The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed and was withdrawn. Please do not modify it.

Messedrocker

Final: (16/8/3); Ended 18:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Messedrocker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Hello, Wikipedians! As administrator, I have been involved in WP:RFPP, handling article disputes (such as Talk:Mario Party 8 and Talk:Soy protein), and being available on IRC to handle administrative issues. As bureaucrat, I would be able to do so much more. Since I have no life, I would be able to dedicate plenty of time towards duties required of bureaucrats. One thing that would particularly interest me is closing RFAs. As a dispute resolver, I know what it is like to handle people with differing opinions. Yes, I know, I am not exactly active on RFA, but to be honest, I'm not particularly interested in voting for people I have never heard of. Because of this, I would be able to close RFAs more often than active voters. As a closer, I would study the RFA closely, evaluate the opinions, and determine if adminship ought to be granted. It is my belief that since admins have a great deal of influence on Wikipedia, there must be as few errors in the selection process as possible!

I would have no problem being involved in WP:RENAME, as I am aware of the username policy (I have even took place in a large mailing list debate about a particularly controversial clause of it). I could do WP:BAG as well, as long as the more technologically apt don't mind. :)

As an administrator (heck, as a user in general), I have aimed not to stir up major controversy; I aim to please. If the community approves of me as a bureaucrat, I will be sure to please them through whichever means necessary. That includes being available on IRC for bureaucrat-related requests. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:40, 16 March 2007 (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 participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. I have read and am well-aware on discussion about RFA. I am aware that RFA is very controversial; I have heard of proposals requesting that RFA is shut down until it is fixed. I've been told that the typical percentage is that under 75% is a no-no, between 75% and 80% requires discretion, and 80% and higher is pretty much a given. I particularly like this because it's the best of both worlds: simple percentages and flexibility; of course, I know that consensus is beyond numbers. Really, it depends on all the arguments given. (The neutral !votes have a role, too!)
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Should I make a controversial promotion, I would be prepared, with an argument in each hand, to deal with it. I would explain exactly why a promotion was necessary. Of course, I would be open to comments from people who disagree. If it turns out I really screwed up, I may ask the person I conferred adminship unto to resign until things are straightened out.
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I have been an editor of Wikipedia for over two years, and not once has a person questioned my civility. I see mistakes as an opportunity to improve myself; that is how I learned about many policies, including the fair use policy. As I previously mentioned, I have been involved on seeing requests for full protection on WP:RFPP and not only doing the typical article-locking, but going the extra mile and helping the disputing parties reach a compromise. If I can deal with frustrated editors on article talk pages, I can deal with RFA. (I recognize RFA is about fifty times bigger than any article dispute I managed, but I'll adjust.)
4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, or at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard where such discussion would be transparent?
A. Since it's asked of me, I would be more than happy to restrict my conversations on promoting admins to other bureaucrats and the bureaucrat noticeboard.
5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. Time? Definitely. Desire? I definitely wouldn't mind. (If I did, why would I be running for bureaucrat to begin with?)
6. Question from User:Johntex (a) Would you ever promote an admin who received less than 75% support? (b) Broadly speaking, how would you go about deciding RFA's that fall in the 75-80% range?
A. Generally speaking, I wouldn't promote an RFA below 75% support. As far as I know, that is current practice. If there were some extrenuating circumstances, however, I might promote someone under 75% support. At this time I can't imagine such a circumstance. When it comes to 75%-80% support, as well as when it comes to more support than that, I would take a look at the neutral "votes" and see why they had to select "neutral" and not "support" (or why they didn't select "oppose"). I would also evaluate the arguments of the "votes cast".
7. Question from User:Johntex You state above, "(The neutral !votes have a role, too!)". Can you please elaborate on that statement? I.e., how would neutral votes factor into your closing of an RfA?
A. As I stated above, the declarations of neutrality so-to-speak would mainly be the "tie-breaker" in the 75-80% range.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. First support! Yes, please! – Chacor 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (edit conflict, darn you Chacor...)I'm going to dive into this one and support. Messedrocker is clear-headed, has good judgment, and will make a good bureaucrat. What RfB boils down to is "Is this person going to be a complete jackass when it comes to promoting users/granting bot flags/et cetera?" The answer to this is clearly no, so I see no reason to oppose. PTO 03:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Will provide dignified leadership in the bureaucrat position.Bakaman 03:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I like the fact that you're not an RfA junkie and I think that it's good thing for bureaucrats to be slighty distanced from the process. John Reaves (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I didn't know you were an admin. I like that, for some reason. -Amarkov moo! 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, a fine candidate indeed. Answers to questions are superb, and has a fine record as an admin. --Coredesat 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Bakasuprman. Michael 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support- like PTO said, Is he going to be a jackass if given this ability? No, he's not. - Richard Cavell 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support; I have no reason to believe he'd abuse anything, let alone 'crat tools.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bureaucrat tool abuse. Don't give (user rename vandalism) ideas. -Amarkov moo! 05:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Full Support. Messedrocker did miss a bunch of things in his nomination statement though. Let's not forget that he's also been granted a sysop flag by the communities on Wikinews and Wikiversity (perhaps other wikis that I'm not aware of as well), and has been heard on the Wikipedia Weekly podcast more than a few times. Slightly less seriously, he knows how to spell the word bureaucrat, which is a big plus in my mind. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support for a number of reasons already voiced and reading around I'm happy to support this --Herby talk thyme 09:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Trustworthy candidate. (Glad we finally seem to have seen the back of the "we don't need more bureaucrats" opposes.) --Dweller 09:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yep. Daniel Bryant 11:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Adequate reason to believe he would use the tools in a consensus based fashion, no reason to believe he would abuse them. GRBerry 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Good potential. Good luck! gidonb 15:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Somewhat weak support I am admittedly dismayed by Durin's well-researched and well-spoken comments below (especially the month-itis diff, as I am one of the biggest proponents of judging a candidate based on the quality of his/her edits and time rather than the quantity). With that said, I do trust MR to make proper decisions. He has shown himself to be an even-handed admin with strong dispute-resolution abilities, and I have no reason to believe that he would misuse the added 'crat tools. As an aside, I'm firmly with the users above in being glad that the oppose votes come from rationalization regarding the candidate's edits and statements rather than simply saying, "There are enough bureaucrats already." -- Kicking222 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose: It is very difficult to get a feel for this candidate's views on RfA. Near total lack of involvement in the talk page of RfA. Just one edit to it in the last six months [2], and just three others period [3][4][5]. Calling for an admin test doesn't sit well with me either. And month-itis as the sole reason for opposing someone? It's not the only time you opposed based on time at Wikipedia, rather than evaluating the candidate. I do not question the nominee's motives in running for bureaucrat, but with the lack of involvement at WT:RFA and touching less than 20 RfA nominations period, I'm left wondering why there's such an interest in being a bureaucrat when there's not really been much of an interest in RfA before? With such a lack of involvement, the nominee is virtually impossible to evalute as a potential bureaucrat. With no comment on the nominee in any other respect, --Durin 05:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my defense, the admin test was an idea, as in, "I'm throwing this up in the air," rather than "It is necessary we do this now." While I may not have been an active writing, I certainly was an active reader. Other than that, I agree that I haven't been as active on RFA as people would like. Well-articulated argument. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The pledge to "be sure to please [the community] through whichever means necessary" does not inspire confidence. This is a position which involves making decisions; decisions make people angry. A restauranteur may fairly profess his aim to please; a bureaucrat does the project a disservice by stating this as his highest aim. Noisy displeasure in the community may very well indicate an error in judgment, but a bureaucrat must not allow an all-consuming fear of upsetting the community to influence his decisions. Someone above has mentioned his belief that Messedrocker will "provide dignified leadership" as a bureaucrat. This is nowhere in the job description; that someone would cite it in support of Messedrocker reflects the way in which much of the community sees the bureaucrats. Pleasing the community by any means necessary sounds awfully like voting according to the Gallup polls: it is undignified, and unworthy of a leader. — Dan | talk 06:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to clarify: I want to be as pleasing as much as possible. That is the operational term. It only makes sense if I piss off radical minorities (which hypothetically speaking will come up), but if they were seven opposers disagreeing with 300 supporters, it should be clear where consensus lies. (Assuming that each of the !votes are equally good.) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - has not spent enough time as an admin yet. Just not enough experience to date, sorry. pschemp | talk 08:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Like Durin, I'm concerned by the lack of involvement with RfA. I'd like to see the interest in RfA come before granting bureaucrat status to a candidate. ChazBeckett 12:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm intrigued by the fact that because there is a lack of editing in RfAs a lack of interest is assumed. I read much on a number of Wikis, I only edit when I have something worthwhile (IMO) to say (& - sadly - the time to do so in my case)? --Herby talk thyme 12:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have expressed myself poorly. I would like an RfB candidate to be actively involved and have a strong interest in RfA. In this case, the candidate has virtually zero involvement in RfA talk, which seems odd if he's actually very interested in the process. But let's assume that I've misjudged and he's actually quite interested in RfA and has even read every word ever written in RfA talk. I'd still want to see him participating in RfA discussions over a period of time longer than seven days of this RfB. ChazBeckett 13:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Insuifficient participation in RfA, insufficient indication of understanding the intricacies of consensus formation on Wikipedia, insufficient standing with your fellow editors. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I may understand the intricacies of consensus, I may not, just that sometimes it's hard to explain things. I definitely understand it is not based on a strict number, or even a loose number. I probably understand smaller things than that yet I can't grasp the ability to explain it in words. Also, can you explain what you mean by "insufficient standing with your fellow editors"? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't believe this candidate has an adequate understanding of RFA to be a bureaucrat. Sorry. Dragons flight 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose you're a great guy Messedrocker, and admin, but there's just not enough RfA experience. Majorly (o rly?) 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Reluctant Oppose. I have not encountered Messedrocker very often. From the comments and evidence above, he is doing some good work. I have some concern over the length of time as an admin and the lack of evidence by which to judge how Messedrocker would close RfA's. Therefore, I asked too additional questions fo the candidate and received satisfactory answers. Why then do I oppose? It is a collection of small things. First, he seemingly made a process mistake in resetting the date on his self-nomination. Not a big deal to be sure, but bureaucrats have to be really good at process. Also, he put full protection onto Essjay controversy without really explaining why he did so on the article talk page. Yes, there was some low-level edit warring, but it did not warrant full protection in my opinion. I asked him on his talk page to unprotect the article[6] but he has not replied to that request, despite being on Wikipedia since my request.[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] If an admin protects a page, I expect them to try to be available and responsive to changes in the situation. None of these are giant things, but I think they add up to enough doubt for me to oppose. Bureaucrats are held to a very high standard. Johntex\talk 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explain on Talk:Essjay controversy (in different words), my lack of response was a rare lack of judgement I don't want to experience again. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Messedrocker. I want to emphasize again that I don't think it was huge deal. I think of it as poor timing to make a couple of small-to-medium size mistakes. I hope you won't be too unhappy about it, and that you keep up the good work, please. Best, Johntex\talk 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. (This is my first edit to this page, so please reformat if I've made a mistake). Messdrockner appears to be an active admin who has the most important attribute of being able to avoid conflict through consensus. I'll admit that I'd not had contact with him before this nomination, but reading through his archives reveals a number of cases in which he achieved a resolution through discussion. The fact that he has existed under the radar is a good indication that he knows when to back off from a problematic discussion and look for help, and that he's succeeded in having a good level of neutrality over a long period. I would support if Messdrockner promises to identify himself and present credentials to Jimbo or a nominee within 6 months of appointment. AKAF 08:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting! The thing is, I don't have any sort of credentials. No doctorate, no master's degree, no bachelor's degree, not even a high school diploma. I don't have a government ID. I could always scan my school ID card in and send it to the office... would that suffice? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have explained better. For me it would be sufficient to have you send by snail mail a copy of some sort of ID (School ID, driver's licence etc) along with a covering letter stating your real name, Wikipedia ID and some very broad details about yourself (Name, Age, address, telephone number, student at XX college studying XX) to Jimbo or a nominee. I wouldn't require that these be certified (but this would be nice), or that you meet with a nominee in person (best of all). This is so that eventually for the 50 or so "upper positions" in wikipedia, the wikimedia foundation has at least an official statement from you about who you are in RL. I would not agree to any further sysops, arbitrators, bureaucrats or checkusers who would not provide this information. This is because I would like those holding such positions to think about the seriousness of the positions and not treat Wikipedia as a MUD. From your contribution history I believe that this is not true of you, but it's a case of "better safe". AKAF 11:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, good admin, active on Wikipedia. Would actually make a good bureaucrat if not for his lack of participation in the RFA process. Terence 16:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Should probably spend less time responding to oppose/neutral votes. TML 18:05, 16 March 2007 (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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Category