Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mathwiz2020

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Mathwiz2020

Final (33/0/0) ended 22:06 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mathwiz2020 (talk · contribs) – Mathwiz2020 has been a Wikipedian since February 2005, and I am primarily nominating him for adminship in order to administer the AutoWikiBrowser program (an edit tool that assists in cleanup, recats, edits, etc.), which he has taken over after Bluemoose's recent departure from Wikipedia. I think that Mathwiz2020 will make a great admin, and hope that you will support his nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination for adminship. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support I know Mathwiz2020 will not abuse adminship and will contribute greatly to wikipedia. I respect his efforts to fight vandals and expand the schoolwatch programme. In conclusion, Mathwiz2020 is a great choice for adminship. --BrenDJ 20:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support I am definitely confident that Mathwiz would make a good administrator. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. King of All the Franks 23:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. -- Phædriel *whistle* 23:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Automated tools are good! We can trust him. --rogerd 00:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, Good editor. Would make a great admin, even though BlueMoose has returned to WP. Gflores Talk 01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Would make a good custodian. --Jay (Reply) 03:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Great vandal fighter. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, although as a vandal fighter, one should have a decent amount of experience in AfD. He has less than 100 wiki namespace edits, but I'm going to support because in his time on AfD, he has shown an ability to learn quickly, judge fairly, and do something about keeps. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support --Terence Ong Talk 09:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Good guy. Martin 13:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. --Kbdank71 14:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. 2+2=Support :D Sceptre (Talk) 17:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Algebra Support --Jaranda wat's sup 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support --NaconKantari 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Looking this over and I see good reasons to support.--MONGO 02:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. All signs point to yes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Sure. --Chris S. 09:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support - Sango123 (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Izehar 18:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support good luck with AWB - I just discovered the program, and we really need someone to administer it. --Bachrach44 19:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support from a math hater. I hate math! ;). Civil and responsive. Good overall experiance. I would like to see more project edits though. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 23:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support those math articles need someone to find the percentage of vandalism. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support As per above. Also, I haven't ever had any personal contact with him, but I have seen a number of edits by him recently which gives me confidence in him. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. --Kefalonia 11:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Keep on with what you're doing. -Colin Kimbrell 22:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Seems well qualified and trustable. DES (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support, will make a fine administrator. Hall Monitor 00:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Mihai -talk 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 12:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (In response to BrenDJ's vote, above.) At the RfA standards page, the highest standard for edit count is 2000. I have 2180 edits and have been with Wikipedia for 11 months. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 23:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No email address provided. --TheParanoidOne 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that - I just fixed that. (There was one provided, I just disabled e-mail from other users, but it's enabled now). — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 21:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why does writing a piece of software require admin powers? -Splashtalk 01:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If you refer to AWB, writing it does not, but administering it does. It depends on a page listing authorized users, to avoid vandalism. This page is protected, for obvious reasons. The person administring the software must edit this page with soem frequency. This is basically moot with Martin's return, and it would always have been possible for these edits to be filtered ther a cooperating admin, so this alone is not a strong reason to grant admin ship, although it is no reason at all to oppose. DES (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Would the candidate explain more deeply what he means by "Finally, I plan to protect pages and update them as needed"? Thanks. -Splashtalk 16:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason I used the word "finally" was not to imply that that would be used as a last resort, that I was waiting for the ability, etc. I used the word finally simply as a way to transition my answer from one sentence to another. As for the ability to protect pages, one of the reasons I was nominated was to help maintain the AutoWikiBrowser. The AWB is a program that can quickly and efficiently operate a set of code on many articles, e.g., to conform headings to the MoS or fix bad links. However, if a vandal received a copy, he could hack it to perform mass vandalism - hence, only allowed users plus admins can use the AWB. Users cab request to have their account enabled, and, if they have 500+ edits, it usually is. An admin adds their name to a protected page that the AWB checks before starting up. Hence, if I was to take over the AWB, I would need to protect the page and then update the list of enabled users as necessary (i.e., when a qualified user asks). I would not take advantage of my admin privileges by vandalizing protected pages such as the Main Page. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to ask the candidate's view on Wikipedia:Process is Important? DES (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As in any situation, process is very important on Wikipedia. Being interested in the sciences and math as I am, I will use an analogy. If a scientist goes to CERN's particle accelerator to try to discover a new element, he has to document his research. While it would be much quicker just to bombard a bunch of particles until a new element is discovered, the scientist must tediously record every single reaction - the particle he accelerated, how fast it was going at the time of collision, what it collided into, and the result. This way, if the scientist discovers, say, element 119, he can give the IUPAC can see exactly what the scientist did, replicate the experiment, and quickly confirm and then name the element. This is all thanks to the process the scientist followed. Had the scientist taken the quick route described earlier, the IUPAC wouldn't know what he did and the element would remain unknown to mankind.
      Wikipedia's goal is to, simply, write an encyclopedia. I joined last February because I knew information the editors of Britannica, for example, didn't know, so I can make Wikipedia better than Britannica. But the reason why Britannica isn't open to everyone is because they want to maintain process - opening a project to everyone usually causes disorganized chaos. Britannica wants instead for its editors to document their sources, follow their own MoS, etc. - that is, conform to their procedure. Wikipedia is not a small group of hired individuals well-trained in process, and we are not threatened with being fired if we don't follow the process. However, if the process is not adhered to, Wikipedia will fall apart, and Britannica will laugh in its face.
      The only way for Wikipedia to remain a reliable encyclopedia is to follow the process, in all aspects of editing, deleting, etc. Otherwise, Wikipedia will not only be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but the one that no one will use. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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. I plan to help with deletion (including speedy deletion), undeletion, reverting, vandalism (using the IP block feature), NPOV controversy, and page protections. I already participate in AfD and tag pages for speedy deletion, but, if I became an admin, I plan to also patrol pages nomintated for speedy deletion and delete them as necessary. I have also noticed that some admins delete pages they shouldn't, hence, I could help with undeletion. A perfect example is when Bluemoose left Wikipedia - I volunteered to help with the AutoWikiBrowser, but I need to undelete his pages to get the information. I use CryptoDerk's VandalFighter and Navigation popups to patrol recent changes and then quickly revert pages, but the admin rollback feature would help a lot. I also use Lupin's anti-vandal tool, and rollback-ability expands its capabilities. If you look at Talk:Thomas Sprigg Wootton High School, I have listed IP vandals but nobody took action. I also plan to block IPs as per WP:3RR and other policies. Additionally, I plan to find articles tagged as having WP:NPOV controversy and neutralizing them to make Wikipedia a better place. Finally, I plan to protect pages and update them as needed. For example, now that I have taken over the AWB, I have to add users to the CheckPage, which is protected.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am particularly pleased with my contributions to Robert Frost Middle School. I nurtured it from a deleted page to a 12kb article with a BEEFSTEW rating of 9/10. I added a nice infobox on the right, statistics and other data tables, information on sports teams, bands, extracurriculars, etc., and even multiple links to news articles about two different extremely notable events. I believe that any page can be expanded and even become a benchmark for quality if only you spend a lot of time researching and writing. This article is just one example. I have now expanded, working on many school articles, including those about schools in the Montgomery County Public Schools system. While the Frost article is not featured article-status, it still exhibits lots of tender care and the time I spent on it.
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 mentioned above, there was a lot of vandalism to Thomas Sprigg Wootton High School. To deal with it, I left a message on the talk page of the article and left this message on the user page of all the vandals. I would have listed it on vandalism-in-progess if I had known about it back then. On Episodes of Lost (Season 2), I was involved in a dispute over WP:NOT and WP:V. Wikipedia is not a "crystal ball", and all information must be verifiable. Hence, I thought that all unverified information about future episodes of the television show 'Lost' should not be allowed. Other Wikipedians and I solved this dispute with a poll and continuing discussion. We also adhere to WP:3RR while reverting unverifiable info. I plan to continue such peaceful negotations in the future. Finally, Fraghappy caused me stress recently in an issue over etiquette. I responded by leaving a message on his talk page citing official Wikipedia policies and stating my opinion. Fraghappy answered me by saying "I don't like you and this argument is entirely pointless" - I will not resort to name calling, as Fraghappy did.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.