Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Misterrick.09

Misterrick (3/8) ends 06:12, 15 May 2004
I would like have the opportunity to serve the Wikipedia community on a higher level. I have made many contributions and have proved myself to be reliable, I am on and monitor the Wikipedia site on a regular basis and I get along with other Wikipedia users including many of the admins. In my contributions you will see that I have kept my composure when pages that had contributed to were vandalized, Either I or another Wiki user reverted the page back to it's original text without any outbursts or anger on my part. I have also created a few new Wikipedia article which I thought would be in the interest of the Wiki community. I would also keep my Internet Relay Chat program open and set to the #wikipedia channel on the freenode.net server in the event that a user (including admins and newbies) need to contact me posthaste. Misterrick, 07:10, 08 May 2004 (UTC).

Support

Oppose
 * 1) Support. Less than 500 edits -- but they date to October 2003, and they all look good. I know Kingturtle prefers to see 3000+ edits from admin nominees, but I think promoting different personality types is helpful. There are some who can afford to spend upward of four hours every day working on Wikipedia, but that's one certain type of personality -- and I don't think that personality type should dominate the admin staff. I'd like to see different types of people among the admin ranks, and Misterrick appears an ideal candidate. Cribcage 06:42, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) * I understand skepticism regarding user's repeated self-nomination, but I doubt this is anything sinister -- more likely, it's a bit of a harmless fixation from an otherwise productive user. Regardless, this nomination seems destined to fail, as well, so I suppose removal should be imminent. Cribcage 05:35, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) ** Let me add: I understand why a well-intentioned user might fixate on obtaining adminship. We explain: "Sysops are...just...Wikipedia users who have had performance- and security-based restrictions on a couple of features lifted because they seemed like trustworthy folks and asked nicely." If we're going to vote based on the idea that it's a promotion, rather than something analogous to the resolution of an introductory trial, then we should alter the policy accordingly. Cribcage 05:44, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) ***This is one possibility; another, which is my reason for wariness, is that people who repeatedly request adminship view it not as a thankless and difficult responsibility, but as a position of power. I don't know; do you? Would someone driven by a lust for power be honest about it, if he knew that that honesty would nix his chances? I prefer to err on the side of caution. &#8212;No-One Jones 06:13, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ***In response to Mirv, I do not look at adminship as a position of power but as an opportunity to serve the Wikipedia community. Anyone who feels that they should have an adminship to gain and have power should absolutely be denied any type of administrative position with Wikipedia. As I stated before I want to serve the Wikipedia community 'NOT' be a power hungry miser. Misterrick 02:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) **** Assume good faith. Cribcage 06:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) *****But don't be naive. Misterrick's edit history gives no idea of how he handles disagreement, or indeed how he interacts with others at all. So with nothing to suggest that he'd be a trustworthy admin, and with knowledge of very similar behavior by another user (you know who) that suggests he would not, I still have to oppose. &#8212;No-One Jones 07:14, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) ** Again, I feel that your analyze of my edit history is incorrect, There have been situations where I have had to deal with vandals on pages that I edited and if you look I've never lost my temper or got angry, I simply reverted the page back to it's last edit and posted a notice in Vandalism_in_progress page, Most times a current Admin would take further action by banning the IP address. Misterrick 02:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Lst27 23:22, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Wikipedia is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club. --"D ICK " C HENEY  19:43, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Less than 300 edits. Also, the nomination text seems to be copied verbatim from an earlier nomination of Alex . --Wik 08:53, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) * I'm sorry Wik, But what I wrote was my own words, It would seem that Alex <> plagiarized my previous nomination of February 2004. Do you still have any objections? Please post. Misterrick 15:27, 08 May 2004.
 * 3) Oppose without prejudice. Really too few edits over seven months and many of those minor or corrections of corrections. Everyone can't be on the ball all the time but it wouldn't better if a sysop could have more presence here. Happy to look again in a few months. Cecropia 00:23, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Far too few edits for me to judge this users candidacy. Kingturtle 20:42, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Looking at his contributions, Misterrick seems more interested in becoming an admin than anything else. This is the fourth time he's nominated himself  . -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:24, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Frequently-repeated requests for adminship make me leery. &#8212;No-One Jones 03:30, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Too few edits. If he has 300 now, how many did he have when he first nominated himself? -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:19, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 22. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:40, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. -- Kaihsu 16:49, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Cyrius. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 19:57, May 11, 2004 (UTC)