Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Metropolitan90

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] Metropolitan90

Final (talk page) (31/0/1); Ended Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:17:16 (UTC)

Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs) - Hi, I'm Metropolitan90. I've been a Wikipedia editor since May 2005. Among the Wikipedia activities I've been involved in are participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and occasionally other XfD's, stub sorting, new pages patrolling, and categorizing insufficiently categorized articles (mostly music-related articles placed in the top-level Category:Music). I've created a few articles (see the list on my user page), and generally I've tried to help out where work was needed and I could handle that work. Metropolitan90 05:34, 23 September 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: The main types of admin work I expect to be involved in are closing XfD's (mostly Articles for deletion) and deleting candidates for speedy deletion. As a new pages patroller, I find that it's not unusual to see in the new pages log an entry with an edit summary something like: "(Created page with 'John Doe is an ugly stupid guy. He smells bad too.')". Clicking on the page, I would plan to tag it with the {{db-attack}} template, but then I find that another editor has already done so; as an admin, I would be able to act on the other editor's tagging by actually deleting the article. I may also get involved at WP:CP since there appears to be a backlog of copyright-violating articles that need deletion. I don't plan to make vandalfighting a significant part of my admin activities, but I think I can do so if needed; all of my reports to WP:AIV over the last year were upheld (granted, there were only six of them).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: One of my favorite contributions has been work on the article Greg Packer, the media's favorite "man on the street". Although I may have a reputation as a deletionist, I've also helped improve, or provide sources to support some articles that were up for WP:AFD while they were at AfD; see the AfD's for Jeanine Nicarico (article moved to Jeanine Nicarico murder case), List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees, Hippolyte Mège-Mouriés, Carol Potter (actress), Mary Alice Williams, Foley & Lardner, Lucky cow (article moved to Lucky Cow), Bern's Steak House, and OXXO.
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: Generally I have avoided being involved in significant disputes, although occasionally I have had some issues. For example, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garden City Christian Church, I was accused of nominating the article for deletion (condition as of AfD nomination:[1]) without having read it and nominating it "under false pretenses". [2] The resulting discussion can be found here; after that, I let it go. I've also occasionally jumped the gun on recommending something for deletion as indicated here. But, on the other hand, I have been able to work out some potentially problematic interactions by defusing the tension. See here, where an editor wrote "You just made me mad!" in response to my submitting an article he wrote for speedy deletion, then see here, where the same editor thanked me less than half an hour later for explaining the situation. --Metropolitan90 06:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Mr.Z-man

The following are some deletion related questions to help gauge your adequacy to handle the tools. Long responses are not necessary or even desirable, but insight into your reasoning will be helpful. Mr.Z-man 05:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
4a. An editor has tagged an article for speedy deletion as db-nn (A7) but the article is not about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content and fails none of the other speedy deletion criteria. The article looks to be absolute crap (but not incoherent to be nonsense) and the author has put a {{hangon}} on it, but not provided a reason on the talk page within 20 minutes of contesting the deletion. What do you do?
A. If the article is worthy of deletion but I can't find any criterion that would justify speedy deletion, I'll probably tag it for proposed deletion. --Metropolitan90 01:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
4b. The full time for an AFD discussion has elapsed and it is ready to be closed. There are 6 comments in favor of deletion and 5 comments in favor of keeping. All of the comments are perfectly valid but the article is a WP:BLP violation. What do you do?
A. In that case, rather than closing the discussion myself, I'd probably follow one of two tactics. If I thought that the article could and should be rescued from its BLP problems, I'd edit the article to either delete or source the controversial statements, and then recommend a "keep because the controversial statements have been sourced or removed". On the other hand, if I thought the article couldn't or shouldn't be kept in the encyclopedia, I'd recommend a "delete due to incurable WP:BLP violations", and then explain the significance of that with sufficiently dire warnings in hopes of bringing other commenters to my side. In either case, the idea would be to get the discussion focused on BLP concerns, rather than having those concerns ignored during the AFD discussion and only brought up in the closing admin's decision summary. --Metropolitan90 06:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
4c. Same situation as 8b, except there are 3 comments to delete and 7 to keep. The article is still a WP:BLP violation. What do you do?
A. My answer in 4b would apply to this as well. --Metropolitan90 06:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Metropolitan90 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. the_undertow talk 07:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. See nothing wrong here... --DarkFalls talk 08:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Melsaran (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Happy to give my support. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support great projectspace edit count. -Icewedge 17:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Please tell me that's not the actual basis for your vote. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Lots of edits, honest, graceful. Bearian 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. See no reason why abuse of tools would occur, higher mainspace edits than average etc. Good luck! — jacĸrм (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - Strong editor. LaraLove 18:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Seems like a fine admin candidate. Pursey Talk | Contribs 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - He has a good balance of mainspace, user talk, and other edits, and he seems right for the job. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - Per noms, nothing here causes me to worry. Dureo 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - Good WikiGnome. Nothing big for opposition. Crassic(talk) 23:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Decent question answers, I trust him with tools, seems like a solid candidate.Liempt 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Why not? He won't do any harm. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. I checked some of his contributions, and everything I've seen has indicated that he will be a good admin. He does good work researching, editing, and maintaining articles, and I find his viewpoints to be reasonable and insightful in policy discussions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support as per Bearian and regular and consistent editor since May 2005.Pharaoh of the Wizards 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Good balance between cleaning up and building the project. Anyone who is so obsessive about references as I am deserves support. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Really enjoyed reading nom's talk page. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support no issues here. VanTucky Talk 00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support per good answers to my questions and lack of a reason to oppose. Mr.Z-man 13:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - the experience this user has gained is brilliant. Great candidate. :-) Lradrama 13:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Contribution history looks fine, no civility problems but mainly answers to Mr Z Man's questions. Excellent. Best. Pedro :  Chat  14:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. His contributions look good as well as his answers to the questions. EdJohnston 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  25. Fine user. Acalamari 03:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Jmlk17 06:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support I've seen Metropolitan90 around and can remember wondering why he wasn't a sysop. I'm happy to see he's asking the community to fix that. :-) --Chaser - T 23:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support --A. B. (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support I looked at some of his work and some of his comments and I really like the style of Metropolitan90. I trust and hope that he will use the tools with wisdom. Good luck! Neozoon 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support very active in the CSD world and lots of deleted edits to show it. Carlossuarez46 18:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral I know this comment won't change the outcome but I'd like to have it stated for the record. I only have one experience interacting with User:Metropolitan90 (in relation to the Nobel Prize articles). User:Metropolitan90 decided to participate in an RFC by only giving a vote. I asked him to revisit the RFC and include an explanation on his talk page at 22:38, 22 September 2007, but he has not bothered to reply (7 days later) despite being active on Wikipedia during that time. This makes me wonder if he will, as an admin, make decisions without explaining himself and refuse to reply when requested. That hardly seems like appropriate behavior for an admin. –panda 03:00, 30 September 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.