Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Messedrocker

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.

Messedrocker[edit]

Final (11/15/11) ended 20:10, May 12, 2006 (UTC)

Messedrocker (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination alert!! - All seriousness intended, as much as I didn't want to have to resort to self-nomination, I really would like to help the people. I'm already an administrator on English Wikinews, so this isn't entirely new to me. Regardless, I understand that being a Wikipedia administrator is different from being a Wikinews administrator, particularly because of the population differences (Wikinews is considerably smaller). Basically, I'd do all the fun maintenance stuff: deletion (on Wikinews I'm known as an article Grim Reaper, but rest assured, I delete there within policy), lovely revert tool, and whatever I can to help out any Wikipedian in need. According to Interiot2 (the non-toolserver one), I have about 1600 edits, most of which are in the main namespace, and I have been registered since November 2004. Based on my experience on Wikinews, I tend to be non-confrontative. I tend not to get into community matters, and when I do and I make a mistake, I apologize. I may help out in dispute resolutions, but don't expect me to get on the really, really touchy issues. In summary, I would like administrator status so I can help out Wikipedia with the extra privileges and make sure Wikipedia continues to function (and not get overran by vandals :). I tried covering basic questions here, but if you have any more questions, please ask them, whether on this RFA or on my talk page. Thank you! —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 02:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I, Messedrocker, accept my own nomination for adminship. :P —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 02:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC) I wanted to see what it would be like, and apparently I need more practice before I try this again. I withdraw my nomination. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, User's making great edits.... ForestH2
  2. Support contribs look good but please answer the questions below. Kimchi.sg 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Has enough edits and is trustworthy (admin on Wikinews). Please answer the generic questions for the candidate ASAP. DarthVader 08:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support.  Grue  10:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support a helpful, trustworthy user. —Mets501talk 11:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Has been around a long time, has been a positive contributor, and has useful experience as a Wikinews admin. Zaxem 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak support. Tools are good, time experience seems to make up somewhat for edit experience, "but don't expect me to help out with the very, very touchy issues" bothers me a bit. I'd be more comfortable had "to start with" been included in that sentiment; after all, I'm taking my time there, as well. RadioKirk talk to me 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I see no reason not to. Elf-friend 13:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I am supporting as I believe that all human beings, in real life as also in the virtual life, are nice persons and should get recognition. In any case, our wikipedia may perhaps be having at least few other editors/ administrators who should not be around. In case, the nomination passes, and misutilization of admin-tools are noticed, our system and procedures should be fast enough to effect a de-sysop. --Bhadani 13:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    'fast enough to effect a de-sysop'. I doubt it - in all of the time that Wikipedia has been running (is it 5 years now?) only ten people have been de-sysopped against their will. [1] Cynical 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Therefore, we have failed to become Better than the Best and playing a game of Merry-go-round for last 5 years. Adminship has become a life-long affair, and there is sometimes a tendency on the part of administrators to become autocratic. I congratulate you as you are the first wikipedian to demystify my words. --Bhadani 14:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Now that the three questions have been answered! Bastique 16:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support This user has a lot of experience despite the low editcounts. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Not to be a victim of editcountitis, but I'd like to see more edits and move activity. Most of your edits don't seem to be very significant. The primary opposal reason is the fact that you didn't answer the questions for your RfA. joturner 03:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even still, I'm voting oppose. The statement about not touching touchy subjects doesn't sit well with me. It seems like he/she is not confident enough to get involve in potentially tough subjects. joturner 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose something about your perspective on admin responsibilities doesn't sit well. I think all admins should always be willing to shoulder extra responsibility, be involved in community and able to tackle difficult situations. Per Joturner, you'd have been better advised to wait and diversify your contributions. Rama's Arrow 04:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose may switch to neutral after questions are answered. RFA has been running for over six hours & questions are still not answered. Makes me doubt the committment of the user. Also slightly low edit count considering it is a self nom. Changed to Neutral after questions were answered. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - on a self nom you would have plenty of time to respond to the 3 standard questions before posting on the main RfA page, this concerns me sorry -- Tawker 06:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless things have changed, I believe the questions have always been optional, even on self-noms. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the instruction on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate: "Also answer the standard questions for all candidates." The guide to the process also instructs that the questions should be answered. —Whouk (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose due to lack of answers to the standard questions. —Whouk (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks for answering. —Whouk (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Unsettling lack of question answers.--Eva db 09:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response to Tawker above — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose for a self-nom, answering the questions is a required part of the process (for obvious reasons a non-self nom cannot answer the questions immediately). If you 'didn't have time' to answer them then you didn't have time to nominate yourself. Cynical 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response for Tawker above. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, maybe later. Currently a lack of User talk edits indicates a shortage of the interactions with other users which are critical for admins, and a lack of Wikipedia edits indicates a possible shortage of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - not enough experience--Doc ask? 17:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose, might still change my mind. You make a lot of good edits and have more than I did when I became an admin. In a number of instances I think you've displayed sound judgement and have been involved in a wide range of activities. However, I think you would be better served by keeping up the good work you're doing in this wikipedia for another month or two before becoming an admin. The Land 17:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Oppose Don't worry, this has nothing to do with that whole questions thing. I think that your edit count is low, considering the amount of time you've been part of the project. If you were to try again soon, I'd probably support you. Steveo2 19:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I'm not looking at Interiot's tool for this, but rather based on this fine user's talk page and contributions history. He seems to have some issues with images policy, and given the touchiness related to that issue I would really like a more solid, proven history with community interaction and a more proven knowledge of policy before I can throw in my support. I think this editor can grow into a very capable admin, given some more time and involvement, and I wish him nothing but the best. Captainktainer * Talk 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose "don't expect me to help out" are words that make me very uncomfortable (touchy issue or not), which swing it for me, as not all good editors make good admins. Sorry. MartinRe 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I hate to oppose, but you dont seem to be willing to do it. Very Sorry.  Heltec  talk 
  13. Weak oppose: It will be much better if you reapply after getting more experience here, but do not feel discouraged now.--Jusjih 08:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - about 3 edits a day is not enough and has been periodically inactive for months. --Knucmo2 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Doesn't exhibit a firm enough grasp of the English language: when asked about articles with which he is particularly pleased, Messedrocker responded about how he is proud, as if "pleased" and "proud" had the same meaning. --Dragon's Blood 18:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - more edits. :( Computerjoe's talk 20:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Perhaps later. Please answer the candidate questions to assess your potential. - Mailer Diablo 10:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Mailer Diablo 16:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Some people are quite picky about the forms being obeyed in one's RfA, and with good reason, it's sort of an acid test... if one cannot get this one process meticulously right, is it likely that other processes will be done right as well? For a self nom, there is plenty of time to make sure everything is just so before one transcludes it and goes live. There is no reason whatever that the three questions were not answered well in advance of that transclusion (mine were answered well before I went live, well over a week if I recall correctly). Neutral, tending to oppose unless the questions are answered quickly and well, because while adminship is no big deal it nevertheless should be taken seriously. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I still can't understand why, if you were busy, did you post this on the main RFA page without answering the standard questions, especially with this being a self nom. You could have waited to do the whole process properly when you had time on your hands & saved yourself from a lot of oppose votes. Anyway the questions fiasco aside, your contributions are on the lower side especially considering this was a self nom. But your experience (from being an admin on Wikinews) & civility makes it difficult for me to oppose. So I'll cut you some slack & be neutral. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. A good user, but 250-odd talk edits and under 900 article edits in a year and a half is pretty light. The delay in the question answering's a mild concern, but there may have been good reason if MR was called away. Would like to support, but for now it's too close a call. Certainly don't oppose, though. Grutness...wha? 12:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral can't decide to support you yet, maybe in a month or two. You are a good user, though. --Tone 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, per above. --kingboyk 14:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, per above.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, The answers are not very convincing. Maybe if you give yourself some more credit I could change my mind. Gadig 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral per Gadig. Royboycrashfan 22:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral - You have the right attitude, but avoiding confrontation can actually be problematic, especially as an admin. At times you'll have to step on some toes, unfortunately. In any case, would like to see some more experience and community involvement before throwing in my support. I feel that you have a lot to offer here, but that the timing for adminship is a little off. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral, I don't see any reason to oppose now. However, I will support you when you come back in two months time. --Terence Ong 04:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Total edits	1609
Distinct pages edited	953
Average edits/page	1.688
First edit     00:06, 27 November 2004
(main)         828
Talk           93
User           166
User talk      132
Image          17
Image talk     3
MediaWiki talk 2
Template       16
Template talk  5
Category       53
Wikipedia      259
Wikipedia talk 35

—Whouk (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: First off, I am extremely sorry I didn't answer the questions earlier; I had to leave. Anyways, like I said, I would do maintenance things such as deletion, RC patrolling, and all that. I could also help out in some issues, but don't expect me to help out with the very, very touchy issues. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am very proud how I made Acamprosate from a stub into a more comprehensive article. I am also very proud on how Endless Online went from all those darn pastel-shaded boxes to a decently-sourced article that strives for the neutral point of view. I've also done other things that I'm proud of earlier in my Wikipedia experience, but I don't quite remember them. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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: The closest thing I have been in a dispute is with people over at the Endless Online article, who felt like adding the unreferenced information back. I reminded them about our policies, and then they understood. Well, at least one person... —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Messedrocker&oldid=1089731222"