Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master of Puppets 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:27, 4 February 2008

Master of Puppets

Voice your opinion (talk page) (55/1/1); Scheduled to end 15:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Master of Puppets (talk · contribs) - It's my pleasure to nominate Master of Puppets for adminship. He has been a valued member of our community since November 2005, and has made almost 13000 edits. He had a no-consensus RfA in May 2006, and I think he has improved considerably since (and it has been more than the arbitary 3 months, I think, just about). He has done a lot of article work (something which was the cause of his last RfA not passing), including work on Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, Guild Wars (series), John McIntyre (blogger), Tutankhamun, Keith Rosenkranz, and many others - while he may not stick with one article, he is regularly improving articles on various topics by adding references, copyediting and of course adding new material. Of course, he works in admin areas too: he regularly helps out users on the help desk, participates in Articles for deletion, and does regular RC patrol. I can imagine he would find the block button useful for that, and while he sometimes closes AfDs according to the procedure that non-admins can, he has proven himself excellent at showing good judgement in this, and other areas - he can of course be trusted to use the delete button sensibly. In summary, this user will be a great admin: he's very active, very helpful, has clue and is a genuinely nice person too. Majorly (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination - I’d like to offer a co-nom for MoP. From my interaction with him, I’ve found him to be extremely helpful here, a regular on the help desk, he tries wherever possible sort problems out for others. MoP does a lot of wikignome tasks such as adding references and formatting articles, helping to increase our credibility. He’s made some great content contributions to articles such as Guild Wars (series) and a Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War: Dark Crusade (yup, unfortunately it looks as if he’s a bit of a games fan!). I’ve always found his AIV contributions to be accurate, always giving users a chance to change their ways before being blocked. His 124 contributions there show he has a sound knowledge of when to, and when not to block. He’s also active in many community discussions, and I always appreciate his thoughtful comments where he shows his firm understanding of policy. A look at his deleted contributions show he’s tagged numerous pages for speedy deletion, showing a great knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria – he’d be a great help at CAT:CSD. All in all, a great user who has shown he is a dedicated member of the project, and his sound knowledge of policy will make him an excellent administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 16:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: I'd like to make sure I do my part to keep backlogs down and to a minimum. I'm a regular at WP:AIV and WP:UAA, so I would continue work there; I'd like to become more active in WP:RFPP and WP:AN3. I'd also like to participate in deletion debates at WP:XFD, especially the articles for deletion process and miscellany for deletion process. I'd also be happy to keep an eye out at WP:AN and subpages in case any assistance is needed; I'll also keep tabs on WP:RFC and comment there whenever I can. Finally, I'd regularly check for speedied articles, and after verifying the speedy, act on them.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've done a bit on Wikipedia, but I like to think that my best contributions have been to WP:AFD. I'm proudest of my work on WETF, Keith Rosenkranz, John McIntyre (blogger), and Joe Foglia, which I helped improve after they were nominated for deletion. In terms of regular article work, I've worked on quite a few; notably Winnipeg Police Service, Tonicity, BirdNote and Dark Crusade. I'd like to keep contributing to articles even if I do become an administrator, because that's the main reason I'm here, after all.

I've also spent a lot of time at the help desk and new contributor's help page, and would like to continue doing this if I become an admin. Aside from that I patrol #wikipedia-en-help on IRC, and try to help any users I can. I also have four great adoptees, three of who are active on the 'pedia.

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: So far I have not once been stressed by conflict; personally, I think that all stress does is cause tension between editors that gets in the way of communication and therefore betterment of the encyclopedia. I've been in a conflict here or there, though; the incident that jumps to mind is my interaction with user User:Bruce1333, which ended up with a RFC here. While I'm sad that the user didn't want to cooperate, I think I acted appropriately and handled it well.

Question by Zenwhat

4. You are facing a troll who is pushing views you disagree with and subtly violating policy. What would you do?

A) Warn the troll immediately and, if they continue, block them.
B) Send a message to Ryan Postlethwaite off-wiki, asking him to deal with it.
C) Create an alternate account, warn the troll immediately and block them with your main account if they continue.
D) Try to be nice to the troll, invite them to WP:TEA, and see if you can help them understand the merit behind Wikipedia policy.
E) Other (please explain in detail) ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: F) I walk north west. A Grue eats me.

Just kidding. In all seriousness, I'd go for D; I'm always courteous to users, and will never retaliate to name calling with more name calling. One doesn't fight fire with fire. This is how I've acted in the past and I'm never going to change that. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Whitstable

5. I assume your username is influenced by the Metallica album of the same name. However, it is possible that it may confuse users and suggest you are in control of sockpuppets. Would would consider changing your name if your RFA is successful? Whitstable 20:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: You're correct to assume that it refers to Metallica. However, in my history of editing I've only seen one person get confused and accuse me of being a puppeteer, so I don't think it is that big of a concern. For now, I'd like to keep the name.

Seems good, just was concerned it may have caused confusion, but if only one then fair enough! Whitstable 20:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thehelpfulone

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block? --The Helpful One 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen and from what I understand, blocks are technical restrictions on editing which prevent a user from editing the project (to prevent an edit war, vandalism, or activities related to disrupting the encyclopedia), and is usually a temporary method to force a user to cool off, though it may be indefinite in the case of determined vandals.

A ban, on the other hand, is not software-enforced, but rather a decision made by the community or certain parties (ARBCOM, Jimbo, the foundation) that decrees the user stay away from a certain editing space on the encyclopedia. As this can't be enforced by software, the user has to comply with the ruling for the time the ban is in effect.

7. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not? --The Helpful One 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: Personally I don't think that the category is necessary; an administrator is chosen by the community, so I don't think it is the administrator's choice if the community decides to recall them. After all, I respect consensus and my fellow editors, and would gladly recall regardless of what categories I'm in. I'd add myself to the category purely for sorting purposes, though, so that users can feel free to suggest it may the need arise.

8. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any? --The Helpful One 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: A user would have to have a good recent (past month or two) history, and as long as I see they are not prone to rash actions (such as edit warring), I would grant rollback. If rollback was used to do something like edit war, I would remove it. The reason I would only consider recent history is because people change; if a user has been blocked in the past or edit warred in the past, they still may have learned from their mistakes and become great contributors.

Question by DarkFalls

9. What is your understanding of the non-free image criteria, and how will you enforce it in articles? Templates? Portals?

A:

General comments

See Master of Puppets's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Master of Puppets: Master of Puppets (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/Master of Puppets before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Majorly (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - can't see any problems here. Black Kite 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've interacted with this user a number of times, and have no problems with his demeanor or judgment. Will make a good sysop. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't like that big gap in editing, but that can't be changed and he's logged over 1000 edits the last three months. He has tons of experience. Some people may get the wrong idea regarding sockpuppets when they see his name, but whenever I see his name, though, I think of the Pastor of Muppets. Useight (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're NOT an admin???!!! EJF (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support yepp, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 17:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, excellent candidate with thorough grasp of policy. A very thoughtful, helpful and responsible adopter, also. :) @pple complain 17:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Uhh, yeah, I so didn't realize MOP wasn't already an admin...*twiddle* Gromlakh (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - will be fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Was going to nominate him myself. Will make a great administrator. Very kind and has helped me out a lot. Earth bending master 18:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support MOP deserves the MOP. Great user seem him everywhere, very trustworthy. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - I'm getting annoyed with you answering questions before me at the help desk - so maybe the tools will keep you a little more preoccupied? ;-) - This user will make an excellent admin; he is kind, polite and dedicated. He will no doubt offer the same level of care and interest to his admin obligations as he does elsewhere. MoP is also great at noticing my mistakes! :-D - Definitely needs/deserves the tools. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very knowledgeable about policy, as shown at WP:UAA and WP:AIV, and helpful at the help desk. My only quibble is with flagging edits as minor edits when they aren't, but I'm not going to make that a big deal. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-conflicted support - An excellent candidate, who's fine qualities are reflected in his outstanding contributions to the project. No reason why MOP can't get one. Rudget . 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Twice edit-conflicted Support I thought you were an admin! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. About a month ago I considered noming, but had never done so, and I didn't want to hurt the user. At any rate, I wanted to do because there are few non-admins that would put the tools to better use than Master of Puppets. SorryGuy Talk 19:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per my talk page: Just to clarify the above, I meant I did not want to offer a nomination as I feel that someone with more experience doing so is more likely to give a good nomination. SorryGuy Talk 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support You have lots of contributions in most areas of Wikipedia. Polly (Parrot) 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per answer to my question in neutral section. Tim meh ! 20:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uh, thought you were one. Give M.O.P. the mop...hah! :) Jmlk 1 7 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no concerns that this editor would abuse the tools Whitstable 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no reason to oppose that I can see. And has a great name. Socko (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The questions are just general... I will still support you, those questions are just a check up ;) :) --The Helpful One 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per answers and superb edits. Will put the tools to good use. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long overdue Keegan^talk 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work on the wiki. Also, I like your honest answer to the admin recall question. Sometimes it's hard for me to believe that nearly every single admin candidate actually supports the idea and isn't just trying to conform. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's pulling my strings, I must obey my master. Rudie M. (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Under 100 edits to the Portal talk namespace.
Kidding, of course. Give MoP the mop. :-) Great editor, clearly trustworthy. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support You're one of the few I support. Bstone (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cliche'd I-already-thought-he-was-one support - Revolving Bugbear 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yup. :) Midorihana^~iidesune? 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give MoP the MoP NHRHS 2010 23:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seen MoP around WP:ANI, where his contributions are knowledgeable and worthy. No qualms. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Majorly. Pedro : Chat 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interactions with this user have been more than positive, will not abuse the tools. Give em' the mop. Tiptoety ^talk 00:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks like a responsible user from his contribs. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a good user, per majorly. Spencer^T♦^C 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent contributor. Have fun with the mop :-). But not too much fun. Pump me up 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Based on what I've seen while patrolling recent edits, I have no problem with is fellow--Pewwer42 Talk 02:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through his deleted taggings, and, I'm Dloh cierekim Deleted?, and I approve this message. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Levelheaded, takes criticism well, willing to adjust, civil. Most important qualities in an admin. --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that MoP will make an excellent admin! It’s about time, too. —Travis ^talk 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought I'd never say this again at an RFA, but...I thought he already was an admin. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me! GlassCobra 04:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't this happen sooner? Grand master ka 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good answers - just be more careful of the Grue. Dreadstar † 06:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - I was going to make an obvious pun, but Milk's Favorite Cookie beat me to it.... --jonny-m t 08:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Giving mopper the mop will, in my opinion, greatly benefit Wikipedia. Astral (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. His answer to my question was inappropriate. The "constructive edits" seem have been largely fancruft. His co-nominee, Ryan Postlethwaite, asked me about a previous account of mine without telling me exactly why he was asking. [1] That's sort of a red flag for "fishing with RFCU." And finally, his contrubtions to AfD and CSD are touted, but we have absolutely no idea of knowing if that's true, since Special:DeletedContributions/Master of Puppets is only visible by administrators. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have made it clear my reasons for asking you about your previous accounts - when you joined the project, you have had an amazing knowledge of some serious disputes here, many from when you weren't registered. Secondally, many of your edits have been provocative in nature, and touched nerves in some long lasting disputes here - something which I believed was because of a previous account. New users don't walk into the disputes you've walked into. But then again, there's a time and a place for me discussing my motives, and this RfA isn't it.... Ryan Postlethwaite 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, I can vouch for the fact that he has many hundreds of good CSD taggings in his deleted contributions. As far as AfD is concerned, you can see those contributions since AfD discussions are not deleted. Whatever you think about his co-nominator is irrelevant here, which should be a discussion of this candidate, not who nominated him. Will (aka Wimt) 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything or any way I can help explain things in order to straighten out any confusion you may have? Bstone (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying that, Ryan. Batone: It is doubtful. Deletionism and Inclusionism are like yin and yang. Deletionism, the force of good, inclusionism the force of evil. Or do I have that backwards? In any case, our philosophies are about ten million miles apart and what you may refer to as "confusion" is in fact the truth. See User:Zenwhat/The diamond essay. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a question I'd like to know, though: Could I somehow see a list of all the AfD discussions he's been in? If he's regularly deleted cruft, then yes, I'd change my vote. If he's engaged in AfD debates, though, where he's said "keep its interesting" or something along those lines, then I could never support him. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't participated in this discussion above, but please note that his contributions to AFD and MFD are available in his contribution history: Special:Contributions/Master of Puppets. Although the articles are sometimes deleted, the discussions themselves are retained. In general, I find that rhetoric pitting "deletionists" against "inclusionists" to be unhelpful -- suggesting that one side is evil is perhaps especially unhelpful. --JayHenry (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay: Finding and listing every AfD would be tedious work. Something he should do, not me, if he wants my vote. The concepts of "deletionism" and "inclusionism" are both absurd, as are the concepts of "immediatism" and "eventualism." In both cases, it draws away from the most rational course-of-action: Building an encyclopedia as quickly and effectively as you can. This can involve deleting or it can involve including. It can involve immediate action (including ignore the rules) or it can involve patience. I use the "deletionist" rhetoric, because that is all that Wikipedians seem to understand. I am, after all, obviously not an inclusionist. I see cruft of everywhere and want it all eliminated. So, what am I? I am a deletionist. But there is no such thing!

Both inclusionism and deletionism are evil. The terms "inclusionism" and "deletionism" are evil. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

– Gurch 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Showing up as to avoid rudeness? —Animum (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would have supported but I am concerned by this user's lack of contribution to Wikipedia's content. They haven't written a single featured template – Gurch 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No MediaWiki-space edits either... ;-) EJF (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Can you explain the large gap in your editing a few months ago? Tim meh ! 19:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be more appropriate as a question? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted - grrr :P) Does it matter? Do you decide if a user should be trusted with the mop based on when it edits? (I know it may sound unfriendly, I don't mean it as such, just doesn't seems much relevant) Happy editing, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't decide based on when he/she edits. I will support if I get an answer to my question. But, until then, I will stay neutral. Tim meh ! 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I attend school, and my editing started to drop due to grade 10 schoolwork being ridiculously demanding. I started back up after I got that year over with and settled comfortably into the rhythm of grade 11 due to feeling guilty about using Wikipedia for almost every project while not contributing. I've also made sure that this won't repeat itself by making sure I have time for everything now, so that I don't neglect the 'pedia. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I know what it's like to be overwhelmed by schoolwork. Just make sure your Wikipedia editing doesn't negatively affect your grades too much. =) Tim meh ! 20:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'd prefer it if Wikipedia was school. But thanks, and I'll be sure not to. :) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Timmeh, you are currently listed both as neutral and as support. Please choose just one. [User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that my neutral is crossed out? Tim meh ! 21:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is struck, but you have not indented your vote. EJF (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind doing it for me? Thanks. Tim meh ! 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* do I have to do everything around here... – Gurch 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry Gurch and Timmeh, I didn't notice! EJF (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 : I haven't participated in this discussion above, but please note that his contributions to AFD and MFD are available in his contribution history:  [[Special:Contributions/Master of Puppets]].  Although the articles are sometimes deleted, the discussions themselves are retained.  In general, I find that rhetoric pitting "deletionists" against "inclusionists" to be unhelpful -- suggesting that one side is evil is perhaps especially unhelpful. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] ([[User talk:JayHenry|talk]]) 07:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
+Jay: Finding and listing every AfD would be tedious work. Something he should do, not me, if he wants my vote. The concepts of "deletionism" and "inclusionism" are both absurd, as are the concepts of "immediatism" and "eventualism." In both cases, it draws away from the most rational course-of-action: Building an encyclopedia as quickly and effectively as you can. This can involve deleting or it can involve including. It can involve immediate action (including ignore the rules) or it can involve patience. I use the "deletionist" rhetoric, because that is all that Wikipedians seem to understand. I am, after all, obviously not an inclusionist. I see cruft of everywhere and want it all eliminated. So, what am I? I am a deletionist. But there is no such thing!
+Both inclusionism and deletionism are evil. The terms "inclusionism" and "deletionism" are evil. <font size="4">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</font>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 09:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 =====Neutral=====