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

Metros232[edit]

Final (72/0/1) Ended Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:16:48 UTC

Metros232 (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination: I have been a member of Wikipedia for approximately 11 months now. Over this time I've amassed something like 9,000 edits. A lot of it is probably misleading as I do a lot of "gnome" work. I have been active in numerous aspects of the project including: link disambiguation, adding references to unsourced statements, and, most frequently lately, page wikification. Through wikification, I stumble upon lots of long-forgotten articles to turn to simple prose as well as nonsense articles (and lots of copyright violations). Because of this, I send a lot of articles for WP:CSD. Over the past few months I've noticed how increasingly large the backlog is getting and I realize that I contribute a lot to that.

I think my nominations for deletion are generally good. I encourage you to look and see if you agree. Most of my Prods, AfDs, and speedy candidates go uncontested which speaks to some form of judgement that aligns itself with "correctness" in the Wikipedian mind. I am also an active vandal fighter. I spent a lot of time as a recent changes patroller back early this year, but now I just revert as vandalism comes to me on the articles on my watchlist.

I'm not a perfect editor I'm sure. I'm not the greatest writer of encyclopedic entries and consider most of my contributions to be the mindless small work (citations, wikification, formatting, etc.) that needs to be done. I pride myself on my work and believe that I could benefit the community at large as an administrator. Metros232 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination Metros232 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: For the most part, I think that I would be clearing out backlogs at WP:CSD which seems to be just a perpetual backlog lately. I commend those who take the time to help knock it from 200+ down to single digits; the work you do is phenomenal and I would love to be able to give you a hand. I would also close AfDs as that also has many open dicussions ready to be closed. I have some experience closing a few AfDs, I think I have maybe one or two no-question keep closes and a handful of closures of AfDs that were speedy deleted outside of the discussion. I also anticipate spending time at WP:AIV as I've seen that getting backlogged more frequently than ever lately.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with all my work through the Wikification drive. We have a backlog there for 8000+ articles and I'm pretty proud of the work I've done to help reduce that backlog. Some articles I've improved through the drive include [1] [2] and [3]. Among my article writing contributions, the two that stand out for me are Hood College and FBLA-PBL.
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: Yes, I think it's impossible sometimes to be an artive user without having occasional disagreements. And I think that the occasional disagreements are valuable (if we all agreed all the time, we'd get mired in some rut). To me, the best way to solve problems are to avoid problems. By keeping an open mind and not pushing your own view points too harshly, we can have a positive experience. When I have run into issues, I have stepped back and asked for outside input on conflicts rather than continuing the conflict. If two people argue over and over, nothing will be accomplished. However, if there is some outside views on issues, more viewpoints can be solicited and something might be accomplished.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: As much as one wants to say "well if the rules exist we should follow them" I agree with parts of IAR in that we cannot design rules that dictate all minute situations. Just as laws adapt to changing world views, so too much our actions. I think that it is hard to construct a situation which demands ignoring rules. If we knew a situation where all rules should be ignored, wouldn't that technically be creating a rule? Oh the meta-questions you can draw from that little thought. I think that some situations I have seen: obvious early closes on deletions, closing other discussions, etc. are examples of times when such actions should be taken, but I would examine situations individually rather than tell you right now that these are the following situations where I will do this, this, and this.
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: No. The block policy says "to prevent damage or disruption". If there is just cause to suspect more vandalism from a user, a block should be applied. If there is no reason to, but you want to get back at the user for what s/he did, then no, you should never block.
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: It's an interesting question that I deal with when tagging articles for speedy deletion. The most important question for me is: can this company's article ever be something notable and encyclopedic in neutral terms? If yes, then I try to find a way to edit it to something acceptable. If no, then I tag it for deletion (usually I lean towards non-notable corp rather than spam).


General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support Looks good with lots of participation in XfD, vandal rollbacks and associated user Talk warnings. Also, has refused a previous invitation to RfA for sensible reasons. (aeropagitica) 18:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support meets My standards. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. With 9000 edits in 11 months I was worried about quality of edits, but you seem to be an outstanding editor. Excellent work with the Wikification project! With your interest in CSD and its backlogs, you are a great candidate for admin. -- Renesis (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support my own experiences of this user have all been positive. --pgk 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. Michael 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 19:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per Pgk. Fethers 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Has the qualities needed to be an administrator. Hello32020 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mike | Talk 21:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, with all that work in sensible deletion, how could I not? ♠PMC♠ 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support semper fi — Moe 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support solid users make solid admins... and admin-gnomes are in dire need right now. ---J.S (t|c) 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support I was going to nominate you, but you were in the middle of an editor review, so I decided to wait out. Great user; I've had nothing but great run-ins with this user. Nishkid64 22:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Very good answers to questions. Jcam 23:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Wow, you are very dedicated to say the least with 9000 edits in 11 months. Keep up the great work!Wikipediarules2221 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support clearly qualified.-- danntm T C 02:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Very clearly qualified. Cephyr 03:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Merovingian ※ Talk 04:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Well qualified and dedicated. - Patman2648 08:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Proto::type 09:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Keep, verifiable. (Radiant) 09:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that the same as "certifiable"? :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 13:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - esperienced and seems knowledgable with image policy --T-rex 15:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, vandal fighter needs tools. And I like his answer to Q4 - circular logic rocks. riana_dzasta 16:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Great candidate, the tools should be his! ↔ ANAS - Talk 16:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per above. Addhoc 19:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. - crz crztalk 23:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support because of the answers to the questions and I can see no reason why not. James086 Talk | Contribs 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support good candidate and some nice answers to the questions. --Ageo020 (T • C) 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - I can't stress enough how good he is for the Wikification Drive! Great candiate. --Elaragirl ||||||Talk|Count 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support John254 02:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support passes my criteria †he Bread 08:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Looks like a great candidate. NauticaShades 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support --Mhking 14:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, I like what I've seen. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support- Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support We need admingnomes. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per above Doc ♬ talk 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Will make good addition Caf3623 22:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support We definitely need more gnomes with power around here. Valley2city 23:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Zaxem 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Merovingian ※ Talk 05:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You voted at #20, so I'm removing this duplicate vote. --ais523 09:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Very good answers to questions...edits indicate a strong candidate. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 10:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - good editor, no reason to think he will misuse the tools. Badbilltucker 14:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - looks like user would be an asset to wikipedia administrator team. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Plenty of edits, good experience, and great answers to questions. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - per Pilhet's response --teh tennisman 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - good contribution history, good answers, fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 01:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Has great edits and experience, and has answered the questions well. 0L1 Talk Contribs 11:55 17/11/2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. Deserved as per above. -- Szvest → Wiki Me Up ® 13:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Great editor. -- Simonkoldyk 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Varied edit counts, and almost 100% edit summaries. Definitely deservant. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••CCD••• 19:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Solid history of positive contribs, should make a great admin. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Many fine contribs. Good luck! Jam01 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Strong worker bee. Good answers. Looks like they'll be a great admin. Nephron  T|C 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per everyone. Good variety of quality editing experience. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Great editor, already doing so many housekeeping jobs!--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support: As per above. Well answered questions and good quality edits. A lot of experience as well.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Don't see any problems here.... Sharkface217 03:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support -- Tawker 04:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support FireSpike 04:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - no problems here. Khoikhoi 06:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. 'Support: Fine. --Bhadani 12:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. support per above and answers to questions. People who thanklessly do cleanup work almost always make great admins... they're already participating for the reasons good admins participate. --W.marsh 01:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Another support vote never hurts. DS 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. DarthVader 05:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. The most important qualities in an admin are maturity, judgement and trustworthiness. From everything I can see, this user passes. Hand him a mop. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per responses given above,looks good ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 10:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, no problem. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support: What colour mop do you want? yandman 14:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, admins willing to helping out on clearing the speedy backlog are a Good Thing (cough cough hint nudge wink cough hint splutter hint wink nudge cough). Proto::type 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While the sentiment is good, jsut one !vote per customer please :) - Taxman Talk 16:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Don't know this user. --evrik (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of reason is that? Please judge the user on his merits and accomplishments on Wikipedia, not for his "popularity". Nishkid64 20:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It just means that because he does not know him he does not feel like he can give him a support or an oppose because he has never seen him in action first-hand. He does not know how this user would handle himself in any situations. Cbrown1023 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but Imagine if everyone did that, you might see a hundred "Don't know this user." I've seen many constructive Neutral votes, like they make for a fine editor and have some knowledge on wikipedia policies but they don't feel they have enough experience yet etc. I wonder if old Jimbo had said something like that in the beginning,(nah I don't know you either, next!-Jimbo Wales) if there would be any admins at all ;-) ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 10:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, calm down, it's not like he opposed. Proto::type 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category