Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Metamagician3000

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] Metamagician3000

Final (53/4/0) ended 08:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Metamagician3000 (talk · contribs) – I met Metamagician3000 just a couple of days ago (after deleting a userbox!) and was quickly impressed. We engaged in a stimulating discussion (which can be found here) which first got me thinking along the lines of an RFA nomination since, never mind that we agree to disagree, I liked his demeanor, reasonableness, and courtesy, and he has a personal philosophy that I think will lead to conservativeness with his admin tools. Having looked at his contributions, I see much of the same: plenty of courteous and sensible comments, coupled with lots of article experience. I think he will make a fine admin and am pleased to nominate him. Dmcdevit·t 04:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I hereby accept nomination. Metamagician3000 07:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. And of course, support. Dmcdevit·t 04:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support! jaco♫plane 09:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support - Richardcavell 09:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. DarthVader 09:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support --Terence Ong 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit asked me on IRC what I thought of this candidate, so I did some digging. I liked what I found even though there were a lot of edits to just a few articles, that's explained well. This editor is a bit longwinded... (grin), but he can be pithy when he wants to be: [1]... read that quote again and think about what it says. That sort of calm, reasoned, thoughtful approach to dealing with an extremely contentious subject area is just what is needed. STRONG, longwinded support (I expect all those opposes to melt away as soon as someone verifies the email link works (cmon guys, I would have neutral-ed, but I digress)) ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support No reasons not to. _-M o P-_ 12:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Have seen this user on WP:AFD. Seems to be level-headed & has a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. Will use the admin tools well. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support--Jusjih 14:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Good and responsible contributor, and as Dmcdevit said, willing to discuss. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Thanks for responding so quickly. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Bumped into this one only a couple of times, but is the classic "thought he was already". No reason to not support. RadioKirk talk to me 17:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support trust with tools Pete.Hurd 18:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support per nom -- Tawker 18:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. "Adminship is no big deal.". - Mailer Diablo 18:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support with an emphasis on keep learning your job. Rama's Arrow 18:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per nom, good answers to questions. - cohesion 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support, and I like the April upsurge in projectspace edits. Keep doing that. --Rory096 20:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support per nom and question #3. (But you should fix the Flying Spaghetti Monster userbox -- it's appearing to the right of the container, for some reason.) --Elkman - (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Happy to Support - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Good user.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Altogether a great "Meta Magician" --Primate#101 02:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Joe I 03:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support abakharev
  25. Support--MONGO 05:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support, meh. I think this guy would use the tools well. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, unlikely to abuse the mop. Kimchi.sg 06:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Should be an admin soon. Sjsharksrs 07:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support.--blue520 08:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Joseph Solis 09:59, 3 May 2006
  31. Support Great addition to Wikipedia. Would not abuse admin powers. I also like that he took the time to provide long responses to the questions below, giving people a better idea of him and how he would use his admin powers. —Mets501talk 11:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - Nice answers to questions. Afonso Silva 12:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. Metamagician is good. Just zis Guy you know? 15:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Deserving in his own right, but DmcDevit nominating him would have done it for me anyway. Jared W 16:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support: I've come across him a few times, and he always seems to be sensible, rational and level-headed. --David.Mestel 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. Has a level head.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support --Bjarki 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support per above Bucketsofg✐ 02:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support looks good. Should be a good admin. Nephron  T|C 05:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Jaranda wat's sup 01:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Just another star in the night T | @ | C 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  44. support: Ombudsman 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support: Less than five months as a Wikipedian, but it looks like he's ready to join the club. --Slgrandson 03:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support, per that enthusiastic nomination! --bainer (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support, falls a little short of my standards but the fact that he's been nominated by an ArbCom member adds enough for me. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Just meets or exceeds my various RfA criteria. Please remember edit summaries are not just for articles. Petros471 17:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support I've seen Metamagician3000 on AfD and elsewhere and trust his judgement. Gwernol 11:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support --Jay(Reply) 18:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. Looks good. --Tone 22:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. Even though he hasn't been around that long, well as a matter of fact neither have I, in my opinion you would be a great administrator, as per your edits and that great nomination. Thetruthbelow 18:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose (for now) - no valid email address on file, thus no way to contact privately, which is essential for admins. --Cyde Weys 08:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, people, I've validated it. Try now. Bear in mind that the offer to nominate me as an admin came as a bit of a (pleasant) surprise to me this morning. Metamagician3000 12:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose (for now), per Cyde. Working email is a must for admins. I got more emails from Wikipedia in the first few days of me becoming an admin than in all the time before it put together. I'll review your contributions in more detail if you enable it. Petros471 10:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I've withdrawn oppose until I've had chance to review contributions/talk pages. Petros471 13:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Strong Oppose per Cyde. per my Standards (not enough time) Cynical 10:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose per Cyde. Mackensen (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    Changing to support now that email is enabled. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Sorry, but you're not quite ready. Maybe in a month or so. Royboycrashfan 16:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not active enough within the WP community, and per Cyde Jonathan235 22:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - After a cursory review, this one seems to meet my requirements, except for the pride issue. Pride in one's accomplishments is useful for creating a lot of disparate POVs to consider, but a potential administrator must have already transcended pride in order to find neutrality. (No, it is not a matter of semantics.) --Dragon's Blood 19:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    The user certainly has an interesting edit history. But I'd say a good workman takes pride in his work and there is nothing wrong with that whatever. You're entitled to support or oppose as you see fit, of course, but other editors may want to take a look at that history to evaluate for themselves whether you're here in good faith or not. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments It looks like Cynical's oppose vote is currently not being counted. I don't want to tamper with any of the text above, so could someone else please correct it? Metamagician3000 04:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the numbering to include Cynical's oppose vote.--blue520 08:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Username        Metamagician3000
Total edits     3520
Distinct pages edited   1001
Average edits/page      3.516
First edit      07:36, December 23, 2005
        
(main)  2233
Talk    522
User    141
User talk       118
Image   1
Template talk   1
Wikipedia       469
Wikipedia talk  35

Contribution data for this user (over the 3527 edit(s) shown on this page):
Time range:
102 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 03, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 11hr (UTC) -- 23, December, 2005
Edit summary use: 44.51%
Average edits per day (current): 34.58
Edits on top: 2.92%
Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 22.14%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 24.44%
Minor edits (non reverts): 34.08%
Quick reverts: 0.23%
Unmarked edits: 41.25%
Namespace:
Article: 63.37%
Article talk: 14.8%
User: 4%
User talk: 3.35%
Wikipedia: 13.38%
Wikipedia talk: 1.05%
Image: 0.03%
Template: 0%
Category: 0%
Portal: 0%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0%
Other talk pages: 0.03%
  • Please activate your e-mail. I may support only after seeing that you had activated the e-mail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhadani (talk • contribs) 06:18, 2 May 2006.
  • I would like to confirm that email is activated, I have received mail from Metamagician3000 and am satified that the link is configured correctly. ++Lar: t/c 00:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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: Unlike a lot of people who respond to this question, I don't see myself doing a lot of vandal fighting with the rollback tool. I'll revert vandalism if I see it, but vandalism patrol isn't something I've been doing or something I really anticipate doing. I'd be more likely to get involved in efforts to clear up backlogs that require admin powers. In the first instance, that would probably mean closing some of the AfD debates, where I think I have a good feel. I already have enough understanding to close many of the debates. I think I could get to the point of closing more difficult debates fairly quickly. I need to find out more about the other backlogs, but I'd consider it a responsibility to pitch in wherever there's a shortage of active and trusted users equipped with admin powers. I'd also be available as someone prepared to take actions to protect the project from disruption, i.e. applying blocks, bans, and protection if needed. I'd probably be quite conservative about using those powers, but I wouldn't be afraid to use them if clearly necessary. I also think that just having those powers in reserve, and the standing as an admin., could be useful when taking part in discussions to counsel people who are "difficult" and potentially disruptive.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've put a lot of work into Transhumanism and related articles. I hope that Transhumanism itself will soon be ready to submit to the FA process. There have been three main editors working as a team there, of whom I'm one. I'm particularly proud that we've been able to produce a very comprehensive and neutral article even though we have somewhat different views about a lot of things and often have to negotiate on the talk page.
I often do good copyediting on articles on subjects that I don't necessarily know a lot about. Goth is an article that is close to GA status and could probably be brought to FA status if someone with real expertise did some rigorous referencing. I can't do it myself because I am not the expert; I've simply lent it my copyediting skills. Still I think that I've been able to improve its structure and clarity a great deal. Someone else will have to take it to the next levels.
I think that I've been a sensible participant in AfD, GA, and sometimes the Cleanup process. Those processes are important for various reasons in maintaining Wikipedia's quality.
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: I have been involved in disagreements with quite a lot of editors over issues relating to the content and direction of articles, but almost all of those have been settled amicably, and it would be exaggerating even to call them content disputes. Sometimes I've found myself feeling stressed, and have been known to think I was encountering stubbornness or immaturity, but I've endeavoured not to express irritation. Even if I've written something angry, I've counted to ten and changed it to something much more reasonable-sounding before saving the page. On the pages I've been most involved in, such as Transhumanism, I've found myself working with people who have sometimes have different sympathies from mine, but those people have usually turned out to be cooperative if treated with respect.
As full disclosure, there has only been one occasion when I've actually been stressed enough to say something in an exasperated or even angry way. That was on the talk page for Sexual harassment a few months ago when a user with whom I was in something of a content dispute suggested that I had once been accused of sexual harassment, which was both speculative and untrue (I later refactored the page, but the relevant version is probably only one edit back in the history, so you can all see me at my worst if you want). That user had already accused me of vandalism over some good faith edits, which annoyed me somewhat, though I think I responded fairly calmly to it. He or she later reported me for supposed vandalism, but it basically got nowhere, because there was no vandalism involved, just a prickly debate about content - I believed that the article was wrong on some points of law, was too USA-centric, and did not take proper account of criticisms/controversies involving the concept of of sexual harassment. This other user, rightly or wrongly, objected to my edits to what had been a fairly stable article until that point.
In the case of the sexual harassment article, I've simply taken an eventualist approach. I've made some improvements (e.g. putting in material about non-US law), but only where I could reference them precisely (something I didn't fully understand when I first started here back in December). In my opinion, the article has improved somewhat as a result of my involvement, but it can be allowed to take form over time. I will add to it now and then, but only when I have time to document points quite rigorously.
In all other cases of disagreement, I think that I've been able to stay calm and reasonable, and it has helped debates. As a result, some of the main articles I've worked on have achieved a good standard even with disagreements/negotiations going on. In some rare cases where I've felt that I had knowledge which was not all that controversial and in need of referencing, I've simply dropped the issue if someone disagreed about that and I could not back up my knowledge with precise references. If there's something I can back up only with my own experience or original research, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia even if it seemed like uncontroversial common knowledge to me when I first thought about it.
In the future, I'll adopt the same approaches. I'll always try to discuss issues of disagreement amicably, focusing on the issues rather than on the person I'm debating. Even if I need to explain my view at length on a talk page, I'll do so as respectfully and dispassionately as I can. If there seems to be some kind of misperception of my motives, or whatever, usertalk pages provide a good place to clear the air. I know that I'll encounter more content disagreements in the future, simply because I edit main article content quite a bit, but I think I am good at dealing with them in a mature way. I expect any occasions when I really do get exasperated to be very infrequent. Even if they ever happen, I'd restrain myself from expressing it. I'd certainly never abuse admin powers, such as by using them to help me in a content dispute.


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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.