Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Masterpiece2000

Masterpiece2000

Voice your opinion (talk page) (7/3/1); Scheduled to end 02:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Masterpiece2000 (talk · contribs) - Self-nomination. 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)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

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.

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:

• 5a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A:

• 5b. ...a page to be protected?

• A:

• 5c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A:

• 5d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A:

• 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:

• 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:

General comments

• See Masterpiece2000's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Masterpiece2000: Masterpiece2000 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support - Seems like a good one. Might not need the tools that much, but would definitely help. Aquarius • talk 03:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Second. - 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)
3. 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)
4. Support I have also seen him around and thoroughly impressed with the work he does. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 03:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
5. 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)
6. Support hard-working editor. No problems, Vishnava _talk 05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Wholly good candidate. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 05:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Per these. Drive by !voting at AFD, and lousy rationales to boot. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
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 Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
3. 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)
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 revisit 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)
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)
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)

Neutral

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 _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

   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: [14]. 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.[15][16] 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)

   Comment: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard applies here. — Athaenara ✉ 05:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral, did not thoroughly read self-nom instructions. –xenocidic (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)