Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrZoidberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] DrZoidberg

removed with (1/19/0) on 13 July 2005; original end 14:58 17 July 2005 (UTC) DrZoidberg is one of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors. As a sandboxian (along with fellow sandboxians Righteous Monkey and Fonzie Fan), DrZoidberg firmly believes that the sandbox is by far the most important part of Wikipedia, and DrZoidberg will strive to make the sandbox the very best that DrZoidberg can. Also, DrZoidberg likes to hear DrZoidberg talk about DrZoidberg. DrZoidberg!   Nominated by DrZoidberg 15:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

  1. Am I allowed to vote for myself?  DrZoidberg 16:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    You are allowed to vote any way you wish. Whether or not we will consider your vote is quite another matter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    I believe my vote carries just as much weight as yours or any other user on this list. I've been here for almost a year now, is that not long enough to qualify for a vote?  DrZoidberg 18:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    I think it's a bit of a stretch to call 7 months, 3 weeks, and 1 day "almost a year". →Raul654 21:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    7 months, 3 weeks, and 1 day as a Wikipedian is definitely enough to be eligible to vote. So my vote does count. That's 1 vote for Zoidberg!  DrZoidberg 01:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Not enough edits outside of the sandbox. In addition, he has zero edits in the article namespace [1]. Carbonite | Talk 15:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. I concur with Carbonite. I manually checked through all of his edits since he joined last november, and every last one was for sandbox/history, his talk page, someone else's talk page, or (once the sandbox/history page got moved into his userspace and VFD'd) the VFD for the sandbox/history page. →Raul654 15:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. At the risk of sounding like an evil cabalist I am tempted to just place an indefinite block on this user. He has about 1000 edits to the sandbox and not one in the article space. He has contributed nothing to Wikipedia, merely wasted countless billions of valuable electrons by messing about. We shouldn't really be tolerating his presence unless he does something productive. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Off topic, but just how "valuable" are electrons? Knowing that 99.9999% of the matter in my house contains electrons, I might be quite rich!  DrZoidberg 17:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The electrons comment wasn't meant seriously. The point is that while you don't place more than a miniscule strain on our resources by playing in the sandbox, you don't appear to have done anything whatsoever of benefit to Wikipedia. The sandbox is a place to test things out if you're not sure how template transclusion works, or something like that, and want a place to edit without messing up an article. It is not a scribble-box for anyone who wants to play games or whatever it is you do there. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
        • You mean all of my hard work here was useless?!?! *runs off and cries in a corner*  DrZoidberg 18:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. I'm thinking WP:POINT. Bad faith nomination. David | Talk 16:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose and permanently block. Gamaliel 17:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  6. I quite agree that this is a bad faith nomination, but I can't understand the calls for a permanent block, either. In terms of "tolerating his presence," I don't see how there's any problem doing just that: he's not polluting Wikipedia at large, and though it would certainly be nice if he were to do "something productive," there are plenty of inactive users who haven't been doing anything productive either that no one would suggest we ban. By sticking to the sandbox, he's not exactly participating in the spirit of the project, but he's not harming it either. Oppose this nomination, and, for what its worth, oppose the calls to block. – Seancdaug 17:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • The trouble is that the sandbox is festering and spawning all kinds of strange creatures who do nothing but cause a nuisance in the parts of Wikipedia that are less well trodden by established users and admins. DrZoidberg seems less of a problem than some, but I recommend having a look at Fonzie Fan (talk · contribs), who in my opinion is a troll who should be blocked. This user is of his ilk. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I can't help but feel we're conflating "childish" with "malicious." Given that the only stated rules for the sandbox are to avoid using it for "malicious purposes" (googlebombing, personal attacks, etc.), I don't really see either DrZoidberg or (though I haven't looked as closely) Fonzie Fan as violating that rule. The sandbox is not only "less well trodden": it's almost entirely peripheral to the stated function of Wikipedia. What goes on there should not impact any other part of the 'pedia. If it does, that's an entirely different problem that should be dealt with seperately. Being childish and not exhibiting the degree of seriousness the rest of us would like seems an extremely poor reason for permbanning to me. And setting that precedent would, if anything, only encourage such "sandbox trolls" to move out to infest the rest of the site: if they're going to get blocked anyway, what have they got to lose? – Seancdaug 18:23, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I am pleased that DrZoidberg confines his editing, for the most part, to the sandbox. Since there is generally no reason to move, delete, protect, or unprotect the sandbox, and since there is rarely reason to block users who vandalize the sandbox, I offer the observation that adminship may not be particularly useful to DrZoidberg. Insofar as DrZoidberg is a part of Wikipedia culture, at most a minor nuisance, and for the most part willing to constrain his unusual pattern of editing so that it is largely within community norms, I believe that calls for a ban are premature. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. Ah, I know Zoidy well. In fact, I've known him from his first edit. So I think it's not too presumptuous for me to say that this user is, without a doubt, one of the most suitable people to honor by keeping them as free spirits, rather than burdening them with the terrible responsibilities adminship carries. With this in mind I'm happy to oppose this nomination. JRM · Talk 18:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Well put, JRM. I don't support calls for a ban from an RfA. A more revealing count of how many non-Sandbox edits he made came when he moved the Sandbox to another article (DrZoidberg's Super Fun House, I think it was). When that article (with its history) was deleted, his edit count dropped to about 150 (he currently has a total of ~1000). Since he has made huge contributions to the Sandbox (some 850 edits), I agree that DrZoidberg should not be weighed down with a mouldy old mop and a bucket full of dirty water. --Deathphoenix 18:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I do not believe that this user gets that. -- JamesTeterenko 18:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Playing in the sandbox is all well and good, but user has NO experience outside of sandbox-related edits. If you wish to be an admin, please do some things outside of the sandbox for a little while and I may support. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. If I had voted just according to how long you have been present on Wikipedia, I would have voted neutral. But given the nature of your contributions, this is how I am voting. Denelson83 22:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I agree with the previous votes, sandbox edits are all well and good but I can't see the need for a mop and bucket in a sandbox. Jtkiefer 23:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  14. With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg! --Golbez 23:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, but gently. No edits outside the sandbox. Zoidy...do an article or two. Then we'll talk. - Lucky 6.9 00:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Zero edits to articles? "Sandboxian"?? Maybe this nomination belongs in BJAODN! --Idont Havaname 00:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  17. Ummm...no. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  18. I had issues with this user before, mainly with edits in the Sandbox. All he does is trolls the sandbox, and perhaps, with a few other names/socks/whatever. I oppose. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose any user with such narrow edit scope and such childish self-nomination and behaviour in general. -Splash 16:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A: I plan to maintain the sandbox and ensure it is a safe playground for everyone. Plus I'll patrol the sandbox nonstop and replace the header whenever someone decides to get rid of it.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My original Hangman games in the sandbox from around 8 months ago. As a result of it's explosive popularity, it has branched out to its own page, and was the foundation idea for other projects such as checkers, go, and of course, the Wikipedia Chess Championship.
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: Well, Honeycake was always picking fights with me in the sandbox, but I was usually able to ignore his threats (at least for a little while). But I don't feel singled out, after looking at his history, he seems to treat everyone that way.