong Support Darn it, I was going to nominate this user myself :-). Master of Puppets is truly the nicest Wikipedian around and a pleasure to work with. This user can easily be trusted with admin. tools. While he may not have the highest amount of article edits he has been a great contributor, a large particapant in the community and has shown an understanding of policy. I strongly support this user's nomination.Jedi6-(need help?) 20:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support MoP is very open, very friendly on IRC and (bias alert) did an amazing job renovating my user page, full unreserved support -- Tawker 20:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support definitely deserves the full toolbox! Anger22 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Joe I 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Give him the MoP! Misza13 T C 21:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. His service to the community as a vandal-whacker will be made easier if he is an admin. Bucketsofg 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Metallica SupporT :). Oh, and in response to Srikeit, I believe it might have something to do with this. -Mysekurity [m!] 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support on WHEEELS!!! Sorry, it's just the "Master of Puppets" name that gets me! ;-) Seriously, I like MoP. I think he'll be a great admin! --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 21:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Youre not an admin already? Jonathan235 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support vandal watching without admin tools just isn't as effective --T-rex 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support - Per Jedi6. To add on, he also goes to take the extra steps of kindness with a patience. —Mirlen 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support your Master! Master!-- Strongest possible support. MOP does a great job at stopping vandals. That's why he'd be a good admin. I disagree with the "less than 1000 article space" edits oppositions: MoP has enough to show that he's understands that namespace, and he'll be even more effective vandal fighting: having 2 million constructive article edits has no bearing on whether you can deal with vandals effectively or not. I urge MoP not to withdraw. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support of course. Great user and will certainly make a great admin per above.—G.He 23:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Chop-My-Head-Off-If-He-Don't-Win Support The kid is as old as I am, and he definately breaks the mold in the quality of his edits, I give 4 thumbs up. brainybassist 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing crat. This user had less than 50 edits at the time of voting and their first edit was 8 days ago. TigerShark 23:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Admin tools are not much useful to the content of an encyclopedia. Fetofs Hello! 23:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. You have done a great job so far. DarthVader 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I've come to know this user fairly well over the past few weeks as he has been helping me out with my VandalProof project. He seems competent and trustworthy, and he seems to have very good interpersonal skills. I generally prefer more mainspace edits by admins-to-be; however, I think his number of user talkspace edits indicates that he typically takes the time to contact users before making major changes to articles, and it further shows that he is involved in the community and avoids unilateral action whenever possible. His involvement in Wikipedia projects indicate that he would be an excellent candidate to deal with AfD closings and to mediate in disputes. I really hate Metallica, but unlike the album, this Master of Puppets is on I can definitely support. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. This user is friendly and knowledgeable. Could benefit from the tools, and is not likely to abuse them. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. per EWS23. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 01:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. The low number of article and talk edits gives cause for concern but he is working on that and is willing to grow from his mistakes. I have no reason to believe that Master of Puppets would not be trustful with admin tools. I know him and he is civil, patient and friendly and those are excellent qualities in an administrator.--Dakota ~ 01:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, low mainspace edits? What? I became admin with almost exactly 1000 edits...period. Criminy. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When I were a boy... - Richardcavell 05:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support --Terence Ong 05:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per Dakota's comments. I would prefer a bit more in article namespace edits, but you do not seem likely to abuse admin powers. BryanG 05:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, I'll give it a shot. JIP | Talk 05:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support--Jusjih 07:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support--blue520 07:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I'm almost sure I've seen him around... Anyway, definete support. Jared W 11:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Support a great user who definitely should have admin rights: he would definitely not abuse them at all and would be great for fighting vandals. --Mets501talk • contribs 11:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong Support I've found MoP to be extremely civil and level-headed, and committed to Wikipedia. I'm sure he would make great use of the admin tools, and get on well with the admin tasks. -- ConDemTalk 14:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support And justice for all. Haukur 16:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support: User seems to be willing to work on his criticisms, and is a good vandal fighter. TimBentley (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support great user. The main reason he doesn't have many mainspace edits is because he he makes articles in his or other peoples userspace. ILovEPlankton 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, I have had nothing but good interactions with Master of Puppets, he has proved his maturity and adminability time and time again. -- Natalya 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, and PS, thanks for reverting vandalism on my user talk :)--Kungfu Adam (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Der Übersupport--Works well with other users (look at his talkpage), he went out of his way to help me set up my monobook.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 17:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I recall when I first saw MoP, I was RC patrolling and I had to log out. So I left a note somewhere, pointing out a suspicious username. Completely true, I wish I could find the diff. Prodego talk 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. I suppose I have to, lest I remain unforgiven forever. ... Actually, this editor happens to be a force for good in the wikipedia, and I think I trust him, at least, with the tools. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Friendly guy and vandal whacker extraordinaire. (^'-')^ Covington 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Because I do. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support found to be a very helpful editor —porges(talk) 07:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Massively Strong Support - Great designer, superb editor, always willing to help - Admin again and again.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingfisherswift (talk • contribs) -- Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Good guy. -- SonicAD (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I've seen this guy around and he has done nothing but good for Wikipedia. He deserves the mop. Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 19:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. After reading the objections and the candidate's responses thereto, I see no harassment or incivility; quite the opposite, he seems genuinely ready to address those concerns leveled. I also find the comparison to in-vote-out-and-done-with-it elections to be oddly strong-smelling oranges. I'm reasonably sure MoP won't abuse the mop (to reuse the bad pun [grin]), and that's pretty much my threshold. RadioKirk talk to me 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, Master of Puppets will make an excellent administrator. After checking his contributions, I noticed he has been reverting a lot of vandalism, which is one of the main jobs as an admin. He is also a very helpful Wikipedian and has helped me with all of my questions on Wikipedia. And yes, I thought he was already admin as well! --Evan Robidoux 01:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support a good user.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support: I have seen this user around and they have always behaved professionally. Also, I don't think the number of his edits to the main article space is a problem. --Hetar 01:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I was altogether certain I'd already expressed my support here, but I think I must have seen the signature of User:Searchme as "Joe 1" and thought that vote to have been mine. In any case, Covington, Evan, UKPaolo and Srikeit, inter al., effectively state the as well as I might, and more succinctly at that. Joe 03:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong Support Just because because MoP has a high userspace edit count doesn't mean he does not work in improving articles and to go against the people below who say his name is "too colourful, childish..." I believe a cool sig demonstrates his passion towards helping the project. GizzaChat © 08:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support No problems. Werdna648T/C\@ 19:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support a solid user. — Deckiller 00:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Cliché Support I thought he was an administrator already. Also, he's very helpful in the "War on Vandalism." Mr. Lefty 01:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Ultimate Support. He will be one of the best adminstrators in Wikipedia, because he has proved to be an excellent user. Surely you would not want to have an excellent user to miss out more chances to contribute to Wikipedia?Sjsharksrs 11:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose, not enough edits to template talk space using edit summaries that contain the letter 'R' and he has too many commas on his userpage Support, perfect attitude for the mop. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Very strong support - I've had personal contact with this user, and know him to be an examplary Wikipedian and Esperenzian. (Unfortunately, it doesnt look like this RfA is going to pass, but I will ceartinly vote support in any future RfA for Master of Puppets.) -Reuvenk[T][C] 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support A great user, really friendly, will not abuse tools. --Primate#101 03:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong Support. I think interacting with the community is just as important for an admin as editing articles. - Pureblade | Θ 17:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 17:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The following votes were added after ending time.
  72. Support, good user and a vandal-fighter who needs the mop and bucket. --Bjarki 19:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. It's 5:29 here. The ending time is nearly an hour away. Anyways, he offered to be my mentor but one had to be an admin. I'm glad he's getting RFA'd right now; he'd be a kind, compassionate admin. --Shultz IV 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the ending time is figured with UTC. We're well past the close but that doesn't matter necessarily... a 'crat will close in due time. There's no rush. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it specifically says UTC. It's nearly 2300hrs UTC now, this RfA finished 4.5hrs ago. --Tango 22:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. With less than a thousand edits in the main article space, I'm concerned about this user's purpose here. There's nothing inherently wrong with favoring community interaction over article development, but it doesn't require admin tools, nor admin-level access to deleted content. Sorry. Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment To quote Petros471, "I'm going to have to write a standard page about good article editors and admins not necessarily being the same thing (they can be, but don't have to be). Helping out with blocking (WP:AIV), actually deleting the pages/closing most AfDs etc does need admin tools. Vandal whacking is a lot easier and more complete with admin tools." TDS email 20:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment, which is a repeat of the comment above, does not address the basis of my opposition. As with Tango, I'd like for Master of Puppets himself to respond. Mackensen (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree wholeheartedly with you on this issue; however, it has been rising much more quickly during the last few days. Also, as stated before, some article work has been done in userspace and then placed into mainspace. However, I respect your opinion, and will try to raise it a lot in the next few days. _-M o P-_ 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I wonder if you might consider withdrawing and returning in a month, when you've focused on the article space. With 1500-2000 good article edits (and those summaries!) I would be hard-pressed indeed to oppose. Mackensen (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see how further response goes, and will continue to develop my article contributions number; if I feel like I should withdraw, I will do so quickly so as not to waste more time. _-M o P-_ 22:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. As Mackensen points out, MoP doesn't have a lot of main article contributions. The work you do is important for Wikipedia as a community, but I'm not convinced you need admin tools. I would also recommend that you use edit summaries more often. jaco♫plane 19:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I do use edit summaries on 100% of my edits; however, until recently I had the "Mark all edits minor" checkbox in My Preferences checked off, so all of my edits were minor. I realised the error of my ways about a week or two ago. _-M o P-_ 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad that you're now using edit summaries on 100% of your edits, but you have not done so in the past. Your explanation regarding minor edits seems rather unrelated to this in my opinion. Anyway, I'm sticking to my oppose vote. Please don't take this as an insult to your contributions, I think you've been doing great work, I just don't think you're ready for adminship. If you work on editing articles in the main namespace some more and become more active in the Wikipedia namespace I could support a future RfA. jaco♫plane 23:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Sorry, too few article and project namespace edits. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: Read my reply to Mackensen above. _-M o P-_ 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose. I am not satisfied that this user has a good understanding of policy and how to deal with disputes. About a week ago, this user decided that removing "Please review the discussion in the talk page for Michael Jackson prior to editing; the discussion of the nicknames posted at the top of the article has come to a general concensus that will leave those names present in the article" [1] was the kind of "warning message" that should be preserved at all costs and triggered a grand dispute with User:Drmagic. Master of Puppets reverted Drmagic's removal of that message from Drmagic's talk page three times before using WP:AIV to get Drmagic blocked [2]. To be clear, Drmagic has never been a vandal and was not engaged in any vandalism or other ongoing disputes except that he chose to remove those messages from his own talk page. The blocking admin eventually realized this and unblocked Drmagic with an apology [3]. Several days later, Master of Puppets comes back and taunts Drmagic about having had "some troubles" to a third party. This precipitates another a big mess bordering on harrassment. The only saving grace in all this is that MoP did eventually reconcile with Drmagic. All together though, I believe this behavior demonstrates that Master of Puppets is not ready to be given a mop. Dragons flight 21:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: Well, the first thing that I noticed was Drmagic blanking his talk page of some warnings. I saw this from a page that popped up on my watchlist with him discussing this issue with another user. However, when I reverted his talk page, he started blanking. Had he provided an edit summary or comment, that would've been better. However, it seemed like standard run-of-the-mill talk page blanking. Even after being asked to explain why, the user only stated it was "old news". I'm not blaming the user at all, however; I had not realised that blanking your talk page had become legal as of then. And the comment was not taunting, but just alerting the welcomer to the user's past, which had not been 100% resolved yet. Then, it all started up again when Drmagic blanked this comment. I acknowledge that I did not handle this exactly the way it should have been handled. However, I believe I've resolved my problems with this user. _-M o P-_ 22:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    commentAt the time, WP:V had been changed without consensus to say that blanking warnings was not vandalism. It's since been removed back the other way. While Drmagic was not wrong (because as far as he knew, he was ok to remove them), he was following an incorrect policy. Personally, I was involved with it too, and it drove me nuts till we sourced down that someone had removed that line from WP:V. MoP was just following the policy as he knew it, the policy as it remains right now. He should not be held negatively responsible over it.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if a policy stating that blanking warnings was vandalism had been etched on stone by the hand of God, how this situation played out still would have been bad. The fact remains that MoP pushed an ill chosen conflict to a poor resolution, and then came back several days later and still felt compelled to ineffectively press the issue again, to everyone's further detriment. Dragons flight 01:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Doesn't it seem awfully harsh to object to his adminship (and to encourage others to do the same) because of one mistake he may have made. I agree his actions were inappropriate; however, he is human. This conflict contradicts all of the encounters I have had with the user, and as such I assume this was one time accident, something unlikely to occur again. I feel SwatJester's remarks also to be valid, that as of yet the community generally agrees that removing warnings does go against policy and repeated user talk page blanking should result in a block; thus, MoP's actions, though misguided, were in the spirit of what the community had agreed upon. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, so that there isn't only negative evidence on this page; I have handled a few disputes that ended much more successfully (see [4], where I encouraged a troubled editor to get an account). _-M o P-_ 21:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Mackensen and Jacoplane. I would really like to see more involvement in writing the encyclopedia. And this user hasn't done enough anti-vandal work to make me think about supporting him solely on that criterion (unlike, say, CSCWEM). --Cyde Weys 21:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - the evidence from Dragons flight above is very troubling to me, and suggests a need for this user to demonstrate some more maturity before we give more buttons. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose too little experience, too many boxes. --Doc ask? 21:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Not that I oppose you or anything, but I don't see how userboxes fit into the mix. _-M o P-_ 22:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo has directly said that he finds political/belief userboxes harmful to the encyclopedia and has expressed a strong desire for users to stop using them on their own rather than having to delete them all by fiat. Continuing to use loads of these userboxes against Jimbo's advice expresses some dissent with the project's encyclopedic goals. --Cyde Weys 22:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Very well, I'll get to removing them. _-M o P-_ 23:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo expressed dissatisfaction with userboxes which create differences among groups of Wikipedian. Most of MoP's userboxes are humourous/vanity. What concerns me more is that someone would oppose an RfA on the basis of userboxes. Maybe on WP:NOT we should add that Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. TDS email 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Mackensen and Dragon's flight.--Sean Black (talk?) 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Excluding reversions and minor edits, he has relatively little involvement in the article niche of Wikipedia. He seems to be a great vandal fighter, but his role in the bullying of Drmagic is extremely concerning as well. ×Meegs 22:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too sure by what you mean when you say "Bullying". I wasn't bullying the good doctor, but instead trying to uphold what I thought at the time was valid policy. The user's lack of comment and edit summary until a good point in was also one of the factors. _-M o P-_ 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See above comment by me. Blanking user talk warnings is against policy. MoP did the right thing. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps bullying is the wrong word, but regardless of whether it is was policy (or whether he believed it was policy), the way the issue was pushed and escalated was a shame. The worst was this edit, and its needless restoration, which restarted what seemed to have been resolved. ×Meegs 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, I felt that SwatJester deserved to know about the user's past (I know it isn't really a good analogy, but does the government notify you if there is a pedofile living nearby?). I realise now that it probably wasn't the best course of action, but I was still a bit iffy on the edits before the incident. However, when the user took off my comment without saying anything, I thought it was starting again. Had Drmagic just once fought his case instead of constantly blanking his talk page, maybe things would've been different (again, I'm not saying its only his fault, but a combination of things led to the incident). _-M o P-_ 23:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, as SwatJester says, I was trying to follow policy (I hadn't yet realised it had been changed). _-M o P-_ 23:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Very little use of user talk warnings following reversion of vandalism. Reverting without warning is next to useless - the user isn't told about other outlets for their testing (i.e. the sandbox) and the warning escalation process doesn't take place, so persistent vandals don't get blocked (until somebody else provides the warnings). {{test1}} is a far more effective tool than the block button. Also the use of terminology like "vandal whacking" always makes me a bit concerned about a user's philosophy towards RC patrolling. TigerShark 22:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'm not sure how I don't warn vandals, as a good third of my usertalk contributions are warnings. Also, I don't really see how terminology affects what I do; regardless of what you call it, I'm reverting vandalism to pages. It may be a more colorful term, but it doesn't necessarily impact how I deal with vandalism. _-M o P-_ 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the terminology, I'm sorry but it just makes me nervous about a user's approach - just my opinion. With regard to how often you warn after reverting, I haven't done thorough research of your contributions but I looked back over you last 50 during which time I count 13 reverts. Of those 13 reverts I can't see a warning in these 9 cases [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13].I am not so concerned by what proportion of your user talk edits are warnings, rather the ratio of reverts to warnings. If you don't think the last 50 contributions are representative then please clarify and I will be happy to reconsider. Incidentally, could you please also clarify why you chose to perform the last revert listed using a popup (with a standard popup edit summary) and not provide further explanation to the user when it doesn't look like clear vandalism ? Thanks TigerShark 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoo, I didn't realise it was that bad... from my first reversions I've been dropping test templates. I'll be sure to restart warning vandals. And sorry for making you dig through my contributions. _-M o P-_ 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I am going to leave my vote as it is for now, but I'll keep an eye on this nomination and re-evaluate in a couple of days - when there has been more input from others. Cheers TigerShark 23:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I was reading this RFA and started looking at contribs. I did a rough count of the last 500 edits and ~335 of them were to non-IP user/user talk pages, mostly formatting and userboxes. In the same 500 edits there were ~90 vandalism reverts. He's hanging this on vandalism patrol but seems to be much busier working on user pages. If he could reverse that ratio I'd support in a heartbeat because he seems to have a good attitude. I think he needs a little more activity spread around a little more evenly. There are other issues (questioning so many oppose votes for one, and TigerShark's comments) but I think he'll be a good choice after a little more work on the encyclopedia end of things. Rx StrangeLove 00:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Dragon's flight. First, editor has too little experience in the article-space, which is the heart of the project. Second, editor admits that it was only a few weeks ago he discovered that all his edits were being marked minor. Third, the troubling evidence of Dragon's flight suggests editor cannot yet distinguish vandalism from good-faith confusion. All this indicates that, despite his good intentions, candidate needs much more experience before taking up the mop. Xoloz 00:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per all above, especially low main contribution and puzzling answer to my question. Joelito 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per low mainspace contributions, reversion of vandalism is a mainspace edit as well (and the easiest one) abakharev 03:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Although I welcome the vandla fighting, admin tasks require a deeper understanding of WP policies, experience in editing articles, and engaging fellow editors on the Wikipedia namespace. I will support down the line, once user has shown some interest in the community. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: I was just wondering, as 1/2 of my edits are to the user talk space, how much would be needed to signify interest in the community... _-M o P-_ 07:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Over concerns raised by Dragon Flight(which while I think was done in good faith, could have been more politely handled), Jaco's concern over minor edits v. major edits, Tigershark's concerns (although I see nothing wrong with term "vandal wacking"), and especially that of Rx StrangeLove which removes the main basis for my initial support. JoshuaZ 03:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Xoloz.--cj | talk 07:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per all above and yes, go right ahead and tag this with a comment =)Profundity06 09:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. The number of edits in userspace substantially exceeds the number of edits in article space. I get a feeling that the editor hasn't really fully understood the nature of Wikipedia yet. --Tony Sidaway 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Interiot's tree for Tony... Your number of edits to Wikipediaspace substantially exceeds your number of edits to articlespace, but I do not get a feeling you don't really fully understand the nature of Wikipedia yet. (disclaimer: Interiot's tree for Lar... I have more edits to userspace than to articlespace too.) You can prove a lot of things with statistics! ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell me you're kidding? Are you actually attacking Tony Sidaway's contributions? LMAO. People in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. And there is a significant difference in lots of edits in project space, which implies a familiarity with the project, and lots of edits in userspace, which implies a familiarity with MySpace. --Cyde Weys 18:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no, I wasn't kidding in what I said. However, I think you may want to re-read what I said more carefully because I don't think you got my point yet. It is also possible I didn't make it very well, so I'll try again. I point out that Tony has skew in his ratios (and yet is clearly a valuable contributor) as a way to point out that I don't think ratios are a good metric, by and of themselves, without an examination of what is behind them. MoP has given an explanation of his skew. You'll have to decide if you think it's valid or not. (or, you could just flippantly dismiss those of us with high userspace edits as MySpacers... my edits at least in part are because I work on articles in userspace before I take them live, and because I collaborate a lot with other editors, as you can see if you walk the tree on the link you and I both gave (I remind you that I gave my own "glass house" link before you did)). I'm in general interested in how "I do not get a feeling you don't really fully understand the nature of Wikipedia yet." is an "attack", because I'm not making the connection. To be explicit, focusing on counts, ratios and the like is missing the point. What is needed is to examine the contributions themselves, not the numbers. I did that examination and satisfied myself about MoP, but Tony's remarks suggested (without further elaboration about examination he carried out, which he may well have done) that perhaps he only looked at ratios and didn't drill deeper. Your mileage may vary about this editor's suitability for adminship. (After all, you and I differed about YOUR suitability, as I recall) But I would ask you to be a bit more civil and to think a bit more about what is said before you jump to conclusions. And most especially, drop the MySpace aspersion stuff please, because it just doesn't hold water with me. I was on the net before you were born, I suspect. And I'm a little tired of some people focusing so much on ratios and counts and time onwiki and so little on how and what the editor has done, and what they are likely to do in future. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was simply pointing out that you were trying to compare the ratio of userspace/article edits with the ratio of project/article edits, which are two entirely different comparisons. And Tony Sidaway also has about ten times the sheer numbers going for him too. --Cyde Weys 21:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how it came across to me at all. How it came across to me was that you were trying to suggest I was attacking Tony (dropping "LMAO" in there didn't help) and that you hadn't actually read what I said (else why would you repeat a link to my contributions that I already gave??) When faced with someone that doesn't seem to get what I am saying, my first instinct is to try to explain more carefully. Sorry if that gives offense. I note you didn't address any of my concerns with your comments either. ++Lar: t/c 00:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Doesn't meet my admin standards. Also, I'm biased against disruptively formatted signatures. Also, some concerns about civility. Also, the number of comments on people's oppose votes seems to be bordering on harassment of opposition voters. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 15:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm replying to oppose voters to see what people think. Believe me, harrassment is the worst thing I could do in this situation. _-M o P-_ 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I might suggest that you reply on their talk pages, as questioning on the RfA can be intended as, and interpretted as, an attempt to influence how the oppose votes are evaluated by others—something that should be done sparingly. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. The comments above and his general conduct suggest to me that Master of Puppets hasn't sufficiently absorbed Wikipedia values. --Michael Snow 17:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Sorry, but your contributions appear very fluffy and insubstantial to me. I want admins to have a deep keel in the issues of article space encyclopedia editing. silsor 17:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Mackensen and Dragon's flight. –Joke 19:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. An "I'm Sorry" Oppose Because you told me that you would wait until July or around that time to run for adminship. Moe ε 22:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - owing to the candidate's argumentation with the oppose votes, which could be seen as trying to intimidate or pressure the opponents. - Richardcavell 00:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really trying to intimidate or pressure anyone. If somebody presents a case that only documents one side, shouldn't that allow me to present my argument? I don't believe I should just sit back and do nothing. _-M o P-_ 00:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If this were a 'proper' election, it would be profoundly evil for you to examine votes and argue with voters at the ballot box. I don't see how this is any different. I do feel as though you are pressuring me, because you and others who read this might count this oppose vote against me in future, and it seems that you do not accept my right to oppose. Changed to Strongly Oppose. - Richardcavell 01:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment RfAs are not straight votes, letting users respond and explain/justify their actions seems reasonable. This is after all, an attempt to determine whether the candidates will make a good admin. As long as the candidate is essentially civil, I see no problem with this sort of behavior, and find it to be a strange reason to oppose. JoshuaZ 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Master of Puppets is a good user, appears to be polite, and is active reverting vandalism. However, I do not believe he is yet ready to be an administrator. Among and in addition to the above comments, several matters strike me. I prefer editors who talk first and block later; an administrator should familiarize himself with the details of the situation, and if necessary, should err on the side of discussion. The only experience I can recall with this editor occurred when I objected to an administrator about a user he had blocked unfairly, in my opinion. MoP saw this and left messages on my talk page defending the block, for what I consider very dubious reasons. The arguing with oppose votes here is quite concerning, especially that the user has continued this behavior despite several warnings. Finally, a minor point: I consider the user's signature problematic; the very small size of the talk page link combined with the nonstandard pointer style make communication with this user a bit irksome for me. I think Master of Puppets could make a good administrator in the future, if the opposition points here are addressed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I am not arguing with oppose votes; I am merely stating both sides of the story (this is written a few lines up, I believe). If people want to vote oppose, saying "No, don't" won't help. I'm just trying to present both sides. Also, I've found a solution to the small signature problem. _-M o P-_ 05:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it inexplicable that you persist in this behavior despite the considerable criticism to it above and despite the considerable damage it is doing to your request. This lack of consideration for the opinion of others and the lack of behavior change in response to criticism is troubling and further damages your credibility as a candidate for administrator, in my opinion. The next time you run for the position of administrator, consider responding to criticism with a polite note on the user's talk page or in a comment below, not connect to anyone's vote. Perhaps keep an eye on RFA for awhile to see how others handle this. Unfortunately, there has been no improvement in your signature for me; the amount of area in which one can click to access your talk page is quite small, and having the nonstandard is confusing at best. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose due to lack of main and Wikipedia space edits, particularly Wikipedia space, without which your policy knowledge is called into question. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per numerous reasons above. Alphax τεχ 15:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose due to evidence of poor conflict management, inappropriate signature. Do not feel comfortable extending admin trust to this person. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose, not enough projectspace edits. Royboycrashfan 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, the candidate says on this page that they've been creating articles in user space, hence the high number of user space edits. I checked the move log [14] and couldn't find any user space to main space moves. There's an obvious discrepancy here. Kimchi.sg | talk 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Changed back to neutral. Kimchi.sg | talk 23:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. MOP has great potential as a vandal fighter, but it's too early. Vandal fighters tend to have alot of edits. So 700 in the main namespace in basically 2 months of full time work on the site is very low. Come back in a couple of months. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Per Mackensen, Dragon's Flight, Sean Black, Meegs, Tony Sidaway, Michael Snow, Silsor, and Kelly Martin, all of whom cover points I agree with completely. Rob Church (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose per above. Too many issues at this time. --kingboyk 07:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong opposition. Several users have cited troubling evidence, and I would have opposed the nomination on this basis alone. Some of Master of Puppets' comments here are even more troubling. He compared page-blankers with pedophiles (despite realizing that "it isn't really a good analogy"), and that certainly isn't indicative of the level of tact that I expect from an admin. Several users criticised him for arguing with so many opponents, and he responded to these new opponents by arguing that this was untrue! His answers to some of the questions are unimpressive, and I'm stunned by his belief that 64% support for his RfA (as of the time of his comment) constitutes "a close call." This (along with other comments) leads me to believe that his grasp of Wikipedia policy is insufficient. —David Levy 18:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Absolutely not. Worries from above users, combined with this user's hideous signature (yes, I know he changed it; it's still hideous) lead me to oppose. If you need to express yourself with custom cursors and other features that take up three or more lines in an editing window, you're not mature enough to be an admin. Ral315 (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, signature is one of many reasons I'm opposing- there's too much evidence against adminship. Ral315 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose per all the above. While there may be a time for adminship, I simply feel that now is not the time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose I'm really sorry too oppose, but I feel the number of his edits in the main space is too low. Gain experience, and return in a couple of months. --Aldux 13:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The following votes were added after ending time.
  38. Oppose per Dragons flight comments and MOP response. --Dragon's Blood 19:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, this user knows how to interact with people going by his large number of user talk edits, but low number of main namespace edits and the Drmagic incident deter me just this little >< from voting support. Kimchi.sg | talk 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Changed to oppose, considering the discrepancy between what the candidate says about his user space article creation activity and the move log. Kimchi.sg | talk 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Regarding article creation, I've been informed that the user makes copy and paste moves. Kimchi.sg | talk 23:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Low edit count in mainspace, among others. -- MarcoTolo 00:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I've interacted with MoP a little, and I feel obligated to say something here. I think some of the oppose reasons in this RfA are not very good reasons to oppose, so I'm tempted to "cancel them out" with a support. However, I don't think MoP is quite ready for adminship. Regardless of my opinion, it looks as though this RfA will most likely not succeed. I certainly hope MoP will use the criticism received here constructively. With more experience, he could stand a better chance for promotion in the future. --TantalumTelluride 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I suspect MoP would do OK with the mop, but there are sufficient concerns raised in opposition that I don't feel I can support at the moment. —Whouk (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - More main namespace!! You edit well! Take interest in an article and go nuts in improving it. After some main contribs, come back, and I'm sure you'll get the power tools! -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - I admire this editor's vandal fighting and commitment to other administrative tasks, but would like to see a little more participation in the improvement of articles. As such I cannot go either way. --Knucmo2 00:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Total edits 4205
Distinct pages edited 1603
Average edits/page 2.623
First edit 04:30, 12 November 2005

(main) 864
Talk 97
User 925
User talk 1944
Image 63
Template 4
Help 1
Wikipedia 296
Wikipedia talk 11

  • Comment - how can this RfA end on 1st May? There seems to be some error here... Incorrect date in addition to dual ending times? I'm confused. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Problem fixed. Thus the strikethrough. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The low contrast between the text and background in your signature (which makes it a little hard to read) may be grounds for opposes. Kimchi.sg | talk 00:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed trolling vote of Profundity06. I'm not obliging his trolling further by "tagging it with a remark" next to it. Kimchi.sg | talk 09:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Vote has been put back by another editor. Kimchi.sg | talk 14:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put the vote back not knowing of the user's history. The closing bureaucrat can decide if he/she keeps or disregards the vote. Joelito 14:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His latest comments on WT:RFA are hardly trollish, so I don't think there's a reason to keep it removed. Kimchi.sg | talk 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, are you allowed to post additional voting rules? I mean, someone could just as easily just say, "Don't vote unless you support me!" Jared W 11:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a long-standing tradition of discounting votes from new users–not just here, but also at Afd, DRV, etc. Mackensen (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just wanted to lay out some conflicts that went over well, so that at least I don't go out looking like a rude punk. In that one conflict, I agree I probably should've left it to older, wiser people. However; (see [15] and the subsequent IP talk page), User talk:Fame live4ever, Talk:Christina Ritter. I have also helped a few users with their problems ([16] [17]).

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: As my current main activity is mostly vandal-whacking, I would probably look for pages listed for speedy deletion (I plan on patrolling the New Pages section extensively), WP:AFD (to see if anything needs to be closed) and just general vandal patrol to see if there are any prowlers on the loose. If awarded with the appropriate tools, I anticipate a fair amount of activity at WP:AIV as well.
I plan to continue contributing to any article I can improve. One thing that I've never really seen as ok was NPOV disputes; as such, I look forward to neutralising such disputes either by de-POVing the article myself, or working with others to achieve the best possible thing. Also, I believe I could do extensive work on the articles to be merged/split/etc. section.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm most happy about my (general) rounded nature on Wikipedia; I help out on articles with typos and grammar, patrol for vandalism and try to make others happy as well; I have successfully come to peaceful resolutions about problems with other editors, and am even friends with said editors now. My main body of article contributions would be to the Guild Wars articles, reverting vandalism and some stuff for Wikiproject Star Wars.
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 been in some conflicts with users, but I have not yet been stressed, and plan not to be. Mankind was given intelligent speech for a reason, to sort out conflicts through peace, not war. Mainly, I look at the problem from the other party's side and try to see if I am at fault; I also try to negotiate a compromise and ensure a calm atmosphe

Additional question by Srikeit

Q: Why the username "Master of Puppets"? (hope it doesn't refer to sockpuppets!)
A: Well, that is a good question. As you've probably noticed by now, I'm a very big fan of music, and more specifically, rock/heavy metal. Master of Puppets is just one of my very, very favorite albums; one of best ever, in fact. Master of Puppets (album) has a theme running through it featuring being controlled by a specific thing (i.e. anger, mental illness, a cult; read more on the Master of Puppets page), while Master of Puppets (song) in specific refers to the idea of drugs being your master. As per my strong opposition to harmful substances, I chose this name in a kind of way to remind myself that no matter how many people say it's cool, I'm not going to.

Additional question by Joelr31'

Q: Why do you have such a large number of edits (872/3773 23%) in the user space?
Comment Er Joel, did you look at his answers to questions 2 and 3? He has spent a lot of time dealing with vandalism. So he has given many vandalism warnings. JoshuaZ 20:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be user talk edits, I am wondering about user edits. Joelito 20:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Never mind then. JoshuaZ 21:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find the extreme amount of edits to user namespace a bit odd. You can see all the edits to user here: [18]. There are at least 500 edits to this namespace in the last month and a bit. DarthVader 09:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A I, too, am curious, but I think I know why; when I was new, I was a bit too eager with my userspace, and created a lot of subpages; however, this only accounts for about 100 edits. I believe the rest are renovations, vandal reversions, and I can think of an article or two I wrote in my userspace before releasing to the mainspace. With these combined, that shaves maybe 200 or so userspace edits off of that number.

Additional question by TDS

Q: As nominator, I have recommend you withdraw your RfA several times. I'm sure this is on others' minds as well - why have you not withdrawn your RfA?
A: As nominee, I have decided to draw as much constructive criticism as possible out of this experience; secondly, the RfA looks like it will be a close call. Thirdly (?), some people have suggested I withdraw, but some have told me not to, as well. As stated previously, I'd like to see what others think; I've already started addressing the edit count problem, and the other main incident (the Drmagic conflict), though a bit messy, has passed, resolved, and figured out (I also provided some other examples of conflicts which DID go over well). If I get a large sense that people wish me to withdraw, I shall, but for now I'd like to see what comes out of this whole experience.


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/Master_of_Puppets&oldid=1200000186"