Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master of Puppets 2

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

Master of Puppets[edit]

Final (148/1/5); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Puppets (talk · contribs) - It's my pleasure to nominate Master of Puppets for adminship. He has been a valued member of our community since November 2005, and has made almost 13000 edits. He had a no-consensus RfA in May 2006, and I think he has improved considerably since (and it has been more than the arbitary 3 months, I think, just about). He has done a lot of article work (something which was the cause of his last RfA not passing), including work on Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, Guild Wars (series), John McIntyre (blogger), Tutankhamun, Keith Rosenkranz, and many others - while he may not stick with one article, he is regularly improving articles on various topics by adding references, copyediting and of course adding new material. Of course, he works in admin areas too: he regularly helps out users on the help desk, participates in Articles for deletion, and does regular RC patrol. I can imagine he would find the block button useful for that, and while he sometimes closes AfDs according to the procedure that non-admins can, he has proven himself excellent at showing good judgement in this, and other areas - he can of course be trusted to use the delete button sensibly. In summary, this user will be a great admin: he's very active, very helpful, has clue and is a genuinely nice person too. Majorly (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination - I’d like to offer a co-nom for MoP. From my interaction with him, I’ve found him to be extremely helpful here, a regular on the help desk, he tries wherever possible sort problems out for others. MoP does a lot of wikignome tasks such as adding references and formatting articles, helping to increase our credibility. He’s made some great content contributions to articles such as Guild Wars (series) and a Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War: Dark Crusade (yup, unfortunately it looks as if he’s a bit of a games fan!). I’ve always found his AIV contributions to be accurate, always giving users a chance to change their ways before being blocked. His 124 contributions there show he has a sound knowledge of when to, and when not to block. He’s also active in many community discussions, and I always appreciate his thoughtful comments where he shows his firm understanding of policy. A look at his deleted contributions show he’s tagged numerous pages for speedy deletion, showing a great knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria – he’d be a great help at CAT:CSD. All in all, a great user who has shown he is a dedicated member of the project, and his sound knowledge of policy will make him an excellent administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 16:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'd like to make sure I do my part to keep backlogs down and to a minimum. I'm a regular at WP:AIV and WP:UAA, so I would continue work there; I'd like to become more active in WP:RFPP and WP:AN3. I'd also like to participate in deletion debates at WP:XFD, especially the articles for deletion process and miscellany for deletion process. I'd also be happy to keep an eye out at WP:AN and subpages in case any assistance is needed; I'll also keep tabs on WP:RFC and comment there whenever I can. Finally, I'd regularly check for speedied articles, and after verifying the speedy, act on them.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've done a bit on Wikipedia, but I like to think that my best contributions have been to WP:AFD. I'm proudest of my work on WETF, Keith Rosenkranz, John McIntyre (blogger), and Joe Foglia, which I helped improve after they were nominated for deletion. In terms of regular article work, I've worked on quite a few; notably Winnipeg Police Service, Tonicity, BirdNote and Dark Crusade. I'd like to keep contributing to articles even if I do become an administrator, because that's the main reason I'm here, after all.
I've also spent a lot of time at the help desk and new contributor's help page, and would like to continue doing this if I become an admin. Aside from that I patrol #wikipedia-en-help on IRC, and try to help any users I can. I also have four great adoptees, three of who are active on the 'pedia.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: So far I have not once been stressed by conflict; personally, I think that all stress does is cause tension between editors that gets in the way of communication and therefore betterment of the encyclopedia. I've been in a conflict here or there, though; the incident that jumps to mind is my interaction with user User:Bruce1333, which ended up with a RFC here. While I'm sad that the user didn't want to cooperate, I think I acted appropriately and handled it well.

Question by Zenwhat

4. You are facing a troll who is pushing views you disagree with and subtly violating policy. What would you do?
  • A) Warn the troll immediately and, if they continue, block them.
  • B) Send a message to Ryan Postlethwaite off-wiki, asking him to deal with it.
  • C) Create an alternate account, warn the troll immediately and block them with your main account if they continue.
  • D) Try to be nice to the troll, invite them to WP:TEA, and see if you can help them understand the merit behind Wikipedia policy.
  • E) Other (please explain in detail) ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: F) I walk north west. A Grue eats me.
Just kidding. In all seriousness, I'd go for D; I'm always courteous to users, and will never retaliate to name calling with more name calling. One doesn't fight fire with fire. This is how I've acted in the past and I'm never going to change that. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Whitstable

5. I assume your username is influenced by the Metallica album of the same name. However, it is possible that it may confuse users and suggest you are in control of sockpuppets. Would would consider changing your name if your RFA is successful? Whitstable 20:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: You're correct to assume that it refers to Metallica. However, in my history of editing I've only seen one person get confused and accuse me of being a puppeteer, so I don't think it is that big of a concern. For now, I'd like to keep the name.
Seems good, just was concerned it may have caused confusion, but if only one then fair enough! Whitstable 20:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see "master of puppets" to mean someone who is a master at defending the wiki against the puppets. I would recommend a simple paragraph on your userpage explaining your name's origin. No big deal, just a quick statement. I ran into similar concerns as a participant in AfD and other deletion circles. With a name like Keeper, I needed a disclaimer (and now have one in my signature) Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thehelpfulone

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block? --The Helpful One 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen and from what I understand, blocks are technical restrictions on editing which prevent a user from editing the project (to prevent an edit war, vandalism, or activities related to disrupting the encyclopedia), and is usually a temporary method to force a user to cool off, though it may be indefinite in the case of determined vandals.
A ban, on the other hand, is not software-enforced, but rather a decision made by the community or certain parties (ARBCOM, Jimbo, the foundation) that decrees the user stay away from a certain editing space on the encyclopedia. As this can't be enforced by software, the user has to comply with the ruling for the time the ban is in effect.
7. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not? --The Helpful One 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Personally I don't think that the category is necessary; an administrator is chosen by the community, so I don't think it is the administrator's choice if the community decides to recall them. After all, I respect consensus and my fellow editors, and would gladly recall regardless of what categories I'm in. I'd add myself to the category purely for sorting purposes, though, so that users can feel free to suggest it may the need arise.
8. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any? --The Helpful One 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: A user would have to have a good recent (past month or two) history, and as long as I see they are not prone to rash actions (such as edit warring), I would grant rollback. If rollback was used to do something like edit war, I would remove it. The reason I would only consider recent history is because people change; if a user has been blocked in the past or edit warred in the past, they still may have learned from their mistakes and become great contributors.

Question by DarkFalls

9. What is your understanding of the non-free image criteria, and how will you enforce it in articles? Templates? Portals?
A: Any image that is not free-use should not be used on Wikipedia, with the exception of fair-use images with strong rationale arguing their use. If I encounter any images that are not free-use; for example, don't allow derivatives; I'd discuss it with the uploader. If I could not resolve the issue there, I would go on to remove all instances of the image (if a replacement is necessary, I'd submit a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures or search for a free replacement myself), tag the image, and submit it to the appropriate deletion process. I haven't dealt with portals, but it is my understanding that image copyright applies the same there as it does on the rest of the encyclopedia.

Question by Dustihowe

10. Would you ever undo or revert another Admin's actions?
A: Of course. As we've all heard many times, adminship isn't a big deal; being an administrator doesn't create an impenetrable covering around a user, shielding them from all criticism and mistake. Admins are just as prone to slipping up as everyone else is (of course, they're a bit more experienced but they're still human). So yes, if I felt another administrator had acted wrongly, I would inform them of my opinion, and if necessary, undo. The two situations where I wouldn't do this would be if I was personally involved in the issue; to avoid creating a WP:COI, I'd seek outside opinion. Also, if the actions were the result of a decision made by ARBCOM/an official decree, I would respect this.

Question by Archtransit These are not meant to be trick questions or to attack you. They are just questions that come to mind and could be asked to anyone.Archtransit (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11. About question 10, what would you do if you think the administrator is unreasonable and/or wrong? Just undo it as you answered?
'A: It depends on the situation; if an administrator has done something that could potentially cause a lot of harm if left alone, and I feel their rationale is not sufficient (of course, they also may have made a mistake), I will quickly undo it and notify them of my reversion. If it is more controversial; for example, a user has been blocked because of simple miscommunication; I would communicate with the responsible administrator and see if we can reach a compromise. My main goal would be to know the facts from both sides and form my conclusion from that; after all, both sides can potentially be right or wrong, so I would not favour the administrator automatically.
12. About question 11, what would you do if the administrator did not disagree but offered to leave it to your judgement? Would you then undo the action?
A: All I would ask is for them to tell me the reasoning behind their actions. After consulting with the other affected parties, if any, I would act on my resulting opinion, which may involve undoing the action.
13. Is it possible that you will do administrative work other than the areas that you listed in question 1?
A: Of course! I'm always looking to expand to new areas. I'd like to do some work at WP:Requested moves, for example, and anything else that I could help with.
14. Have you considered changing your name since it may be interpreted as support of sockpuppetry? (Or it may not be interpreted as such!).
A: Yes, I have. So far, however, very few people have been misled by it, so I don't think a name change is necessary.

Question by Razorflame

15. If you were to achieve the rank of administrator, would you make good use of the tools? Would you actually use the tools? Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but it is in fact a very serious question.
A: In terms of how I would use the tools, I would take every stride possible to make sure that I used them in a fair, just manner that represents the best interests of the encyclopedia and helps me improve and contribute however I can. This would include page protection, moves, fighting vandalism, and more. In terms of using the tools, I won't devote 100% of my time to admin duties; after all, article contributions should remain a focus. However, I'll help out everywhere I can.
16. If you were to gain the rank of administrator, would you stay active?
A: As active as I've been in the past few months; this may fluctuate minorly due to high school, but I'll be certain to be readily available.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Master of Puppets before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • I, after reviewing the bottom discussion, feel that the user should wait until post graduation or summer to request Adminship. Becoming an Admin is a lot of responsibility and school should come first. Happy Editing, Dustitalk 17:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you aren't entitled to your opinion, but once he's done with school, he may go to another school. Presumably after that, he'll have a job and work many hours a week at that (and during the summer too, most likely). Adminship on a voluntary encyclopedia is a "janitor job" and no different than someone editing when and where time permits, only with different buttons at the top. You are right, school should come first. So should work and families and everything else that every other admin (and editor) has. Being an admin is only a "lot of responsibility" when he's on wiki and what he does/doesn't do in his private RL is irrelevant. Keeper | 76 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on keeping a job and am already scouting universities to see where I'll apply, so as Keeper says, I'd have to wait a decade more. And as much as I love Wikipedia, I can't devote all my time to it. I guarantee that I will be an active administrator, if that offers any comfort. Hope that makes sense. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Majorly (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - can't see any problems here. Black Kite 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: I've interacted with this user a number of times, and have no problems with his demeanor or judgment. Will make a good sysop. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely! Snowolf How can I help? 16:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I don't like that big gap in editing, but that can't be changed and he's logged over 1000 edits the last three months. He has tons of experience. Some people may get the wrong idea regarding sockpuppets when they see his name, but whenever I see his name, though, I think of the Pastor of Muppets. Useight (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. You're NOT an admin???!!! EJF (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support yepp, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support--Antonio Lopez (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support, excellent candidate with thorough grasp of policy. A very thoughtful, helpful and responsible adopter, also. :) @pple complain 17:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support - Uhh, yeah, I so didn't realize MOP wasn't already an admin...*twiddle* Gromlakh (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - will be fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support Was going to nominate him myself. Will make a great administrator. Very kind and has helped me out a lot. Earthbendingmaster 18:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support MOP deserves the MOP. Great user seem him everywhere, very trustworthy. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support - I'm getting annoyed with you answering questions before me at the help desk - so maybe the tools will keep you a little more preoccupied? ;-) - This user will make an excellent admin; he is kind, polite and dedicated. He will no doubt offer the same level of care and interest to his admin obligations as he does elsewhere. MoP is also great at noticing my mistakes! :-D - Definitely needs/deserves the tools. ScarianCall me Pat 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Very knowledgeable about policy, as shown at WP:UAA and WP:AIV, and helpful at the help desk. My only quibble is with flagging edits as minor edits when they aren't, but I'm not going to make that a big deal. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Edit-conflicted support - An excellent candidate, who's fine qualities are reflected in his outstanding contributions to the project. No reason why MOP can't get one. Rudget. 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Twice edit-conflicted Support I thought you were an admin! WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support. About a month ago I considered noming, but had never done so, and I didn't want to hurt the user. At any rate, I wanted to do because there are few non-admins that would put the tools to better use than Master of Puppets. SorryGuy  Talk  19:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my talk page: Just to clarify the above, I meant I did not want to offer a nomination as I feel that someone with more experience doing so is more likely to give a good nomination. SorryGuy  Talk  19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support You have lots of contributions in most areas of Wikipedia. Polly (Parrot) 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per answer to my question in neutral section. Timmeh! 20:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Uh, thought you were one. Give M.O.P. the mop...hah! :) Jmlk17 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I have no concerns that this editor would abuse the tools Whitstable 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - no reason to oppose that I can see. And has a great name. Socko (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - The questions are just general... I will still support you, those questions are just a check up ;) :) --The Helpful One 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - per answers and superb edits. Will put the tools to good use. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Long overdue Keegantalk 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Excellent work on the wiki. Also, I like your honest answer to the admin recall question. Sometimes it's hard for me to believe that nearly every single admin candidate actually supports the idea and isn't just trying to conform. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. bibliomaniac15 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's pulling my strings, I must obey my master. Rudie M. (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck out vote from account that was barely a day old at the time, and recently discovered to be a sockpuppet of a banned user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Under 100 edits to the Portal talk namespace.
    Kidding, of course. Give MoP the mop. :-) Great editor, clearly trustworthy. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support You're one of the few I support. Bstone (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Cliche'd I-already-thought-he-was-one support - Revolving Bugbear 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Yup. :) Midorihana~iidesune? 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Give MoP the MoP NHRHS2010 23:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Seen MoP around WP:ANI, where his contributions are knowledgeable and worthy. No qualms. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Per Majorly. Pedro :  Chat  00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Interactions with this user have been more than positive, will not abuse the tools. Give em' the mop. Tiptoety talk 00:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - looks like a responsible user from his contribs. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Seems like a good user, per majorly. SpencerT♦C 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support excellent contributor. Have fun with the mop :-). But not too much fun. Pumpmeup 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support No problems here. --Hdt83 Chat 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Based on what I've seen while patrolling recent edits, I have no problem with is fellow--Pewwer42  Talk  02:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I've been through his deleted taggings, and, I'm Dlohcierekim Deleted?, and I approve this message. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Levelheaded, takes criticism well, willing to adjust, civil. Most important qualities in an admin. --12 Noon 2¢ 03:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I think that MoP will make an excellent admin! It’s about time, too. —Travistalk 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I thought I'd never say this again at an RFA, but...I thought he already was an admin. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Looks good to me! GlassCobra 04:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Why didn't this happen sooner? Grandmasterka 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, good answers - just be more careful of the Grue. Dreadstar † 06:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Absolutely - I was going to make an obvious pun, but Milk's Favorite Cookie beat me to it.... --jonny-mt 08:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support. Giving mopper the mop will, in my opinion, greatly benefit Wikipedia. Astral (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per WP:AGF / WP:DEAL Triona (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. IRC troll. Auto-oppose. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. I've seen this user around and they know what they're doing and what they're talking about. 1ForTheMoney (talk)
  58. Has clue. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - of the "I thought he was one already" variety. gb (t, c) 13:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Yes! Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Weak Support - Unless you write a Featured Template as Gurch suggested, this will remain a weak support ...--Cometstyles 13:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I don't think that a featured article is necessary. I've noticed this user in many places (AfD, NewPages, etc...) and I fully agree with him becoming an admin. He's one of the best candidates for the time.Undeath (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support How can I not support designer of my userpage? Great contributions, no concerns. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support impressive progress since the last voting - and he is a good editor anyway. Pundit|utter 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Call him MoP! Yep, Keeper | 76 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Done impresssive progress since last RFA.good track no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support and jumps on the party wagon OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, although a Featured Template would make MoP shine even more than he already does. ;) · AndonicO Hail! 18:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I've seen this guy around. He's good. :< GracenotesT § 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Good editor and I think he will be trustworthy.--Ѕandahl 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. —C'est moi Parlez 19:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Someone sent me several of his AfDs over the last few weeks. A couple were ridiculous, but his acknowledgment above of how he acted inappropriately in the past is humble and his AfDs are reasonable enough. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Having reviewed MoP's contributions, and following general review of his presence on the project, it is clear that he is trustworthy to a sufficient degree as to be granted the administrator tools. At a push, I do sense some "ramping up" in that typical pre-RfA style we often see, but it's not overly worrying: if anything, it just highlights the candidate's dedication to the project ;) Additionally, Master's experience and contributions with administrator-related areas brings added confidence, and I am pleased to offer my support for his candidacy. Anthøny 21:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - no problem by me. - Philippe | Talk 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, no question. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. the_undertow talk 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Almost a mop guy. Slade (TheJoker) 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. "Wait-what?" support You mean MoP doesn't already have a Mop? Fix that! — Coren (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support a good candidate --Stephen 00:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support what's not to like with this helpful, active editor? BencherliteTalk 02:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Cute username, but you have the skills required. MBisanz talk 03:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support I believe this guy has a diplomatic, tactful, and overall friendly personality. I'd feel peaceful having him around as admin, not oppressed nor fearful. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. I have found this user to be knowledgeable, helpful, and diplomatic, an all-around great Wikipedian who uses good judgment in dealing with trouble makers and clearly has good use for the tools. Doczilla (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support all the best. Khukri 09:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Although this won't do much good for anyone's sake if the "MoP has mop" jokes continue ;) Spebi 09:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support very active user which will helps a lot with the tools. Good luck Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 11:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - not much more that hasn't already been said. Keilana|Parlez ici 13:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Looks like this user will make another good one. нмŵוτнτ 16:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Pile on support, a trustworthy editor. King of the NorthEast 17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. — CharlotteWebb 17:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Excellent user and excellent nominators. Acalamari 17:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Excellent experience with this editor, about time to remove that "non-admin close" tag from his work at AfD. Xymmax (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. I don't usually pile on obvious shoe-ins, but hopefully this might get to WP:100 if a few more of us do. Also, wanted to voice appreciation of Gurch's excellent neutral. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. This will hit WP:100. Best candidate in a long time. Mistery account (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC) — Mistery account (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  96. Very Strong Support. Are you kidding? Who would say no? Basketball110 Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Paul? 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Well qualified and good natured. You'd be mad not to.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 01:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Strong support. Nice fellow with excellent judgment and plenty of experience. In my view the answers are just about impeccable. He also gave me a very kind review some time ago. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support There is no reason to oppose him. And, his user name is cool. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. Fantastic contributor, will use the tools nicely, and very good answers to questions. Has come a long way as a contributor. Congratulations on reaching WP:100 as well. haz (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Tarragon Support Great and venerable editor - best of luck my friend! Dfrg_msc 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support, from part of the "Hey, weren't you one already?" gang. Seriously, MoP seems like part of the furniture here. — alex.muller (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support, assuming of course he's not in fact a master of puppets. :) krimpet✽ 14:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - has done a great job at WP:UAA and WP:AFD, even when we disagree, and meets all my standards. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - --Bhadani (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Weak Support. I wish you the best of luck, and keep your grades up! Happy Editing, Dustitalk 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, don't think he'll go crazy and block me. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - I actually thought he was an admin. The contributions he makes certainly befit an admin candidate (lots of vandal-fighting, like myself). Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 21:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - Will be a great addition to the admin cabal team. Lara❤Love 23:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - It's been too long. TDS | talk —Preceding comment was added at 00:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support but ask candidate to be very cautious not to undo other admins' actions without discussion. Use AN if their are disputes.--Docg 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. You're not already an admin?- Support A great user who should have gotten the mop ages ago. --Sharkface217 04:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - Excellent track record all around. Will make an outstanding administrator. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Easy, easy, easy support per nom. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. net positive to 'pedia. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. I assume you're not actually a master of sockpuppets... Stifle (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Strong Support - "I thought you were one already..." - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support per WP:SNOW - let's just admin the guy already. 100+ votes and we can't just throw it at him? ♠PMC♠ 16:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support - user will not abuse tools. SexySeaShark 17:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - will be a great admin and can be trusted with the tools. --BelovedFreak 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support I thought I voted days ago! Obviously I was wrong. Great user in every respect. κaτaʟavenoTC 21:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Secret account 22:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - Most definitely. Cheers, LAX 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support - thought you were already an admin. You need the mop.   jj137 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - Oh please... that's like asking whether or not I support sugar in my ice cream. Trusilver 00:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Strong Support - Absolutely No Problems. I actually thought he was an Admin (hehe). Has been of great help and is always polite. PookeyMaster (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support No indications he will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Of course Royalbroil 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. User would do well with more powers/really should have been granted some time ago. Lambton T/C 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. I don't see any reason why not. :)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Congratulatory Support Now it's apparent candidate will get community endorsement for tools, Best Wishes, and use the bit wisely. BusterD (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Good editor, great personality. — NovaDog — (contribs) 03:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. — DarkFalls talk 08:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Can not find anything against him!! :) Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 08:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support --NAHID 09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support, though I am required to bring up that this user is obviously an impersonator of the account that pre-dates him, MasterOfPuppets. And I must say I told you so about the RfA as well. :) Prodego talk 16:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support for answers that reveal an understanding of what adminship entails, a good contributions history, and a good AIV and AFD participation history (in terms of quantity/accuracy of reports and quality of comments, respectively). – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support — Zerida 21:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Strong support Good editor, and I think that he will make a great sysop. Macy's123 (review me) 22:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support --Wexcan  Talk  23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support He seems to be a good editor, This user should have been an admin long time ago. I think he will do well as an admin. --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support - you mean he's not an admin already? +sj + 06:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Sure. King Lopez Contribs 07:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Of course. Harland1 (t/c) 10:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support the editor. (I'm not so sure about the username given the community's sensitivity to sockpuppets -- please consider changing) --A. B. (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose. His answer to my question was inappropriate. The "constructive edits" seem have been largely fancruft. His co-nominee, Ryan Postlethwaite, asked me about a previous account of mine without telling me exactly why he was asking. [1] That's sort of a red flag for "fishing with RFCU." And finally, his contrubtions to AfD and CSD are touted, but we have absolutely no idea of knowing if that's true, since Special:DeletedContributions/Master of Puppets is only visible by administrators. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Vote changed. See above.[reply]
Sorry, I should have made it clear my reasons for asking you about your previous accounts - when you joined the project, you have had an amazing knowledge of some serious disputes here, many from when you weren't registered. Secondally, many of your edits have been provocative in nature, and touched nerves in some long lasting disputes here - something which I believed was because of a previous account. New users don't walk into the disputes you've walked into. But then again, there's a time and a place for me discussing my motives, and this RfA isn't it.... Ryan Postlethwaite 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, I can vouch for the fact that he has many hundreds of good CSD taggings in his deleted contributions. As far as AfD is concerned, you can see those contributions since AfD discussions are not deleted. Whatever you think about his co-nominator is irrelevant here, which should be a discussion of this candidate, not who nominated him. Will (aka Wimt) 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything or any way I can help explain things in order to straighten out any confusion you may have? Bstone (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying that, Ryan. Batone: It is doubtful. Deletionism and Inclusionism are like yin and yang. Deletionism, the force of good, inclusionism the force of evil. Or do I have that backwards? In any case, our philosophies are about ten million miles apart and what you may refer to as "confusion" is in fact the truth. See User:Zenwhat/The diamond essay. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a question I'd like to know, though: Could I somehow see a list of all the AfD discussions he's been in? If he's regularly deleted cruft, then yes, I'd change my vote. If he's engaged in AfD debates, though, where he's said "keep its interesting" or something along those lines, then I could never support him. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't participated in this discussion above, but please note that his contributions to AFD and MFD are available in his contribution history: Special:Contributions/Master of Puppets. Although the articles are sometimes deleted, the discussions themselves are retained. In general, I find that rhetoric pitting "deletionists" against "inclusionists" to be unhelpful -- suggesting that one side is evil is perhaps especially unhelpful. --JayHenry (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay: Finding and listing every AfD would be tedious work. Something he should do, not me, if he wants my vote. The concepts of "deletionism" and "inclusionism" are both absurd, as are the concepts of "immediatism" and "eventualism." In both cases, it draws away from the most rational course-of-action: Building an encyclopedia as quickly and effectively as you can. This can involve deleting or it can involve including. It can involve immediate action (including ignore the rules) or it can involve patience. I use the "deletionist" rhetoric, because that is all that Wikipedians seem to understand. I am, after all, obviously not an inclusionist. I see cruft of everywhere and want it all eliminated. So, what am I? I am a deletionist. But there is no such thing!

Both inclusionism and deletionism are evil. The terms "inclusionism" and "deletionism" are evil. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page for a starter list, or simply click this link to see his most recent contributions. An in-page search ("Ctrl + F" should do it) for "articles" should give you all the AfD contributions you need. --jonny-mt 16:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we agree that the terms are absurd. May I add "eliminating cruft" to the terms that are absurd and meaningless rhetoric with the primary purpose (and if not purpose, effect) of humiliating other contributors. How does one define cruft? And what is accomplished by the label, other than insulting the contributor who wrote the article in question? On your other point, you can go directly to his Wikipedia space contributions and see for yourself. Having the candidate list the contributions would indeed be tedious. Using Ctrl-F yourself to find articles for deletion in his logs, would only take you a few minutes. --JayHenry (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

# Oppose Maybe I'm wrong here, but I feel that one admin isnt any better than another, and going over another admin's decision isn't right. Happy Editing, Dustitalk 18:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Moving vote to support, stillnot entirely sure about the whole revert thing, but, granted, the points below make sense. [reply]

Admins are human. As such it happens that they can be wrong. Having admins who are willing to review and, yes, reverse other admins decisions is essential. If admins weren't willing to review and overturn other admins decisions then I'd vote against them. Bstone (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, Dusti, if you got into an edit war with an admin who then abused their tools and blocked you for 3RR or whatever but the admin kept editing the article, would you not appreciate another admin overturning such an abuse of the tools? Checks and balances are required; overturning a rogue admin is a neccessity, and therefore is it not a good quality in an admin candidate?--12 Noon 2¢ 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin on pl-wiki I occasionally block other admins who stand out of the line. We all make mistakes and it is only natural that sometimes going over an admin's decision makes sense (although not very often, probably). Pundit|utter 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. I am very sorry, but I have to oppose this. Not that I am afraid that MoP will misuse his tools.. -quite contrary, I´m afraid MoP will not use them when it is needed. I base my opinion on the interaction with MoP concerning now banned user 1948remembered, who, to recap, during his(hers?) 42 edits of WP managed to "find" that the users:
  • Ceedjee was a vandal, with "racist" edits, and "endorsed racism": [2],[3],[4]& reported as a vandal [5]
  • tiamut was a "a racist vandal" [6]
  • Zoporific was "racist" [7] and a "racist vandal" [8]
  • NSH001 was "vandalising" WP, and was reported as a vandal [9]
  • Antandrus edits were "blatant racism and hate incitement" [10]
  • oh, and the bot: Cluebot was "broken and need of repair" [11]
  1. ..aaaaand, the "racist sources" and "liers" he deleted included historians like Benny Morris, Meron Benvenisti and Walid Khalidi; in short, people on the "A"-list when it comes to writing the history on Palestinian/Israeli issues.
  1. In spite of all this, MoP still hope "he'd be willing to talk"[12], and claiming that "it is a content dispute"[13]
  1. Well; I am all for WP:AGF. But there is a limit. And editors have overstepped that limit when they refer to

Benny Morris, Meron Benvenisti and Walid Khalidi as "racist sources" and "liers". Not to mention that they start calling everybody they disagree with for "racists" and "vandals". If admins tolerate such behaviour, they will simply chase good-faith editors off wikipedia. As I said; I do not think MoP will misuse the tools. I do, however, fear that good-faith editors will waist their time with appealing, in vain, to MoP for help against harassers, only to be met with a Chamberlainian "Peace for our time!" eeeh, "remember: WP:AGF!" In short, MoP has not shown the maturity of judgement which I would like to see in an admin. And I apologise for this lengthy post, bus since I am the first "oppose" (and very likely will remain the only one) I thought I should explain in detail why I vote like I do. Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]
  1. – Gurch 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Showing up as to avoid rudeness? —Animum (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I would have supported but I am concerned by this user's lack of contribution to Wikipedia's content. They haven't written a single featured template – Gurch 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No MediaWiki-space edits either... ;-) EJF (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Can you explain the large gap in your editing a few months ago? Timmeh! 19:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't that be more appropriate as a question? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflicted - grrr :P) Does it matter? Do you decide if a user should be trusted with the mop based on when it edits? (I know it may sound unfriendly, I don't mean it as such, just doesn't seems much relevant) Happy editing, Snowolf How can I help? 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No I don't decide based on when he/she edits. I will support if I get an answer to my question. But, until then, I will stay neutral. Timmeh! 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I attend school, and my editing started to drop due to grade 10 schoolwork being ridiculously demanding. I started back up after I got that year over with and settled comfortably into the rhythm of grade 11 due to feeling guilty about using Wikipedia for almost every project while not contributing. I've also made sure that this won't repeat itself by making sure I have time for everything now, so that I don't neglect the 'pedia. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response. I know what it's like to be overwhelmed by schoolwork. Just make sure your Wikipedia editing doesn't negatively affect your grades too much. =) Timmeh! 20:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, I'd prefer it if Wikipedia was school. But thanks, and I'll be sure not to. :) Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Timmeh, you are currently listed both as neutral and as support. Please choose just one. Kingturtle (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you notice that my neutral is crossed out? Timmeh! 21:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is struck, but you have not indented your vote. EJF (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind doing it for me? Thanks. Timmeh! 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *sigh* do I have to do everything around here... – Gurch 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry Gurch and Timmeh, I didn't notice! EJF (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. neutral - Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular reason? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    unexplainable gut reaction to contribution summary page. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The answer to #9 concerns me - please feel free to ask for help should you need to handle an image issue. If the licensing terms of an image forbid derivative works, then it can be speedied under I3. Obviously, if it is a user-authored image, it's helpful to ask the user to pick a better license (like the GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0) and give them a chance to respond before deleting it, but there's no "process". As for portals, images being used under a claim of fair use can only be used in article space - never on templates, portals, or user space - and should be removed on sight. --B (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. neutral - I am slightly concerned at how MoP dealt with my report on WP:AIV against 1948remembered, together with the spurious reports posted there by the latter. For more details, see my talk page, 1984R's & MoP's talk pages (and those of the other editors involved). He removed all these reports from AIV, on the grounds that they concerned a "content dispute", when in fact a closer examination of the edit history would have revealed clear evidence of vandalism (for which 1984R has now been indef blocked). In fact I hadn't realised MoP wasn't an admin until I saw this RfA, and he should have left these reports for an experienced admin to deal with. In mitigation, it isn't easy to deal with AIV reports if it's not immediately obvious vandalism, and MoP did try to encourage the parties to discuss on the talk page. I'm inclined to believe he will learn from this mistake (we all make mistakes), so I won't oppose. NSH001 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why he removed it from AIV was simply because it wasn't vandalism. AIV is for reporting users who engage in obvious vandalism. This was a content dispute, not vandalism - the user was attempting to revert perceived POV editing, and in fact, I had a chat with the blocked user about it on IRC. I would say the user in questions reversions were far from ideal, but AN or AN/I would have been a better place to review his contributions. In my honest opinion, MoP did a good job there, and it was in fact you that shouldn't have reported a user to AIV when the edits weren't obvious vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ, it was a clear case of vandalism, and it seems several other admins agree with me, given that he has now been indef blocked. Maybe I could have reported him under 3RR or AN/I, but he was breaking so many rules, it was more a case of l'embarras du choix, any one of which he should have been blocked under. The important point was that some admin action was necessary. NSH001 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't vandalism! I spoke to the user about his edits and he was giving his interpretation of NPOV and NOR - he was removing what he thought was original research and point of view editing - that is not vandalism. He went around it the wrong way for sure, he got blocked for it - but he should never have been reported to AIV which specifically states it is only to be used for obvious vandalism, something which this clearly wasn't. This should have gone to an admin noticeboard for a thorough check of his contribs - not a quick fire block board. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like we will just have to agree to disagree on our definitions of vandalism. When someone repeatedly blanks large chunks of an article, refuses to offer any valid justification for doing so or to discuss it further (merely baseless insults and personal attacks instead), that is damaging the encyclopedia, and is definitely vandalism in my view. When he makes rapid-fire reverts, then a rapid-fire board seems entirely appropriate. However I don't want to extend this discussion any further, as it's about MoP, not the offending user. While I disagree strongly with your view, I will bear in mind your comments when submitting future reports (a rare event, a last resort, as I am always very reluctant to sanction anyone -- and in fact think an indef block for this particular offender is probably too severe). NSH001 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1948remembered clearly violated WP:3RR and WP:NPOV, but with all due respect, that is not vandalism. —Travistalk 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh... So you mean that deleting 15k of material and writing in the lead 1948 Palestinian exodus is an attempt to prevent a genocide by Islam armies is a content issue because it describes a pov but it is not vandalism. You know, WP:AGF is based on the principle that people are good faith on articles and on discussion pages. We were 5 to consider it was vandalism. Ceedjee (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    neutral I have to agree with NSH001 here. I too though MoP was an admin and only saw this nomination for adminship now. I was disappointed by how he handled the case of 1948remembered (talk · contribs). Not only did that user engage in repeated personal attacks despite warnings not to, he also deleted 13,000 bytes of reliably sourced information multiple times after mutliple warnings not to, before continuing to change one sentence to read something about the "genocidal armies of Islam". The infractions of WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, etc., and the blanking of sourced material without engaging in substantive discussion was clearly WP:VANDALISM. That MoP was fooled into thinking it was merely a content dispute, gives me cause for concern about his judgement. Tiamuttalk 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Gurch, Rocksanddirt and B. Also, no need to pile-on support at this point when there are some minor issues. User:Dorftrottel 11:02, February 10, 2008
The above adminship 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_2&oldid=1089812528"