Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mets501

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Mets501

Final (8/17/4) ended 00:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Candidate withdrew

Mets501 (talk · contribs) – I'm a very active user, both in writing articles and in fighting vandalism. I often spend time on RC Patrol, sometimes also using the #vandalism-en-wp IRC channel. I'm most interested in the mathematics articles, and have written some and edited many. I also enjoy editing and writing articles about airplanes and music (particularly the violin, which I play). I do cleanup to different articles as well. Mets501talk • contribs 03:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I nominated myself, so I should accept the nomination :-) It seems that the general consensus is that I need more main and Wikipedia namespace edits and possibly just more time here at Wikipedia. I am withdrawing now and will try again sometime in the future. Thank you all so much for voting.

Support

  1. Support - I almost nominated this editor recently. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - Very active? Well lets put him/her to an even better use. Very active admins can build and maintain Wikipedia more effectively than very active non-admins. (That is, IMHO.) Good luck in your vandal-hunt! Btw, ESkog, I didn't realize you already voted here. Small world, isn't it? --Shultz IV 03:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support - meets my standards -- Tawker 03:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - another editor with good grammer. </just a playful jab, no hard feelings> - Richardcavell 04:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per Shultz and inasmuch as adminship is not a big deal. Joe 05:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support I feel it is time to give him the mop. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak Support. Although you have barely showed an experience in process, I think that you are a nice user and you won't misuse adminship. Having sysop abilities will enable you to deal with vandals and I'm sure you'll eventually get the hang of wikipedia process. Adminship is no big deal. DarthVader 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support This user has worked tirelessly on cleanup and reverting vandalism. SCHZMO ✍ 21:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Reluctant Oppose Sorry for doing this, but just a general lack of edits; very good start, but some more user talk (i.e. social interaction) would be well recieved; also, maybe another month or so of active contributions and I'd gladly support. _-M o P-_ 04:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Don't worry about offending me in any way at all. I would like to add, though, that I do more interaction on article talk and user talk spaces than on my own user page. If someone writes to me on my user page, I usually respond back on their's, which may make my user talk page look deceptively short. --Mets501talk • contribs 11:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Reply Oh, I wasn't judging from the length of your talk page, but the number of edits you have in that category. But just a bit more editing is pretty much all thats needed. _-M o P-_ 12:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose He has plenty of edits for me and is a really great editor but only been here since February, less than 3 months is just not enough time to have the needed experience for administratorship. I'm really sorry - Patman2648 05:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose I see no evidence that suggests that Mets501 would not be a fine admin, but I also see very little participation in the Wikipedia space. This user is only 15. There is not enough evidence to judge his level of maturity. Given more time and participation in discussions. I would support. -- Samuel Wantman 05:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Nothing too big to talk about, but I have a bone to pick; age should not play a part in voting, as there isn't a legal editing age for Wikipedia. I realise that most teenagers are stereotyped, but I just wondered what you would consider sufficient evidence. _-M o P-_ 05:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Not enough time editing wikipedia. Not enough edits. Not enough user interaction.--Tbeatty 07:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. NSLE (T+C) at 07:44 UTC (2006-04-26)
  6. Oppose He indicates a desire to fight vandals. Another administrator fighting vandalism will lessen the humour I see around here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Profundity06 (talk • contribs)
    Comment has about 20 edits, started yesterday, created Timothean religion which was a bogus religion which User:Naconkantari deleted, then pestered Naconkantari. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. You are obviously a great editor, but you haven't showed enough knowledge or experience in process. I like to see at least 100 wikipedia namespace edits. DarthVader 09:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to weak support. DarthVader 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak oppose. A tad too new. Not enough talk and user talk edits. Kimchi.sg | talk 11:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. The user is a nice editor, no doubt. But doesn't give sufficient reasons to convince that he would be a good admin. I would like to see him participate more in Wikipedia namespace. Currently the user has just 34 edits in Wikipedia namespace, and most of them are in Village pump with absolutely nothing in VfDs. Come back after a couple of months with sufficient experience and I might reconsider my vote. BTW, I prefer to attach maturity with edits rather than with age. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak oppose Just barely fails my criteria. I'd like to see more Wikipedia namespace edits especially AfDs, a bit of WP:AIV, and maybe some others, also slightly more discussion with users would be good. I will probably support again in about 6 weeks. JoshuaZ 12:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Intentions seem good and can't find anything overly negative. But it is just to soon, give it a couple of months.--blue520 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, needs some more time. Conscious 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, very few edits, especially in project space. Will support in a couple months if you become more active. --Rory096(block) 15:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong oppose per Rory. Computerjoe's talk 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Probably a great future admin, but this candidacy is premature. More experience is certainly needed in this case. Xoloz 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Weak Oppose It is great that you are doing counter-vandalism, but you have few talk and user-talk edits. Wait a few months and get some more experience on all areas of Wikipedia and I will certainly support you.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Weak Oppose, needs some more time, and more edits in project space. --Andy123(talk) 19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose prefer more experience. Thanks, AndyZ t 22:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, perhaps later, needs more experience. - Mailer Diablo 04:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Not enough time & more edits required. Pease re-apply for adminship in the future. :) --Andeee 06:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Mailer Diablo. Look forward to offering my support on a second nom in a month or so if this one doesn't pass — at fifteen, he's smarter than me, has met more interesting people than I have, and writes better articles than I do. ...dang. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 07:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Sub-three months is, as others have mentioned, too little time for Adminship. Keep it up and come back in a few months. -- MarcoTolo 00:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username Mets501
Total edits 1318
Distinct pages edited 870
Average edits/page 1.515
First edit 17:38, 3 February 2006
(main) 970
Talk 31
User 140
User talk 86
Image 21
Template 20
Wikipedia 34
Wikipedia talk 16

--Elkman - (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Am I missing something, or is Profundity06's comment (on #6 for oppose) just a joke? What do you think? --Mets501talk • contribs 11:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    It looks like a vote made in bad faith to me. The closing beauracrat will most likely ignore that vote. DarthVader 11:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Great. Thanks so much for the response. --Mets501talk • contribs 11:52, 26 April 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: I would probably help most with blocking vandal IP addresses (after they have received proper warning, of course) and using the admin rollback function. I will happily, however, also delete articles and images when requested (and once consensus has been reached), and also research into and resolve copyright problems.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am most pleased of my article on the polar coordinate system, of which I created and wrote basically the entire thing and uploaded all (but one) of the images. I also put major work into the factorization and trigonometry articles. As far as cleanup, I have put the most work into Yahoo! Mail (diff).
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 only been in one edit conflict, of which a user vandalized my talk page (diff after I reverted many vulgar edits of his. I dealt with it simply by reporting it at WP:AIV and waiting it out until the user was blocked. It did not cause me any stress at all.

Question from JoshuaZ As always, questions are completely optional.

1 You have slightly under 1500 edits. Is there any reason your edit count might be misleading?
A: The pure number of edits is not a judge of how many words are edited or what the edits are. Compared to some other people, if I'm adding a decent amount of information, I try to submit it all at once, using the "Show preview" button in various intervals. This probably means that I won't accumulate edits in the way some others will, but at least Wikipedia articles will not have half of the content and just stop at a random point. (P.S. I figured this out after my first couple of edits, so if you go to my oldest edits on factorization there will be a few in a row, but I started after that.)
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.