Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moe Epsilon


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Moe Epsilon
Final tally (26/13/0) ended 19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

– Moe Epsilon is an amazing user, with more than 16,000 edits, and approximately 8 months of service to the community. His friendliness to users, both new and old, and his great dedication to the project show how truly capable he is. I know he will make the best use of his tools, and it gives me great pleasure to nominate him. Mys  e  kurity 00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Thanks Myskurity. M o e   ε  00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn No point in letting it snowball when there is no hope. M o e  ε  19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Extreme nominator Support. - Mys  e  kurity 00:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, Overall very great contributor. Shyam  ( T / C ) 00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support. Meets all my criteria, has proven himself as an excellent user, and I just hope admin duties don't cause TOO much deviation from article edits :) &mdash; Deckill e r 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support - he deserves it. --Latinus 00:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as evidence of his userpage vandalism count, he isn't afraid to be bold, seems like a good admin here. → A z a  Toth 00:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support good fellow, valuable contributor to Wikipedia.--Alhutch 00:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Good, hardworking editor who will use the tools well. Give him the mop already. :o) E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support Moe is an excellent contributor and a great vandal fighter to boot. [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] mm  e  inhart ''' 01:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 01:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Fifth time lucky support GizzaChat  &#169; 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support per nom. BD2412  T 02:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I am not familiar with the history, but over the past three months I've been here, I've seen nothing but good from this editor. --ZsinjTalk 02:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Big support. I've admired this user for a while now and I think he's one of those guys who really could use the mop and bucket. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 03:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - just please watch the spelling/grammar, Moe. Learn to doubt the way you spell things. - Richardcavell 03:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 04:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - well deserved--Looper5920 04:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - I thought he was already an admin -- Tawker 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Geez, this guy edits a lot. He would benefit from AdministrativePower®. J I P  | Talk 07:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support see no reason to believe that this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 07:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support My interractions with and experience of this guy have been fine. However, please lose the fake "You have messages" banner from your talk page. It's childish and irritating. The next time I see an admin candidate with one of those, I'm going to vote oppose. --kingboyk 11:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) SSuuppppoorrtt - double support. NoSeptember   talk  11:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Valuable editor, from what I've seen. I forget who it was who said that you can't become an admin with this many edits...  You deserve to prove him wrong.  (I thought you were one already) --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 13:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Exteremely Strong Support!!!! He will not abuse admin tools and he has the experience for the mop and bucket. --Ter e nce Ong 13:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Strong Support per Terence Ong. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  16:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support I'm not going to blame a guy for leaving, even if the dramatics were way over-the-top: People take wikibreaks, and then find this place is too addictive to leave. Other than that complaint, I don't see much substantive here.  Solid wiki-career, and he has certainly progressed in maturity, even if he isn't perfect yet (who is?)  He deserves a shot at the mop. Xoloz 16:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support David is an insightful, dedicated contributor. I will not oppose a solid editor on the basis of reading Deepak Chopra or other irrelevant nonsense. -- Jay  (Reply)  18:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I hope you understand this is nothing personal, but like Jaranda you have that knack to leave Wikipedia when things don't go right, sorry. NSL E (T+C) at 00:37 UTC (2006-03-26)
 * I understand, but just for an update to the situation I had in real-life, it is solved and I don't see myself leaving in the near future. M o e   ε  00:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is good to know that you've cleared your RL problems up, however your instability in past RFAs (I appreciate that there was sockpuppetry) is questionable, and (maybe?) contributed to one or two leavings, so, I'm afraid my opinion stands at oppose. NSL E (T+C) at 00:51 UTC (2006-03-26)
 * Just for future referances, the sockpuppetry was proven via CheckUser. Could you tell me who I contributed to leaving and maybe I can back up some evidence? M o e   ε  00:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I perhaps phrased that wrong, I meant that the sock-ridden RFA might have contributed to you leaving once or twice. NSL E (T+C) at 02:54 UTC (2006-03-26)
 * Sorry, my mistake. :-) The sock-ridden RFA had contributed to me leaving once, I was never that mad about in the later months. For more on my reasons for leaving before see Lar's question (question 4). M o e   ε  02:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose This link cannot be ignored, he does seem volatile and quick to anger, and even said in his 3rd RFA that he couldn't control his actions, which is not what is needed from an admin. He has resigned from editing on several occasions as of late, including after 2 failed RFAs, which shows a lack of dependability. The bar should be set high for being an admin, and constantly making spelling errors, having a glut of edits on your user page alone and reacting to negative votes is not what we need from an admin. Stockdiver 02:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Looks like a good editor, but I'd like to see more edits to the template space. Templates are an integral aspect here, and I'm concerned about promoting editors who might have to make decisions on TfD without a proper understanding of them.  Keep up the good editing and get some more experience in template space and I'd be glad to give my support. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 03:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. I agree that this is no more capricious than several votes on a certain other RFA, but it is also no less so. People shouldn't have to be experts at everything to be admins... even those who think others aren't qualified unless they work in the same areas as the person themself. --CBDunkerson 03:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He won't have to make decisions on TfD unless he wants to start closing TfDs. Admins don't really have to do anything unless they want to. Sorry to challenge your vote like this, but I find this sort of a strange reason to oppose, and one I've never heard before.--Alhutch 03:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree he won't have to do anything with TfD, but granting admin privileges means that he could work in an area where he is not experienced. I'd just like to see more edits to the template space than 41 (less than 1 out of every 400 edits). —Doug Bell talk•contrib 04:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should be willing to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not neccessarily going to go charging into an area they're not familiar with, mop flying about higgledy piggledy. I for one don't have more than half a clue about Templates and TfD, but that hasn't stopped me from contributing as an Admin and as an editor. If I do find a reason to use my mop in an area I've not done much in before, I generally try to tread very lightly, and I think we can give people credit for generally having enough common sense to be careful with their new buttons. Besides, remember that for the most part Admin actions are reversible, so there's room for people to make mistakes without the world ending. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 15:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I still have a hard time with this as a reason to oppose. Moe's an experienced contributor. So he doesn't edit templates very often. big deal! I didn't have very many template edits when I became an admin, and I still don't, but I'm able to contribute to the project in other ways. Same with plenty of other admins. Everyone can't be an expert in every single area of the project. Moe Epsilon can be a good editor and admin without being an expert in templates.--Alhutch 17:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you both make reasonable points. What if it was reveresed: what if Moe's experience was heavily weighted in templates, with much less experience in articles?  Would you support granting him the mop with the assumption that he would restrict his admin activities to template space and other areas where he had experience? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Reluctant Oppose  -- Might be a good admin but should we take the chance? Staying cool is a prime requirement. John Reid 03:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominee responded on my talk shortly after I voted above (but before the vote closed). I think this demonstrates lack of cool and guarantees a Strong Oppose from me. John Reid 04:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I had also noticed in the preceeding talk message that the nominee called me an "abusive user", which I find quite offensive. Stockdiver 04:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're going to call someone a sockpuppet, it's helpful to back that up with some kind of evidence, rather than just making the claim that someone's a sockpuppet. Secondly, looking back through Stockdiver's contributions, all I see are small article edits until he arrived at this RfA. Regardless of whether Stockdiver is or is not a sockpuppet, what I'm not seeing is evidence that that account is being or has been abusive towards Moe Epsilon, so I'm not sure where that accusation is coming from either. Stockdiver's first edits are from earlier in March, so how is there evidence from December that supports an assertion of sockpuppetry? &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 16:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per others. SushiGeek 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly Oppose His user page says it all. Not worthy of it. Poor attitude.araxen 5:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User's first and thus far only edits are to this RfA. contribs. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 19:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Ever heard of Deepak Chopra? Highly recommand that one reads his books before trying again.  --Masssiveego 05:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant to the RfA? JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 07:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Something that is lacking.  --Masssiveego 08:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose He seems to lash out with anger and personal attacks at times. The goodbye messages  stuck me the wrong way. I don't see much progress between the first message and the second re:stability. Rx StrangeLove 07:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose, though nothing personal in it, and it is for his long term benefit. I am concerned about the problems of maturity and stability – I shudder of a situation when he decides to leave resorting to impulsive action like mass blocks or something similar! Yes, I agree with the concerns expressed by the fellow-wikipedians, we require administrators with utmost maturity, stability and experience to deal with stress – a little stress and leaving us in the “lurch” is not a good sign. We are building an encyclopedia and not playing games kids play, the game of hide and seek – coming and going away. We do not require administrators with such tantrums – we require persons with ability to manage scenarios requiring utmost maturity and tact, and unflinching commitment to the Project.  Yes, edit counts matter, but not always and I would recall the words of the nominator Mysecurity which he had recently uttered “ I don't care whether you have 6,000 edits or 6,000,000, it doesn't matter...”. Likewise, while deciding adminship, we have to assess whether the editor concerned is capable of undertaking the responsibility without stress. Moe Epsilon has already exhibited a lot of stress, and putting him in a position of further  stress shall be doing great injustice to him. I suggest that he may continue to enjoy wiki-life without taking further stress as he has demonstrated that wiki-interaction has caused him stress from time to time.  We should be humane in our approach, and not thrust upon someone the responsibility, which may cause personal damage to him. Moreover, the reasons indicated by him to be elevated to the level of administrators are not very convincing. --Bhadani 07:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per above. TruthCrusader 10:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per John Reid. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 16:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, I agree with Bhadani. I appreciate that he's contributed so much to the project, but I've been surprised by Moe's displays of anger from time to time.  Sorry.  --  Samir  [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px]]   (the scope)  16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Samir. Sorry too. If this RfA fails come back after a couple months after you have corrected these occassional anger issues. Best of luck. ¡Dustimagic!  ( T / C ) 18:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 95% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 97 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See Moe Epsilon's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.


 * My previous nominations under the username SWD316:
 * First, (self-nom) ended 22 August 2005 -
 * Second, (nom by Banes) ended 15 December 2005 - sockpuppet infested nom
 * Third, (nom by Nlu) 19 December 2005 - re-nominated because of wrongdoing in last nom by socks;
 * Fourth, (nom by Latinus) ended 30 January 2006

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. I am already heavily active in vandal fighting, but I am need of the real rollback button. I am constantly reviewing blocks on Category:Requests for unblock and it would help to have the power to unblock valuable editors from wrongful blocks. It would help greatly to have the power for deletion, I've been reviewing Canidates for speedy deletion a lot lately too. Ability to protect will help in areas I'm working in too. Already work in areas around NPOV and such and it would only help progress things for me with the tools.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I have always been pleased with the article Current World Wrestling Entertainment roster which is the most frequently updated and probably used roster list on the internet since most wrestling related websites refer to it as a source. I am particulary in favor of all my main space edits as it shows I am here to build an encyclopedia.


 * 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. Too many conflicts to count. :-) For one, Mcfly85 which was a contributor to Wikipedia which used multiple, multiple accounts to vandalize my user page and related past RFA's. Other conflicts are minor, everyday conflicts such as spamming warnings, sockpuppet usage and the such.


 * 4. (from Lar) Why so many nominations? Do you think this is an area that people should be concerned about? Related to that, can you address the potential issue of your sticktoitiveness? I tend to cast a jaundiced eye on someone who says they're leaving and then is back and assuring folks they are not.
 * Answering in order: I have a lot of previous noms. The first was when I self-nominated in August when I wasn't really clear on the policies. The Second and third I sorta count as one nomination. The Second nom was infested with sockpuppets created by User:Mcfly85 which he voted 3 times. I got upset but returned after learning my accusations about him were correct. The third nom (which I just said tied into the second) I was nominated by Nlu after the wrongdoings of Mcfly85. But that nomination failed. The fourth one I was nominated by Latinus but it was too soon since the 3rd nomination. I realize that adminship is not a trophy, and I wouldn't treat it like one. All adminship is a set of tools which I have used before since I am a administrator on a Wiki-City.


 * As to whether people should see it as a problem/concern I say yes, to a concern but no as a problem. I'm not sure what you mean by my "sticktoitiveness". If your refering to my number of attempts for adminship, it's because I am dedicated to this site and I would love to help see expand and grow as much as possible.


 * About my constant leaving and returning, Im sorry for my consistant pattern I showed. But I am not about to spill my guts here and tell what it was all about because it is personal. All I can say was it was a personal problem with myself and a friend I had to take care of. That problem was the main cause of leaving at least 3 times. But as of my latest return from wikibreak, I am over that problem, and I am sorry to those I disturbed about that issue.


 * 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.