Wikipedia:Administrator review/Master of Puppets


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All the cool kids are doing it, so I figured I'd jump on the bandwagon. Basically, I've received some flak in the past; mostly in private communiques, mostly centered on my unprofessional demeanor and lack of moral fiber. I exaggerate, but I welcome input. Cheers, and be brutally honest, Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC) ...
 * I agree with the above concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the concerns that may or may not be above. Is "..." a concern, because ellipses are very, very scary. Like that bunny from Monty Python. One minute you have legs, then bam an ellipse goes for your legs and chews them off (in a cute way). Seriously though, no problems here.  Nezzadar   ☎   18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Metallica suck. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just like your username it strikes fear in the hearts of many vandels and editors alike. Oh and ur a pretty good admin aswell. Zoo  Pro  12:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like your tie. Other than that, I agree with everyone else -- not just here, but on every talk page, ever. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard you referred to as 'Pastor of Muppets' :) (but I've seen you working and you're awesome ;) ) - A l is o n  ❤ 03:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Having seen your administrative work up close during the arguments about Militant atheism, I thought I would weigh in here. In my opinion, the two major administrative actions that you took, protecting the page and determining the RfC consensus, were spot-on. During the accompanying discussions at ANI and elsewhere, you got a lot of complaints from editors who, it seems, couldn't take "yes" for an answer. In the interests of being "brutally honest", I have some advice to offer about that. It looked to me like you were trying very hard to maintain the appearance of impartiality until the RfC was closed. In so doing, you may have caused editors who were in agreement with the consensus to worry that you were misreading the consensus. There was an ANI sub-thread where I asked about whether someone had been canvassing or not. You concluded, reasonably, that it wasn't clear that any canvassing was intended, but I think you could well have commented to that editor that they should be more aware of the appearance of what they had done, and that they should keep that in mind in the future. Subsequently, editors complained that another person was owning the page. You were correct to conclude that there was no ownership going on, but the way you initially said it sounded like you thought the editor in question was doing everything right. You could have, instead, concluded more narrowly that there was nothing that rose to the level of requiring you to intervene as an administrator (with a block or similar). I say all of that appreciating the very good work you did, and I hope that you find it helpful.


 * I always like to thank administrators who participate in AdRev. In that regard, it looks like you are at the top of the class! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.