Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mets501 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) at 01:28, 9 August 2006 (Updating vote count). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Voice your opinion! (58/2/0) Ending 01:20, 2006-08-13 (UTC)

Mets501 (talk · contribs) – To begin with, Mets501's first RfA can be seen here. In that nomination, the main reasons for opposition were lack of experience and not enough User/Talk edits, etc. Well, Mets501 has certainly turned things around since then, and has proved himself a very valuable contributor to Wikipedia. He can be seen participating in AfDs and RfAs, among other things, he has had nothing but positive interactions with fellow Wikipedians, and his article namespace edits have increased, which is evident in his participation in the article improvement drive, and related areas. Vandalism reversions are still, however, a top priority for this user. I feel that this user needs the admin tools, and his work on Wikipedia, as well as interactions with other users, are just some of the many reasons for that. Pilotguy (roger that) 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored to accept :-) —Mets501 (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry for the late acceptance, I went on a wikibreak with uncertain Internet access)Reply[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As Pilotguy correctly stated above, vandalism cleanup is a top priority for me on Wikipedia. I often spend long periods of time with applications such as VandalProof reverting vandalism and (always) warning users. The ability to block vandals after repeat vandalism and proper warnings would be a great tool to have, as I have already made 30+ reports to WP:AIV, often waiting long periods of time for an administrator to show up while still reverting the damage done by that specific vandal. I am also involved in AfD's, and would like the ability to close them after appropriate time has passed and there is a clear consensus to delete or keep, or close them and keep them on the account of "no consensus". I definitely have enough participation in deletion discussions to be able to tell (in most cases) whether consensus has been reached. A third "pet peeve" of mine is why, in some cases, it takes extended periods of time for an admin to show up when an "editprotected" tag has been placed on a protected page's talk page, and I would deal with this as well. Finally, I have tagged many articles for speedy deletion, and intend to help clean up the backlog there. Although these four things will most likely be the areas I will be most involved in, I am very open to doing other tasks as well. Also, I will not rush to use the new tools (if they are granted to me), and will instead use them very conservatively at first, following examples from other admins who are more experienced, but slowly using them more and more over time, once I am positive I understand them 100%.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: By far, the one article I have put the most work into and I am particularly pleased about is the Polar coordinate system. Before I started with it, it was a redirect to Coordinates (mathematics) with a small section. Now it is a full, detailed article, which, aside from minor typo corrections and such, was written almost entirely by me. I also created and uploaded all (except for one) of the images in the article. From my answer it may sound like I feel I own the article, but I do not feel that way, I am thrilled any time that the article is edited, and would love for it to be "edited mercilessly" and improved. I am also proud of my cleanup work to Yahoo! Mail (see this big diff and this diff) and the large amount of work I put into Factorization and Polynomial expansion.
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: As much as I hate being in conflicts, they are inevitable. One conflict which I remember clearly was one over a deletion debate of an article about, and I voted for deletion and the webmaster of that web site did not like that too much. After I was polite with this, he left this for me, and then in response to his message I tried once again to be polite and left this on his user talk page. He never contacted me again.
I hate being in conflicts as much as I hate seeing conflicts occur. One example was when I saw an editor continuing to remove large sections from many pages, and I continued to leave warnings on his user talk page. He then left this message on his talk page. I did not want to lose a potentially valuable editor, so I responded, formally welcomed the user, and struck out the warnings. I'm not sure what happened to this editor since, I like to hope he got an account and continued contributing, as this might suggest. Another example of a conflict which I tried to halt was a conflict over the article Proof that 0.999... equals 1. The talk page was getting ridiculously long in a debate over whether to include a certain proof, and I left this message there to try and solve this.

Optional question from Lar:

4. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Thanks for the questions. I answered your questions about Category:Administrators open to recall before in the "comments" section below. As far as Category:Rouge admins goes, I personally see it as mildly humorous, but would not allow myself to be placed into that category because it has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, and there is also no controversy attached to not allowing myself to be placed in that category.

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 06:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Viewing contribution data for user Mets501 (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 88 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 06, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 9, May, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 33.46 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 513 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 57 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.16% (8)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.26% (63)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 40.02% (2001)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 62.12%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 37 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3505 | Average edits per page: 1.43 | Edits on top: 20.54%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 53.44% (2672 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 33.16% (1658 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 13.34% (667 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.06% (3 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 52.1% (2605) | Article talk: 3.34% (167)
User: 6.12% (306) | User talk: 18.46% (923)
Wikipedia: 15.42% (771) | Wikipedia talk: 1.04% (52)
Image: 0.48% (24)
Template: 1.64% (82)
Category: 0.08% (4)
Portal: 0.04% (2)
Help: 0.02% (1)
MediaWiki: 0.26% (13)
Other talk pages: 1% (50)
Username Mets501
Total edits 7153
Distinct pages edited 4922
Average edits/page 1.453
First edit 18:38, February 3, 2006
(main) 4086
Talk 211
User 500
User talk 1151
Image 48
Image talk 1
MediaWiki 13
MediaWiki talk 44
Template 105
Template talk 5
Help 1
Category 4
Wikipedia 909
Wikipedia talk 71
Portal 4
  1. Cleared for Adminship Per my statement above. --Pilotguy (roger that) 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support the time is right. An excellent editor who will do well with the tools. Gwernol 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. (nom beat me by 18 days) Edit-conflicted Support easily covered all the concerns in the first RfA. --james(talk) 01:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support, good guy. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support. I've seen nothing but good things from this user. It's a pleasure to express this opinion alphaChimp laudare 01:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support. All indications positive. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. troppuS, seen them around a bit.--Andeh 01:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support, obviously. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 02:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support Rama's arrow 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support I've seen Mets501 around a lot. I am curious about those two consecutive wikibreaks, though... that's original. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was on two real life vacations with a 5 day break between them; not enough time for a full 7-day RfA :-) I've changed it now to say "a wikibreak" —Mets501 (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, I apologize. I didn't mean to make it sound as though my support was lessened by that. I just found it interesting: sort of like saying "two naps back-to-back" instead of "one long nap". Or "I had something to eat after I finished having something to eat". See? Okay... never mind... carry on... -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Let's play ball! Yanksox 03:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support - good editor, good vandal fighter abakharev 04:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support per nom. MichaelZ526 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support looks good. Stubbleboy 05:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Strong Support Definitely --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support. I have thrown a mop at you. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support Looks like another good candidate for the mop and bucket.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)    08:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Looks good, Support. :) --Shane (talk/contrib) 08:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. {{RfA-cliche1}} Highway Return to Oz... 09:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support, based on my experiences with the candidate. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Aye. — Wildrick 11:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Cliche --Nearly Headless Nick 12:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. In April I opposed your RfA with a comment of "Intentions seem good and can't find anything overly negative. But it is just to soon, give it a couple of months." and I still stand by that comment, Support. ---blue520 13:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support. G.He 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Excellent, trustworthy editor, and he's open to recall, which is a plus. Xoloz 16:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support No problems here. --Guinnog 16:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support Quarl (talk) 2006-08-06 17:23Z
  32. Jaranda wat's sup 17:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Full support. Good editor, friendly, meets my 2k edit requirements; an admin need not like conflict to be a good admin. --Firsfron of Ronchester 19:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Why isn't this user an admin yet? Support! Misza13 T C 20:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support -- this is how all second nominatins should be --T-rex 21:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support. Yes. —Khoikhoi 21:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support. Barely meets my criteria of 200 maintalk edits, and I do find it strange that the nom has over 4000 article edits, and such few article talk edits. But not that strange. Themindset 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you're curious, that's because I prefer to interact on User talk pages if it's about something that a specific user did with an article. Of course, for proposing changes to an article or questions for multiple users I would use the Talk page, but otherwise I would use User talk. —Mets501 (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support per nom, Alpha, and T-Rex. Joe 05:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support, changed from "Neutral" based on explanation provided. (Thank you). Accurizer 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Unnecessary pile-on vote -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 21:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support per nom and what I've seen elsewhere. BryanG(talk) 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support per above. Stifle (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Edit Conflict reason not to, many reasons to do so. The fact that they are involved in many different actions inside of the Wikipedia namespace strenghtens my opinion of them in a positive way. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support, although this user needs to water down his or her RfA standards :) — Deckiller 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Edit Conflict & Support Give me one good reason to oppose. That's what I though. Viva La Vie Boheme
  47. Support. - SynergeticMaggot 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support happily. Although I'd like to come he can edit MediaWiki:Edittools while thousands of regular users (like me) really can't? --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because it was in his userspace at the time[1]. Yanksox 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support (after I finally found the darn support box) -- Tawker 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support - Great editor. Enjoy the mop! :) Srose (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Merovingian - Talk 18:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support While his ~30 reports to WP:AIV is not as many as I'd like to see from a candidate who pledges to frequently watch AIV, any watching would be great, as there are often backlogs there (sometimes for 45 minutes to an hour). Also, the user seems to be quite trustworthy as well, so I cannot see the candidate misusing the tools hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Steel 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support Vandal fighter extraordinaire! Baseball,Baby! ballsstrikes 23:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support I am very surprised not to have encountered you earlier! Definite support - Glen 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support looks great. Wikipediarules2221 01:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support per nom. --physicq210 01:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oh no, the first oppose. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-homosexualism. Maybe it's just a pet peeve, but if something gets no google hits, it's unverifiable... not "non-notable". This apparent confusion over a core concept of inclusion (basing it solely on notability) makes me uncomfortable supporting the candidate at this time. Shows general confusion about why we have articles... including "This is one of the most visited math articles on Wikipedia" alone as justification for having an article. Also his guidelines for RfA voting seem a little naive about the role of admins... there's no magic formula for who makes or doesn't make a good admin. And if there was it wouldn't have anything to do with edit summary usage. Looking through his contribs I just keep getting this same kind of vibe... sorry. --W.marsh 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    First of all, let me start of by saying that this is in no way meant to change your mind (although you are welcome to if you wish); I'm not offended or uncomfortable with the fact that there is an oppose vote, I've felt the same way sometimes when I just can't bring myself to support something. Anyway, in response to your concerns. In my opinion, a search is one way of testing for notability and possible verifitability of a subject. The verifitability part is pretty obvious: if there are many search engine hits, then a subject can most likely be verified. As far as notability, I don't use a seach engine past the first few results. Basically, if no one on any web page anywhere has mentioned a term, it is obviously non-notable. I don't usually use a search engine to say that such-and-such only got 1200 hits, so it's not notable. For notability, I'm just testing if anyone has used a term before.
    As far as RfA guidelines, I am fully aware that there is no "majic formula" for making a good admin. I have set numbers for myself so that all RfA candidates are treated the same by me, and so that I'm not sometimes "in a bad mood", or "in a great mood". I feel that 1000 article edits are necessary because this is, after all, an encyclopedia, so many article edits shows experience with the encyclopedia content itself. Talk page edits and Wikipedia space edits are a must, to demonstrate user interaction and policy experience. And about edit summary usage: I'm sorry, but they're kind of a pet peeve for me when people don't use them. This is probably also because I do quite a lot of vandal fighting, and no edit summaries makes some edits extremely difficult to judge whether they're vandalism or not. Also, if an editor doesn't almost always use edit summaries, who knows if he'll always remember to put a descriptive summary when deleting pages, or give an explanation in a close AfD debate. I hope I've addressed most of your concerns. Feel free to ask more questions if you have them. —Mets501 (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oops second oppose. 0FA, though I think with just a bit of work Polar coordinate system can make a good FAC. -- Миборовский 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No problem. It's not a standard I believe in myself, but if you do, that's perfectly OK :-) —Mets501 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. I first encountered Mets501 two months ago when I was reviewing AfDs and found that he made an edit to the AfD project page that caused 95 nominations to be orphaned. See [2]. When I brought it to his attention he thanked me, but, on balance, it occurred somewhat recently and I feel I can’t discount it entirely. Absent any other errors coming to light, I am not inclined to oppose, having been swayed by his openness to recall. If a good explanation of how / why this occurred is forthcoming, I would consider revisiting my assessment. Accurizer 15:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahh, yes, I remember that. It was certainly not intentional, it was related to this bug. Occasional loss of text box data was spontaniously occuring when editing in tabs in Firefox due to a Google Toolbar bug. I have since uninstalled Google Toolbar and since I did, it has never happened again. —Mets501 (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]