Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Masterpiece2000

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Masterpiece2000

[edit]

(10/19/3); End 16:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC) - Withdrawn

Masterpiece2000 (talk · contribs) - I’ve been active on Wikipedia since October 2007. I’ve made contributions to many areas of the project and I feel I am fully ready for the mop. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: If my candidacy is successful, I would continue as an admin much of what I have been doing as an editor over the past nine months. I’d continue to take part in the deletion process. I believe that the extra tools will be helpful to me. I want to close AfD discussions. The extra tools will also give me the ability to review deleted articles. I'd also continue to participate in discussions on the administrators' noticeboards (WP:AN and WP:ANI).
I’ve experience in article-creation and I’ve worked with other users in various articles. I know when a speedy deletion is required. If I made a mistake and deleted a page, I will undelete it. I would also like to assist in reducing the backlog at CAT:CSD. I have nominated few articles for CSD, and all of them have been deleted.
I am also interested in vandal fighting. I have patrolled RC and new pages. In the past, I have warned users and IPs. I know when to block users and when to warn them.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have made contributions to different types of articles. I’ve created more than 100 articles, including more than 60 biographies of U.S. governors.
I’ve created biographies of notable sociologists, psychologists, and economists. I’ve also created biographies of notable scientists such as Arthur L. Horwich, composers such as Michel van der Aa, and politicians such as Carlos Minc.
I worked with User:Nihil novi, User:Piotrus, and other editors to promoted the article Boleslaw Prus to the GA status.
I created the article Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall, the Memorial Hall for the people killed during the Nanjing Massacre. I have created two articles related to natural disasters - 1703 Genroku earthquake and 1977 Andhra Pradesh cyclone. I created the article Aeropyrum pernix, an extremophile species of Archaea.
13 articles which I created or substantially expanded appeared on the DYK column. I also regularly participate in AfD discussions.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes. When I was new, I made a mistake. Category: Jewish American scientists was nominated for deletion. I removed the contents of the category in the middle of the discussion. I was warned. I was helped by ProveIt to deal with the situation. I admitted my mistake and cleaned up the mess. It was an error that I made when I was new. After the issue was resolved, I realized that Wikipedia works by building consensus.
Additional questions from User:Stifle
4. I notice your editing seems to be quite concentrated in the field of scientists and authors. Will you treat pages in which you have been heavily involved in editing any different for the exercise of your admin powers, if granted?
A. No. I believe the same rule should apply whether I am an admin or not. By the way, I’ve also created many articles about politicians. In future, I would like to contribute to articles related to Brazil, Eastern Europe, abnormal psychology, health psychology, and sociology.
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A: An editor should be blocked for anything listed on WP:BLOCK#When blocking may be used.The main purpose of block is to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish editors. Personal attacks, disclose personal information about other editors, edit warring, etc will result in a block. However, cool-down blocks shouldn’t be used.
  • A: A page can be protected for different reasons. A page can be protected if the page is being persistently vandalized. Semi portection should be used to prevent persistent vandalism from vandals. Full protection should be used to prevent major disruption. Full protection is also used in content disputes. If a blocked user is using the talk page to post inappropriate messages, the talk page should be fully protected. Creation protection should be used to prevent a previously deleted page from being recreated. Move protection should be used to prevent pages solely from moves.
  • A: A page can be speedily deleted if it falls under Wikipedia:CSD#Criteria. For example, a page should be speedily deleted if it is a patent nonsense (CSD G1), test page (CSD G2), or pure vandalism (CSD G3).
  • A: Instead of following every written instruction mindlessly, it would be better to remember how Wikipedia is improved or damaged by each edit. When someone creates an article, it is not important to follow every written instruction mindlessly.
  • 6. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: It is a difficult to answer this question. In talk page discussions, it is harder to determine consensus. People have different views. Sometimes they are not clear. They make many points, some of which are even self-contradictory. I believe it is easier to determine consensus at XfDs and DRVs. On XfDs, consensus is determined by weighing the number of people on the particular side. Excellent arguments by editors also count.
  • 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: Here we have some controversial articles. Those articles invite some strong POVs. I would see if anyone has violated 3RR. I will check the records of User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe. If both users are new or relatively new, I will warn them. If both of them have history of edit warring, I will block them. I will take appropriate decision after reviewing the situation.
Optional questions from bwrs
8. Which articles that you have started have become good articles? If you have assisted in getting other people's articles up to good-article status, then which ones?
  • A. bwrs, here there is no such thing called "my articles" or "other people's articles". You can expand articles created by me and I can expand articles expanded by you. I've worked with other editors to promote the article Boleslaw Prus to the GA status. None of the articles that I started has achieved GA status. I believe the article Arthur Byron Coble can achieve GA status.
9. Suppose that a scientist proposed her own page for deletion, or otherwise requested that Wikipedia delete her page. What are your thoughts on such a situation?
A. It is an interesting question! If the article passes WP:ACADEMIC, I will !vote "keep", otherwise "oppose". If she ask to remove certain information that has nothing to do with her research, I may remove it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Masterpiece2000 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • Question Most of the objecting arguments center on his AfD votes; now should his opinions on particular AfDs actually be reasons for objecting to him as an administrator? Isn't that kinda penalizing him for expressing his opinions? Granted that "per nom" is not adequate when you keep saying it many times, but a sweeping statement like "lousy rationales" doesn't seem right to me. Now WP:CSD lays down some strict guidelines for those working at CAT:CSD, and WP:AFD governs the actions of admins acting on the outcome of debates. From that perspective, do we see any reason that he would abuse his deletion button, in the words of several opinions being expressed here, for "lousy rationales?" Vishnava talk 12:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another problematic thing was the issue raised, that he voted delete on an article that was kept. What is that supposed to mean? Maybe it was not phrased well, but I do see something wrong with that reasoning. Vishnava talk 13:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It depends what you mean by "abuse". I'm confident that Masterpiece would never do anything outrageous, like deleting the main page or blocking users at random. But XfD !votes are guided primarily by policy interpretations, so there's good reason to believe that his policy interpretations are irregular. And now that XfD is not really a vote, administrators' policy interpretations tend to play a major role. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support - past interactions convinced me this editor will be a valuable help in carrying the old mop'n'bucket.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I've seen this user around, and I would agree with him that he is ready for the mop. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I have also seen him around and thoroughly impressed with the work he does. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 03:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Masterpiece 2000 understands Wikipedia's mission, has contributed substantially to its furtherance, shows an impressive grasp of available tools, takes initiatives that aid other editors in their work, and not least, is the soul of tact, courtesy and forbearance. He will make a welcome addition to the pool of Wikipedia administrators. I look forward to working with him in his enhanced capabilities. Nihil novi (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support hard-working editor. No problems, Vishnava talk 05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Wholly good candidate. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 05:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support The candidate's ability to create articles (more than 140 to date) is a very strong selling point for me -- too many would-be admins are hungry to simply delete and stomp out, but this individual has the capacity and the talent to build and expand, which I greatly respect. The opposition votes picking at his sparse "as per nom" answers in the AfD discussion, in my view, do not hold water -- sometimes a person comes in very late to a discussion and doesn't want to repeat what has already been stated over and over. (And is there specific Wikipedia policy forbidding a weigh-in by saying "As per nom"?) Ecoleetage (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SupportDue to your awesome contributions, though I would like to see you at least try to answer some optional questions.Gears Of War 14:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: optional questions have only been posted for a short time. Bwrs (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Seeing a strong editor here. MBisanz talk 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support At this point, it might end up being a Moral support only vote (I hope I'm wrong, though) but I do believe that our project could very well benefit from an article building editor, such as this candidate, having the extra buttons. Any AfD issues that have been raised so far are legitimate, no doubt about that, and I would like to ask the candidate to refrain from closing any AfD's if and when he's granted the mop until such a time when he would open himself up to the community's scrutiny of his AfD contributions and the community reaches a consensus that Masterpiece's contributions at AfD raise no more concerns regarding his ability to close them in the most appropriate manner. Also, I would very much encourage the candidate to add himself to WP:AOR during that time in order for any gross violations of deletion policy to be dealt with swiftly and severly. Clearly, this would be completely voluntary and completely non-binding since the ability to close and delete would be at the candidate's disposal even if the community's concerns have not been alleviated. The bottom line is that, in my honest opinion, the benefit of granting Masterpiece the extra tools far outweighs the potential risks. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose - Per these. Drive by !voting at AFD, and lousy rationales to boot. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose per really weak non-arguments in AfDs: [1] (why is it?), [2] (strong delete for article that was kept), [3], [4] (WP:JNN), [5] (WP:VAGUEWAVE), [6] (WP:PERNOM), [7] (WP:PERNOM), [8] (WP:PERNOM), [9] (the problem here is the old lack of considering Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state as some of the weapons can indeed be sourced by such references as Evan Samoon, "Gun Show: A real military expert takes aim at videogame weaponry to reveal the good, the bad, and the just plain silly," Electronic Gaming Monthly 230 (July 2008): 48. For example, The Lancer weapon was recently featured in an Electonirc Gaming Monthly article that discusses its practicality and historical precedents. Weapons expert Keirsey criticized this weapon by noting that real "chain saws are heavy", among other things. He noted that "medieval bludgeoning weapons are the closest" historical precedents."), [10] (well, those who created, worked on, and argued to keep the article must think there's a need for it), [11] (WP:JNN), [12] (WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM), [13] (WP:PERNOM), etc. In other words way too overly exclusive interpretation of inclusion policies and guidelines to trust judgment on closing XfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me address your concerns.
    Alien and Predator timeline: It was a mistake! I am only a human, anyone can make such mistakes.
    List of psychic abilities: When the article was nominated for deletion, it was written from an anti-science point of view. Most psychologists agree that the sensory systems are the only means by which humans acquire information about physical objects. Parapsychology is regarded as a pseudoscience by the scientific community. The history of parapsychology is littered with accusations of fraud and there are no verified cases of “psychic abilities”. There are no reliable sources that support the concept of "psychic powers". However, I found the arguments by JoshuaZ, Otolemur crassicaudatus, and other editors to be useful. I think I made a mistake by not re-visiting that AfD discussion. I want to make one thing clear: We must not give undue weight to anti-science/pseudoscience topics. Wikipedia is already facing tough competition from Citizendium. In fact, many people I know consider Citizendium to be more reliable than Wikipedia. In future, Wikipedia will face tougher competition from Knol. Just look at the article on insomnia, authored by Rachel Manber, on Knol.[14] Now compare that article with our Wikipedia article. Sometimes, mistakes do happen when trying to make sure that anti-science topics don’t get undue weight. We have to look at the larger picture.
    Some of my comments on AfDs have violated WP:JNN, but those articles were deleted. I’ve spent lots of time developing articles. Some of my comments on AfD were not good. I was never involved with admin coaching. I was not that articulate. In future AfD discussions, I will take care about the concerns you raised. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You said you wanted to make it clear that wikipedia "must not give undue weight to anti-science/pseudoscience topics." You also indicated that you might have revisited the AfD discussion for List of psychic abilities. I, thus, would like to ask you whether you feel there is a place on wikipedia for articles on subjects that are not based in reality but that are otherwise notable because of their verifiable impact on our culture. Would you allow your feelings about pseudoscientific concepts influence your decisions as an AfD closing or deleting admin? How would you, as an admin, approach deleting or closing an AfD regarding an article you had strong feelings about, or would you leave closures in such a circumstance to another admin? ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 02:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AubreyEllenShomo: Would you allow your feelings about pseudoscientific concepts influence your decisions as an AfD closing or deleting admin? No. If majority of users feel that the article is notable, I will not delete it. My personal feelings has nothing to do with how I close AfDs. My main aim to make sure that anti-science/pseudoscience topics don't get undue weight. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the respectful reply; I have struck out the "strong" in my oppose. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose - based on your edit summaries (which are very consistent and helpful, by the way), it looks like you've !voted to keep 10 articles and delete 136 articles. I'd have a very hard time believing that as an admin you would close XfDs in a thoughtful and impassionate manner without being heavily influenced by predispositions. Looking at a handful of the XfDs confirms this. I try to ignore such views in RfAs, but this is a red flag. The evidence doesn't suggest that you're inexperienced, untrustworthy, malicious or anything of that sort, but it is good reason to believe that your participation as an admin in the deletion process would be tendentious. — xDanielx T/C\R 08:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Daniel, I will close XfDs in a thoughtful and impassionate manner without being heavily influenced by predispositions. You’ve done a great job at XfDs. As a new admin, I will seek help from more experienced admins like you and try to do a good job. I’ve spent lots of time developing articles and I’ve been successful. If I put same efforts on XfD, I will be successful. You have noticed that I voted to delete 136 articles. How many of those articles have been deleted? If majority of them were deleted, then my decision was correct. I will also add myself to WP:AOR. If there is any gross violation of the deletion policies, I will resign voluntarily. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response. I still hold the same concerns somewhat -- perhaps the rhetoric I used ("passionate", "with predispositions") was improper, but it still seems that your policy interpretations diverge from communal norms. I am impressed with your article writing and other mainspace work, but that's something you can (and I hope you will!) do with or without the mop. I'll add a "weak" next to my "oppose", at least. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Has created a lot of useful stuff and I'm willing to trust that he has shown a collaborative approach elsewhere, but caught my attention with schematic and early votes of the per WP:XYZ type at AfD, a declared interest of admin work, that focus overly on the current state of the article. What I find worrying is that he doesn't rarely revisits these discussions once actual good arguments or possible sources turn up. With respect to speedy deletions he has indeed tagged rather few, so I am not sure enough about his general judgment in that area either.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong oppose—dozens of extremely poor drive-by votes, often of the form: delete per nom. ~~~~ or "(subject of article) is not a notable (video game, place, footballer...) ~~~~" If the candidate learns the deletion policy and makes several months of constructive contributions at AfD, I would support next time. EJF (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    “Delete per nom” is acceptable. If the nominator presents a solid argument why an article should be deleted, there is no need to repeat the same thing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong oppose, candidate has shown through two-worders and other "thoughtless" !votes in AfD that he cannot be trusted with the power to close contentious AfDs. Yes, people make mistakes but you've made a little too many for me to trust you with the admin tools at this time. Start putting more thought into your AfD !votes, then come back in a few months. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 12:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you focus only on some of my !votes on AfDs? I've created more than 140 articles and I will take care while closing contentious AfDs. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I wouldn't trust you to close AfD's. Having seen your participation in some recent AfD's I have no confidence in your judgement. RMHED (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per XDanielX and RHMED. Not trustworthy.--Koji†Dude (C) 13:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, seems well-intentioned but the huge pile of awful drive-by AfD delete votes, many of which are textbook examples of WP:VAGUEWAVE, makes me doubt how seriously and neutrally this user will behave while closing AfDs.~ mazca t | c 14:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Regrettably. I am sure I have seen some good contributions from this user, but the aforementioned 'drive-by' edits to AfDs is rather concerning. Rudget (logs) 15:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose based on above AfD diffs, such as this one. I am not confident that this editor would close AfDs appropriately, which is a clearly stated intention. Tan | 39 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Oppose Everything looks good, but the all the comments about the Afd's really tells me no. I'm sorry. America69 (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose. Better arguments needed in AfDs. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Oppose. I am sorry to jump on the bandwagon, but the AfD arguments you made brought up by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles give me great pause. Your AfD arguments offer many examples of WP:AADD, from your brief waves at policy, without argument, to your per nom style votes. The votes expressing a personal point of view, like in the AfD for List of Psychic Abilities are of the greatest concern. While I might agree with the sentiment you expressed, that is not the standard for inclusion in wikipedia, and I fear if your votes are biased by matters other than policy your closures may be just as biased. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 01:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. While I will never vote against an RfA because of a editor's positions on afds/xfds/an-is due to the risk of stifling dissent, I do find an issue with how the positions were presented in the diff's that were linked above. It seems like the editor was rushing in his afd responses which is something I have seen on vandalism patrols and could unfortunately carry over to his other syop contribs if he became one. Sorry.--Finalnight (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - Per Finalnight.  Asenine  08:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - unconvinced user understands the principle of being involved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I find his comments at most AfD's he edits to be distinctly unhelpful (or, non-helpful). Daniel (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral I think Masterpiece has the best interest of the project but he seems to have a rather strict/absolute sense of notability, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Torres for example. While I realize he ultimately changed his !vote, I think far too much time was spent debating awards rather than fixing the article. While guidelines are necessary, I don't think they should be treated as absolutes. I worry about his ability to judge consensus if it doesn't align to strict black and white, but rather falls in a gray area, as discussions often do. That said, I don't think he'd abuse the tools so I'm not opposing. It's a concern and I may change my !vote TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Carianne, I don't have strict/absolute sense of notability. There are reasons why I voted "delete". When I voted, the article was like this: [15]. I discussed about awards because they often show whether an academic is notable or not. Torres has received awards in the field of education and those awards are not known to non-Americans like me. I didn't know about National Educator's Award. I don't think we spend too much debating awards rather than fixing the article. Sometimes such debates are helpful. Because of our discussions, the article became acceptable. You admirably worked on that article and improved it. I've created articles about notable economists, psychologists, sociologists, and other academics. In the past, I've supported articles about notable academics.[16][17] I know when an academic is notable or not. However, I'm a human, and I can make mistakes. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard applies here. — Athaenara ✉ 05:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, did not thoroughly read self-nom instructions. –xenocidic (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I'm impressed with the large amount of mainspace edits, particularly all of the new articles created by Masterpiece2000 that have furthered wikipedia content as regards BLPs. In my opinion prospective admins should have made a large amount of contribs to the primary aim of the project (i.e. building a reliable encyclopedia). However, from a a quick look at wikipedia space contribs to AfD discussions there do appear to be a large number of per nom (i.e. no argument given) comments. As the user has stated that closing XfD is a primary intention as regards need for admin tools I am rather concerned regarding this. I'd love to support but I can't really do so based on this issue. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've had a look at the last 15 AfDs that user has contributed to. I have also looked at a pseudorandom sample from early 2008. None of these contained per nom but instead referenced policies such as WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:N etc. Although I have yet to find an AfD contrib which detailed an argument. It appears that this is close at (11/12/3). I'd be in a better position to comment if candidate answers optional questions from Stifle, Jc37 and bwrs. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Masterpiece2000&oldid=1089910505"