Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Masem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Contents

[edit] Masem

Voice your opinion (talk page) (50/1/1); Scheduled to end 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Masem (talk · contribs) - Masem has been editing Wikipedia since October 2006, and has made around 9,300 edits, including 5,700 to mainspace. He is a very experienced article writer, having contributed to four featured articles and six good articles, mainly within the scope of WikiProject Video games. He is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, and has made 54 reports to WP:AIV, 14 requests for page protection and 9 posts to WP:AN/I. His contributions to policy and guideline discussions, especially at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), have always been civil and show a good knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Masem is ready for the tools and would make a fine admin. Epbr123 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination; I enjoy writing articles but have more recently focused on taking articles up the quality ladder to GA and FA where possible. But I've also come to appreciate the process and policy and guidelines of Wikipedia more through these steps, and feel that being involved in helping to resolve disputes and generate new policy to also be a worthwhile effort, as this brings larger exposure to a number of viewpoints you may have never encountered before if you kept your head just in a limited content space, which can help both improve policies/GLs as well as used for article improvement in general. --MASEM 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 would expect to be most active in both page protection and 3RR issues, to help in both preventing vandalism as well as edit wars. (adding per Malinaccier's comment) Mind you, if there's a desperate backlog that needs to be dealt with in adminspace, I would be willing to help out where I can.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: One would be my involvement in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles, particularly in the GA Cleanup (tagging all GAs with an appropriate category and the oldid of the GA reviewed article) which I contributed heavily towards, and presently helping in the GA sweeps project. The other contributions I believe to be my best are what articles I've helped to take to Featured or Good article status, in particular Okami. While it was one of the articles I was involved with heavily, and thus had a lot of extra detail, I spent time learning the various policies and guidelines (WP:N in particular for this) to then help along with other editors drastically trim the article of excessive plot information and strengthen it through reception and development information such that the article is now an FA today; now that I've gotten the ropes down on such articles, I've been able to help smooth that process for other articles as well, both to improve these articles as well as to help other editors understand how policies and guidelines can be applied to make high quality articles.
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: I have gotten into situations where I've either added something, or reverted something else that has been added, and another user reverts that change, with this cycle repeating at most once more. But before I make a third edit (unless it's obviously a vandalism problem), I usually go to the talk page of the article, and state why I think the change or revert needs to happen, and then walk away for some time to see if an opinion is given, and work it out from there. I've found it more and more that if there is a change-revert-change sequence that is legitimately not vandalism, I'll not push the point in editing in the first place, and just drop to the talk page to resolve from there. One specific problem was dealing with an anon user that wanted to include a link to their personal site from first-person shooter; my initial reaction was to immediately challenge it, but I quickly noted that it was better to set up a discussion and informal poll to try to more opinions; I also approached a couple policy/GL pages to try to get input on some of the issues relating to the link. When the user became more and more stubborn about this link to the point of violating 3RR and COI issues, I resolved it through standard admin channels.
Additional questions
4. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no alternate Wikipedia accounts, and do all edits while logged into the site. --MASEM 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 01:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
I was not aware of it until you pointed it out (though I believe I've seen mention to Badlydrawnjeff's name elsewhere), but reading through the process arguments and documents to under the case. My understanding that while we have processes at Wikipedia for handling issues where verifiable, notable content is deleted and can be undeleted, among other policies and processes, we also have to take an ethical approach when dealing with articles about living persons, and even if policy completely allows an article that may be harmful to a person in any way, we need to take the ethical route and not present that information. Users and admins are expected to follow such guidelines when dealing with such articles (writing or admining). --MASEM 02:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
6. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
I would first learn as much about the original deletion and reasons for undeletion as possible, assuming that information is available - determine if the article did contain such contentious material (at deletion or even prior), the edit history to see if such material was frequented edited in and out, the talk page for any discussion about such material, if in question, the deletion discussion and remarks by the admin as well as reasons for undeletion, all to make sure that the material that is requested to be undeleted does not violate the above ruling or other aspects of WP:BLP. If such material wasn't readily available due to appropriate courtesy blanking or the like due to the present of contentious information, I would contact the admin that deleted the article via email to learn about what issues lead to the article's deletion. Should I still be unsure of restoring the article, I would not proceed to undelete the article but instead would turn to other admins for assistance in determining the appropriateness of undeleting the article. Only until I would perfect confident that the article being requested for undeletion did not contain any potentially harmful material (at or prior to deletion), or have checked with other admins including the closing admin that any questionable content is ethically appropriate to include in Wikipedia and that all other arguments for undeletion were valid would I then restore the page. --MASEM 02:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Do you agree that you have read and understand this ruling, agree to follow it if you are successful in this RfA when acting with your administrator tools on an article it applies to, and understand the consequences for breaching it (up to and including desysopping)?
I agree strongly with the ruling; while we are here to build an encyclopedia, we must be ethical and avoid any questionable material about living persons, even if verified from a reliable source, if that may harm the person in anyway. I understand the penalties that are involved should one violate this ruling.

Additional question from Jack Merridew, posted 08:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

8. Could you offer a comment on the current Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters?
Recent changes in consensus/policies/guidelines (notably WP:N) have given rise to a shift of how Wikipedia is handling articles dealing with fiction. The lack of demonstration of notability in many fictional elements articles and topics, while generally acceptable some years ago (See what User:CBDunkerson points out about Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters below) are presently at odds with current aims for the encyclopedia, though all issues are not yet fully determined (see how much activity there has been on WP:FICT in the last half of this year). To the end of supporting notability and other general policy, User:TTN's ultimate goals are in line with the general consensus and policy.
However, I do believe that TTN's methods of doing this are overly aggressive and violate good faith assumptions and that there is no deadline to bring articles into shape (though I am concerned that leaving such articles without notability sit will lead to kudzu-like fancruft growth by being "example" articles for newer editors). I've seen TTN push as fast as he can to merge or delete a non-notable article when there is still discussion going on as whether the article should stay (here), and know that his approach steps on a number of toes. We want to educate editors that notability is a recognized guideline for the article, but it is better to hint and suggest that articles can be improved by demonstrating notability or by merging and transwiking those that lack it, and though good faith assumptions, assume such tasks will be done in a reasonable amount of time for a volunteer project, such as what eventually resulted from the reduction of individual articles for all pokemon down to a few brief lists and separate articles for the most notable of them, all through the editors involved with that project. TTN's actions, among others, have lead to this rift between so-called "inclusionists" and "deletionists" which is not helping anyone to try to make Wikipedia better. While I do believe that TTN's ultimate goal is correct, the rate and aggressiveness of his push for merge and deletion an other editing actions to support these goals is against general good faith behavior. In addition, TTN's own admission to use more AfD's than work with editors even if those result in page edit wars, is troubling since it goes against, or bypasses the general approach outlined in WP:N for dealing with non-notable articles.
Much of the result of actions of users like TTN has lead us at WP:FICT to try to take all possible sides into account and to refocus the guideline, and there always seems to be a spurt of activity by new participants after another round of TTN AfD/Merge topics, since WP:FICT is oft-cited in AfD reasons. Obviously, we would like to try to achieve a consensus-agreed to WP:FICT that included more guidance on how to work with articles that lack non-notability that doesn't call for aggressive actions but yet still will hopefully urge the editors of such articles to make their own changes and decisions on how non-notable articles can be dealt with for the betterment of WP as a whole. --MASEM 15:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
9. What do you want Wikipedia to be in three years from now? Marlith T/C 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A: I would like to see Wikipedia to be able to continue to self-adapt and self-adjust in order to disprove some of the external onuses on the project, namely in fallacies that some see Wikipedia as being unreliable for research purposes, and that Wikipedia is only focused on pop culture and trivial matters. Being able to disprove these through keeping with our current self-improving nature and to encouraging more people to help contribute to the project whereever they can (even if just copyediting or maintenance tasks), helping to educate them wherever they need it, such that we expand our coverage better and demonstrate that such an open collaboration is as good as other, more traditional encyclopedias for research purposes. --MASEM 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. + Keegantalk 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - I think the editor is experienced and trustworthy enough. ScarianTalk 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Stayed calm in the face of User:68.54.56.198 and sock User:HavenBastion in the First-person shooter link dispute, mentioned above in question #3. NF24(radio me!) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Excellent knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies. Master of Puppets Care to share? 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Daniel 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support You will be great admin. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Weak Support. Despite the low number of Projectspace edits, I think you will be ok. I would advise you to add to your answer to question 1. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support A very experienced editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Dlohcierekim 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. SupportPer NF 24 --Writer Listener 08:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support meets my arbitary standards - particularly your helpful attitude evidenced by your talk page, and your sincere desire to help other editors perhaps less technically skilled as yourself. Good stuff. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  10:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - quite a good candidate. — Rudget Contributions 11:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Good editor. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-13 12:28
  15. Absolutely, yes. I dorftrottel I talk I 17:39, December 13, 2007
  16. Looks like a good user. Acalamari 18:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support No reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support I became aware of Masem recently in a little heated guideline debate where he was as calm and insightful as can be. Like I would expect from an admin. – sgeureka t•c 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. This user meets all my standards. I have no concerns. We could use another game expert with a mop. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support I have personally collaborated with this contributor, on BioShock, and he is a truly great editor. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support, he's done some great work here. Cirt (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
  22. Support. No concerns to oppose with! Jack?! 21:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. Try not to get voted off the island, okay? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Strong contributions; I see no reason to oppose. — Wenli (reply here) 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - No Problems. PookeyMaster (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - I have frequently encountered Masem in the ongoing debate about notabiity for fictional material, where I have found his manner and approach to be consistent with the qualities that we seek in a top rate admin. Admittedly, my standard for top rate is a little rouge. Eusebeus (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Not one already? Will (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. -- Ned Scott 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Q8 User:Krator (t c) 15:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support — seems a reasonable and thoughtful editor and I have no concern with giving him The button. --Jack Merridew 16:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Per nominator Alexfusco5 17:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 22:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Per VG interactions. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support per nom. Jhfireboy Talk 01:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. Oppose, too good of a candidate. He will make other people feel inferior. Marlith T/C 05:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm confused by this. Is it a double-bluff or just in the wrong place? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's a joke. Other users have done this on other RfAs. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support evidence of good 'pedia building. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Looks like a trustworthy candidate to me.--Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. Sure, looks good. Redrocketboy 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. Strong support - I've worked with Masem in the GA project for some time now. I have had nothing but good interactions with him. Very strong editor. Will make a fine admin. Lara❤Love 04:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. the_undertow talk 04:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support already doing a lot of good things, I think the tools will help him do even more. Mr Senseless (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support - need for the tools, obvious dedication, probably not mental = admin material. Neıl ☎ 11:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. Weak support - that really strong mainspace count masks low Wikipedia-space activity, but apart that, this user seems good. Lradrama 12:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Deli nk (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Helpful and keeps a cool-head, good interest in building articles. Someone another (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. support --.snoopy. 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support per above really. No reason not to. Woody (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support Go with the flow apparently. :) Jmlk17 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Can be trusted with the tools. Good luck! -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Cheers, LAX 12:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose - In a recent discussion Masem wrote, It should be clear that there has never been a consensus/vote on "list of characters". I found this very troubling because it was in response to a section which cited just such a consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters as the impetus for the creation of the WP:FICT guideline. There is nothing wrong with thinking that notability standards should be a certain way, but Masem goes beyond that into claiming that his opinion is, and indeed always has been, the accepted standard... even when presented with seeming proof to the contrary. Admins, indeed all users, need to be able to discuss what standards should be rather than insisting that they already are as the person wants them to be. --CBD 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    I did not make clear in that post that I was referring to such a consensus on how to handle list of characters after the change at WP:N in May 2007 that adds the language of "significant coverage in secondary sources", and as were attempted to be affirmed and settled in a new version of WP:FICT circa around August 2007 that would have helped to correct some of the contradiction between new notability requirements and the old language from the deletion discussion that resided in WP:FICT. Despite the fact we had settled on language about mid Sept-Oct timeframe (local consensus only) we wanted to wait to present the full changes to the idea and get that consensus on the new approach to "list of characters" until after proposed consolidation of WP:N and possible rewrites at WP:WAF were completed; neither were completed before the more recent activity on WP:FICT. In any case, I certainly didn't think what we had come up with locally was set in stone, and I've been working with concerned editors (both those new to the discussion as well as older ones) to try to reframe the guideline to help match, as best as possible, the old "list of characters" guideline with the newer requirements for notability at the same time providing more guidance for both editors of these pages and those that may be concerned with their notability so that we can help quell the "inclusionists"/"deletionists" editing battles that have been growing since. --MASEM 02:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral This user appears to be a good canidate for being an admin, however I am reluctant to approve as he has not shown a sufficient amount of experience contributing to Wikipedia-namespace pages.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 00:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind me asking, what do you feel is sufficient? Icestorm815 (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
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.