Metasquares

Hello Metasquares, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Angela 16:40, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the redirect to be the other way around on tension headache as the singular is usually preferred. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns. Angela 21:45, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

Congratulations Metasquares, you've been nominated as a sysop. Others will vote on whether they agree at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Please reply if you accept the nomination. --cprompt 19:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Meta, just wanted to say thank you for being so understanding. Honestly, I have almost zero reason to mistrust you, but there are lurkers around here who believe that things granted to one user set instant precedents, and they refuse to see the difference between 100 edits over several months and 100 edits in three days, followed by a request for admin. As I noted on Cprompt's talk page, in a few weeks (as the edit count climbs), I fully intend to nominate you myself (and while I understand time limitations, I hope we have you around more often--you're making positive contributions and we need more of it, I think!). Again, thanks for being so positive about it: I sincerely hope there are no hard feelings, and I promise, unless you do something drastic in the next few dozen edits, I will be a loud voice of support the next time around. :) Happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 17:10, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your adminship vote seems very unlikely to pass, so I moved it here. Pakaran . 03:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Metasquares

I've known Metasquares for a few years now, and can vouch that he'd be a great sysop. He's been on the Wikipedia since August 2003, and although he hasn't made thousands of contributions, his edits do show that he's not the type to get into edit wars, and he's done his share of community clean up (reverting garbage, etc.) --cprompt 19:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

cprompt has asked me to post here affirming that I accept the nomination, so I will do that now :). I'd like to thank everyone for giving reasons, and not just shouting "85 edits! Bad!" As he said, I don't have as much free time as I'd like at the moment, and I've had connection problems with Wikipedia in the past, though since Wikipedia went back up after that 3 day database failure, I've had much more success connecting (Save for a Slashdotting yesterday). Thanks again. Metasquares 03:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I thought the idea was that we gave it to people who had done good work on the project and had been trustworthy - there doesn't seem to be anything that Metasquares has done that is wrong. I am an admin, and many people said I didn't have enough edits when I requested, but I've not gone and ruined the encylopaedia since becoming an admin - in fact it keeps me coming back! Tompagenet 00:40, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Uh....he hasn't even made 100 contributions. I'm sorry, Meta may well be a great person, but I'd have to see a lot more interest in and dedication to this project than 100 edits in half a year to make someone a sysop. Oppose. Jwrosenzweig 19:19, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I want to clarify...it's not that I suspect Metasquares of evil. All I'm saying is, until you've made a fair number of edits, you haven't really demonstrated how you handle cooperative work (and much more importantly, disputes). Many Wikipedians can be quite pleasant until an edit war occurs, and I am only saying that, in this case, I think waiting for another 100 edits or so is wise to see if, in that time, (a) Metasquares gets into any trouble and (b) how she/he handles that trouble. That's just my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 17:24, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  - All right, I've seen enough good justifications that I think I was too hasty to say no. I do think we need to be careful about promoting admins who are inexperienced here, but it seems a number of people are very satisfied with Meta's experience, and I would hate to stand in the way of someone that a number of people I respect think will be a fine admin. Support. Jwrosenzweig 01:06, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
He's made 84 contributions. That's not enough for the same reason given by Jwrosenzweig. Oppose. →Raul654 19:21, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Reasons named above. - snoyes 19:39, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Needs more experience, more track record. ike9898 19:54, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry, I would feel uncomfortable with a user with (apparently) such little experience having administrative privileges. Maybe try again in a few more months. silsor 07:35, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
Support. "Quality, not quantity." The only question is whether Metasquares can be trusted. Cprompt vouches for him, and no one can say anything against his record. I doubt that after 83 good edits, his 84th will be evil! He's done the time, he's just not prolific. "Been around and trusted" is sufficient criteria: I say, give Metasquares sysop rights. --Uncle Ed 14:37, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Needs a bit more experience. Sarge Baldy 17:47, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
Support. For the reasons Ed gave. People sometimes make admin priveliges sound like performing brain surgery, there's 150+ of us ambling around doing OK at it, it's really not that hard! -- Ams80 20:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- It's not so much that it's hard (albeit there are a lot of policies about when using them is appropriate), as it is about trust. We trust admins not to abuse their powers. As such, having a trust-worthy (read - lengthy and tame) track record is essential to becoming an admin. →Raul654 20:50, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Down with the cabal! Lirath Q. Pynnor
- TINWC. silsor 23:41, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
  - huh? →Raul654 23:43, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    - TINWC = There Is No Wikipedia Cabal. See also TINC. Maximus Re x 03:13, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Not here long enough.168... 23:09, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Support. Not sure if I'm supposed to be supporting my own nomination, but I know that Metasquares cannot devote as much time to Wikipedia as some other of his life's pursuits. I feel that people should still be sysops even if they log in and edit infrequently. People with less time on their hands should still be sysops. Take a look at people we've banned. I'd wager that we've seen their anti-WikiLove behavior within 10 edits. --cprompt 03:23, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. This isn't about some sort of supposed "cabal"; admins should have added large definite value to the 'pedia, and while around a hundred edits can be regarded as "definite" if they're good edits, it's not a large number, or even medium. I understand not having enough time to do all the edits you want, which is why adminship should be for those who can force through the time to make the edits, those who are so dedicated to this 'pedia that they make it one of their top priorities and place such a high value on editing that they spend time on it even when they could probably get greater material or other benefit doing other things. --Lowellian 20:22, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
Support (take 2): Note that Wikipedia policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. The operative words here are "activity" and "trust". There are many many contributors who "contribute a lot" but have not earned trust... --Uncle Ed 16:01, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- This makes it easy for one to create sock puppets and get multiple admin accounts.--Jia ng
Oppose. Absurd to even consider someone with 85 edits. --Wik 01:15, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my run for bureaucrat! --cprompt 02:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Metasquares, I liked your frank comment when you joined AMA. You sum up both the spirit and the difficulty of being a good advocate. It is easy to help people when you agree with them, harder to help them when you think they have a lost or losing cause, but you can still effectively help someone when they are in that situation. How? Well, by assisting them to understand the POV of other positions. In this way you may help generate a genuine transformation in that user. Imagine that, a troll turned into a real Wikipedian editor, now that would really give me hope for this declining utopian fantasy called Wikipedia. Yours, — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk]

AMA Election

Metasquares, I've taken the liberty of adding links at Wikipedia:Announcements and Wikipedia:Goings-on that the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates is searching for a Coordinator and I have started a new page dealing with the election. See: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election. Your editing, comments and participation as an AMA member would be appreciated. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 20:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AMA co-ordinator election is now on

You may now vote for user:Ed_Poor or user:Alex756 in the first ever AMA co-ordinator election. Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure for more details.

AMA members who wish to abstain from voting must also e-mail wikipedia_ama_voting@yahoo.co.uk with notice of that intent.

To clarify anything before voting, ask user_talk:Zanimum or user_talk:Jwrosenzweig on their talk pages.

AMA members have until April 30, at 11:00:00 EST to vote. -- user:zanimum

Your vote has been counted. Jwrosenzweig 15:47, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for AMA assistance

We have received an anonymous request for AMA assistance from an IP address, I have directed that individual to contact me if they wish not to create a Wikipedia account. If you are interested in helping please let me know and if I hear from this individual I will try and put you in contact. See Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance. Thank you. — © Alex756 03:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Call for AMA election

AMA Member Advocate,

There's a poll currently in the AMA Homepage about making a new AMA Coordinator election. Please, cast your vote there (though it's not mandatory). Any comments you have about this, write it on the AMA Homepage talk page. Cheers, --Neigel von Teighen 18:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposals for AMA Membership Meeting

As AMA Coordinator I am requesting that suggestions be placed on Wikipedia:AMA Membership Meeting plans for our first membership meeting, to be held in the near future, (hopefully before any election occurs.) Since we have never had any kind of "official" meeting we need to discuss how this will occur (i.e. Wiki pages or IRC channel), how it will be structured (i.e. meeting agenda) and if there will be any "chair" to supervise the meeting and meeting "secretary" to write up minutes or keep some kind of official record of what transpires. Thanks in advance for your input and your continued work as an advocate. — © Alex756 19:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OFFICIAL AMA MEETING NOTICE

The first AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 23, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA (Miami/Montreal) Time, 11 AM Pacific NA (Los Angeles/Vancover)Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend. — © Alex756 19:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Logs of first AMA Membership meeting

You may view the log of the first meeting on the following two pages: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) (first hour) and Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) Pt II (remainder of meeting). If you are interested in commenting on the agenda of the meeting please do so here:Wikipedia:AMA Meeting (suggested topics).

OFFICIAL SECOND MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

"The second AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 30 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA Time, 11 AM Pacific NA Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend."

The coordinator is requesting that members submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:

How many individuals did you help as an advocate
What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?

Thank you. Please submit your responses here: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator/January 2005 Survey

— © Alex756 23:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (The Coordinator)

OFFICIAL AMA MEETING NOTICE

OFFICIAL THIRD MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

The second AMA IRC Membership meetingwas held on Sunday January 30, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode.net IRC channel #AMA. Attending were Wally, Metasquares, Anthere, Sam Spade, and alex756 (coordinator). The log of the second meeting can be found here: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).

"The third AMA Membership meeting will be held on Saturday February 12, 2005 at 17:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 12:00 Noon Eastern NA Time, 9 AM Pacific NA Time, and 6 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend.

AMA Meeting Proposal

Hi! I put together a proposal for another AMA meeting that I'm hopeful you can chime in on. --Wgfinley 20:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear all,

Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.

Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.

The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29

The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.

We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.

Best regards,

Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza

I sterbinski 01:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

User categorization

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/New Jersey page as living in or being associated with New Jersey. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey for instructions. Al 15:30, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

AMA Request for Assistance - An Advocate Needed

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could you please help?

I have been a positively contributing editor of the polygamy article since the end of last year, with numerous amounts of knowledge on the subject. However, I have subsequently been attacked by POV anti-polygamists who have undermined the article with their POV agenda and who now consistently prevent me from editing anything in it since the end of April. I have produced volumes of evidence of the abuse in the TALK pages, which anti-polygamists have even attempted to hide by "archiving."

On July 18, 2005, I made an AMA Request for Assistance - An Advocate Needed, requesting AMA help from Kmweber. They quickly agreed to help, but needed a few days due to a new real world job. As of this writing, I have yet to ever hear from them again (which is starting to concern me at this point). That's why I am now seeking your help, if you are willing. (As you can see, I am a patient person, but recent events of abuse have given me need to speed up the process, if possible.)

Recently, in the ongoing dispute, while we were in the middle of a resolution process, someone else interfered and "offered to help." When I was not willing to accept their interference due to specific concerns, they ignored me and started an entire new set-up. All which had preceded that interference had then become ignored. Instead, I was falsely accused of refusing to seek rsolution. Then a Requests for comment/Researcher99 page was created and I was fully set-up.

I have made a chronology there to bring you up to speed on all of the relevant history of the problem. I know it's a lot to read, but I have really been through a lot! I really do need a sincere and dedicated AMA's help.

Could you please help? If you could, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks.

Researcher 23:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Nereocystis's take on the polygamy dispute

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Here's a short version of my version of the dispute Researcher99 and I.

We disagree on the text of polygamy. I want to discuss the disputed items on the talk page. Uriah923 volunteered to help resolve the issue, making suggestions I considered reasonable. Researcher99 initially seemed to agree,

Researcher99 primarily wants to talk about the past and what he perceives are abuses. Even if I were guilty of everything he says, which I am not, there really isn't an advantage to endlessly discussing the past. Researcher99 also posts excessively long rambling posts. It's hard to understand his point, or reach resolution.

Previous to Uriah923's entrance, we were working on a process for agreement. Researcher99 had rejected or ignored many past suggestions, and finally had a suggestion of his own.

After nearly 2 weeks of discussion, Researcher99 wanted me to defer to his superior knowledge of polygamy. I wanted citations for everything Researcher99 wanted to change. We were going around in circles, without any sign of resolution.

Going back to the April version of Polygamy is a bad idea. Also, it is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Forgetting the past is easiest and most productive. Let's move forward with current content.

Since April, I almost always posted suggested changes on the Polygamy talk page. Usually I posted before the changes, sometimes after. I strong encouraged Researcher99 to participate in the discussion. He did not. After receiving no response on the talk page, I made changes. Afterward, Researcher99 reverted many of these changes, again without discussion, only with edit comments which were insufficient to explain the changes. See Talk:Polygamy/Archive 2#Disputed or Talk:Polygamy/Archive 3#Disputed.

Here's what I want Researcher99 to do:

Discuss text of article.
Provide citations.
Be concise.
Resolve issues.

Here's what I don't want Researcher99 to do:

Post long rambling diatribes
Claim that facts are obvious and don't need citations
Cite from Christian polygamy except on issues specifically related to Christian polygamy, especially sites written by Researcher99
Attack other users

Nereocystis 20:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I forgot one question. Though I don't often use IRC, I'm willing to try it. Nereocystis 15:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This post by Nereocystis is so maddeningly offensive and slickly deceitful that it is another form of abuse. Nereocystis has made the biggest lie of all here, saying, "Since April, I almost always posted suggested changes on the Polygamy talk page." The truth is, they deployed a tactic of NEVER TALKING first, but only editing first. They have always acted extremely aggressively, never willing to TALK first. They overwhelmed the article with mass amounts of changes. THEN, I would say (as I said from May 7, 2005) the Wikipedia Guidelines require STATUS QUO in order to THEN be able to TALK. I was always willing to TALK, but only according to Wikipedia Guidelines, not based on their article-destruction-edits in violation of the STATUS QUO guidelines. But every time I tried to correct the article back to STATUS QUO so that a genuine TALK could occur by the Guidelines, Nereocystis would rv my every edit. They targeted every single act I made. So, they have outright lied here. It has been their specific strategy to make this abuse and harrassment extend so long precisely so that they could make believe they are somehow being reasonable by saying the following propaganda, "Going back to the April version of Polygamy is a bad idea. Also, it is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Forgetting the past is easiest and most productive. Let's move forward with current content." Of course, that is what they want, because they would not be held accountable for their article-destructions and targeted abuses and because refusing the TRUE STATUS QUO and the Wikipedia Guidelines has been their prolonged strategy all along. It is this kind of snake oil language by Nereocystis here that is why any hopes of resolution will not succeed until their abuse is stopped. Researcher 19:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Here is Lie#2 from the above post, where Nereocystis says, "I wanted citations for everything Researcher99 wanted to change." The above post on this TALK page makes the lie repeatedly as if to suggest that Nereocystis was somehow seeking citations when they were never seeking that at all and I was not refusing any idea like that either. Again, it was THEY who changed the polygamy article with overwhelmingly many destructions and who were refusing to follow the Wikipedia Guidelines to restore to STATUS QUO in order to THEN have a TALK. As well, when I offered a very source-cited proposal for the group marriage article, they refused even that. So, it is a 100% lie for Nereocystis to claim they wanted citations and to imply that I was somehow refusing that. Instead, this is another example of how Nereocystis routinely deploys the deceptively obfuscatory tactic of claiming false things about proven facts, in order to try to throw people off the trail. It is also why I have had to keep such an extensive list of comprehensive articles in TALK pages in order to have the evidence available in readable format. Of course, then Nereocystis accuses my evidence-keeping as if they are "diatribes," even though all Nereocystis is really trying to do by such accusation is to try to get people to not really read through all the evidence which proves Nereocystis's nonstop abuse. Researcher 19:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Polygamy dispute (message from another AMA member)

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I see we're working in the same case! I'd like to know what are your impressions about all this stuff. I'm advocating Researcher (as far I've read, you also advocate him) and I'd like to be in contact with you during the resolution process. Reply me on my talk --Neigel von Teighen 23:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've read your message and I thank you. We agree in that the main goal here is to make this dispute enter into an official mediation. But, a big move to do before it is to persuade Nereocystis to stop the RfC against Researcher as it will only make things more complex. Opinions? --Neigel von Teighen 23:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 19:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply