Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattbr

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] Mattbr

Final (49/0/0); Ended 22:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mattbr (talk · contribs) - Mattbr seems to be an excellent candidate for the mop. I have just been through an extensive spotcheck of his contributions and he seems to be a dedicated experienced user. He's been here for over a year (although he took a two month wikibreak recently). 7000+ edits with broad experience: he's done some vandal fighting (a number of reports to WP:AIV, systematic issuing of warnings), some gnome work such as tagging talk pages of non-existent articles, categorization and disambiguation, he has participated in a number of XfDs (and in particular CfD last year and the low traffic RfD this year), he's done some work with fair use pictures and is a semi-regular participant at the help desk. So I think he's unquestionably qualified for the mop and I'm not aware of any past incidents regarding his civility. From the user talk edits I have seen, Mattbr is polite and willing to help out new users and explain his reverts or warnings. Pascal.Tesson 20:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Pascal, I accept. mattbr 22:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: There are a few areas that I would like to help with. CAT:CSD is hardly ever empty, whether that’s with articles or images, and I would certainly help there. Recently, I have also been working off a list of talk pages of deleted/non-existent articles which seem to have built up, and nominating those that meet WP:CSD#G8 for deletion. Being able to delete these directly would save the need of going through CAT:CSD, allowing other admins to work on other items. I would help with protected edit requests and I would close XFD discussions, particularly those at RFD, TFD and CFD where I have contributed in the past. Blocking vandals is also somewhere where I would help to keep the responses quick as I know how frustrating it can be waiting for an WP:AIV report to be acted upon while a vandal is still ‘on the loose’.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As Pascal mentioned, my activities on Wikipedia are more Gnome-ish than contributing new article text, such as cleaning up disambiguation pages, fixing links to disambiguation pages, categorisation etc and I believe these are my best contributions to the project, helping other users get around. I also like helping out at the Wikipedia:Help desk as I remember what it was like when I first started trying to understand how the project and the software works, and hopefully by answering the questions there I can help some of the posters with their queries.
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: No, not any serious conflicts. I always try to remain calm, explain my actions and discuss with those who disagree with me, and explain what is behind a policy or guideline if I have used one in support of my actions. One such example was on Template:Messianic Judaism where I got caught in the middle of a number of editors who were trying to re-formulate a template after TFDs and a deletion review. An editor felt that a link in the template to a WikiProject was the way to advertise the project and spur development in the articles and, I think, got frustrated at the fact I was removing it. After explaining the reasons behind WP:ASR and providing other ways to ‘advertise’ the project, the link wasn’t reintroduced to the template for a short period. It was introduced again a couple of times after about a week amongst other changes, after which I posted on the talk page again and reminded the editors of my previous comments which had since been moved, and the link hasn’t been introduced since.
I have also had the expected conflicts with vandals, and have also had to further explain to editors why I have tagged their replaceable non-free content amongst other things. Hopefully by answering queries and providing explanations, the user(s) in question gain a better understanding of why I have performed my actions and, if applicable, of policy in the area, and I will continue to do so in the future.

Optional question from DGG

4. If you tried to help a user, and they got angry at your suggestions, and reverted all your improvements, how would you handle it? how persistent would you be? DGG 01:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
A: I think it would depend on the situation, what improvements I had made and how much information and discussion that the user was providing and participating in respectively, so I apologise if my answer is a bit vague. I would try to discuss with them and find out why I had made them angry if I couldn’t see it myself, and explain what improvements I had made and why. If they still wanted help on the issue and I wasn’t providing what they needed, I would refer them elsewhere to get input from others and hopefully they would be able to help better than I had. I think my persistence would depend on how the other user was conducting themselves, going from not very persistent for something minor and the user was being cooperative and/or had asked another user to give their view, to very persistent if they were being uncivil and breaking policy. mattbr 09:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Haemo

5. You mention in your nomination statement that you see the fact that CAT:CSD is never empty is a problem, which you intend to help out with. Could you explain this a little more -- particularly why you think that non-emptiness is a problem?
A: I don’t see non-emptiness in particular as a problem, as there will almost always be some candidates there which are in the process of being contested or are waiting to allow a period of grace to pass, but the fact that it is very rarely at a low number is an issue that needs tackling. The fact that requests are constantly being made and pages/media are being added is a sign that editors are working to have content that meets the speedy deletion criteria deleted or unsuitable media is being uploaded, and if the number of candidates is getting quite large (there were about 260 pages and 210 images directly in CAT:CSD a few minutes ago) then admins are clearly not keeping up with the speed of nominations. Unfortunately as Wikipedia grows, the numbers being nominated are not going to reduce, and a sign that the category is getting quite large is an indication that more work needs to be done to reduce the numbers. If the category just keeps growing, then content that community has decided that should be deleted on sight by an admin is going to remain in the encyclopaedia for longer than it should, which is just going to encourage others to create more because they can see it won’t be removed any time soon. Ensuring that the process is relatively quick shows that the community is making an effort to uphold the standards it has set itself, otherwise why have these standards if they can’t be maintained (I am not expecting this to be answered, it's just how I think others, particularly those outside the project, will see the situation). mattbr 09:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Black Harry

6. Do you think the current RFAs is a vote? Why or Why Not?
A: I think it holds certain characteristics of a vote, and I think that's down to the number of participants and potential participants in the process and finding a system that has a structure that makes it easier to identify where consensus lies. As the process is essentially asking 'Do we want to give this user the tools?', and there isn't the scope for discussing alternative options such as giving the user some of the tools but not others, the discussion is limited to concerns people have about the candidate. If there are none or only very few, then the process appears more as a vote than a discussion as people don’t feel there is anything to discuss. If it was a pure vote, then I think that would discourage discussion, which is one thing that is encouraged here and across the rest of the project. mattbr 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Do you think the current RFA system needs an overhaul? If yes, how would you fix it? If no, why do you like the current system?
A: I apologise as this is a topic that I haven't given much thought to in the past, so I don't currently have a particular answer to this question at this time. mattbr 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Majoreditor

8. As a follow up to question 2, please tell us about your experience in writing Wikipedia articles.
A: Writing new content isn't really my forte, but I think the most significant contribution I have made to one article is the List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, which I have tried to keep up-to-date with latest awards and accurate by removing unverifiable additions. There is still work that I would like to do with the list, including finding out dates of award and identifying the 150+ stars that aren't currently listed, and it's on my to-do. I have made significant contributions to a number of other articles, including BBC and University of Leeds, and I have also started articles including BBC Trust and Chitra Bharucha. mattbr 22:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Od Mishehu

9. If faced with a request for semi-protection, how would you decide whether or not to protect it?
A: The history of the page in question would be key in providing information for a decision, as would the request itself and in some cases, the talk page. For cases of continuing, high rate, persistent vandalism from a number of IPs over a number of days, then I would semi-protect, but I would be more hesitant if other anonymous users were making useful edits to the page. In the case of a dispute between an anonymous user and an established user, I would decline and consider full protection so that both parties are facing the same restrictions. I would also semi-protect if a blocked IP was abusing the {{unblock}} system when they are clearly not going to be unblocked. If blocking was a feasible option which would provide the same result while still allowing other anonymous users to contribute, then I would consider blocking in line with the blocking policy. Of course each situation is different, and I would assess each case on its merits. mattbr 22:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from —M (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

10. Do you believe the Wikipedia community has a set of shared ethical values?
A: Due to the fact that the community is made up of people from all over the world and there are users who would rather be unconstructive than constructive, then I don’t think there is a shared set of ethical values between all contributors. I think that some of the policies the community has have ethical values behind them, such as being law-abiding, civil and respectful of others, which I think, and would hope, are shared by the majority of the community and form part of the ethics of the community as a whole. mattbr 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Do you believe that ethical values should be taken into consideration when crafting policy?
A: Peoples ethics affect their views, so these will provide a basis for the points people raise while a policy is being drafted, so they are evidently going to be part of the process and I think these should be considered. The discussion and consensus building process will determine whether these values are shared amongst the contributors and whether they should be integrated into the policy. mattbr 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Do you believe it is appropriate for an administrator to impose their own ethical values when making administrative actions (e.g. deletion, blocking, page protection, etc.)?
A: I think that they should impose the common ethics of the community (such as those above) when acting as they are acting on behalf of the community, but not their personal ethics if they conflict with those of the community at large. mattbr 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from WooyiTalk to me?

13. In what circumstances will you use WP:IAR to delete pages (in whatever namespace) that do not belong to, or in the gray area of, criteria of speedy deletion? WooyiTalk to me? 16:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
A: I don’t think I would use IAR as the criteria are worded so that it is fairly clear what does and doesn’t fall under them. If the page didn’t meet the criteria, then I would explain to the tagger why I had declined speedy deletion and would recommend they use one of the other deletion processes so that more time is given to allow discussion before it is decided whether there is consensus for the page to be deleted. mattbr 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Gracenotes (talk · contribs)
14. I realize that the number of questions you've been asked is relatively astronomical for an RfA (although not yet as much as mine ;]), so I hope that you can bear this one as well. Could you please explain what motivates you to edit Wikipedia, if and why you'll stick with the project for years to come, and if you have any general real-life goals that you try to realize with Wikipedia? Cheers, GracenotesT § 16:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A: What if this is counted as three? ;) Anyway, I think that the reason I participate in the project is because I find it useful and interesting to read, and people have taken the time to research and write these articles on topics they are interested in for no tangible reward. By making a contribution myself, hopefully I can give something back to help improve the project and make it more useful for others who come here. I also enjoy being part of something with quite a goal, to be part of 'a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge'. I think I will stick with the project for as long as I am enjoying it and feel that I am positively contributing to it and the community, and helping (if I can) towards that goal, which I hope will be for a long time to come. On the final part, I don't think I have any real-life goals that I am trying to realise through Wikipedia, but I would like to think that it is helping me to develop in some way.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mattbr before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • What are Q6 and 7 about? I thought this was an RfA, not an RfB, how do Matt's thoughts on RfA-politics matter to whether he can block, delete and protect without causing us grief? Riana (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - I trust this editor with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong support. I've only seen good things from Matt. He seems to know what he's doing - AIV reports are always valid and deletion debate contributions (especially to RfD) are sound. Should make a good admin. WjBscribe 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support. I believe you are quite trustworthy with the tools, and I haven't seen any causes for worry about you. Also, not that it really makes a huge difference, but you have quite the impressive edit count. J-stan 22:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Have seen him around, and have seen only good things about him. Clearly has a good understanding of policy, and I am sure will use the tools wisely and well.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support as there is no reason not to; user looks like he could certainly benefit from the tools. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong support I trust Pascal.Tesson completely to nominate an excellent candidate. Acalamari 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support I think that the CAT:CSD backlog is a clear problem, and we need more people like Mattbr to bail. Darkspots 23:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support I see no reason why not to support him.--†Sir James Paul† 00:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support I can definitely trust Matt with a few extra buttons. Excellent candidate. —Anas talk? 00:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Good user, no problems. - Zeibura (Talk) 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - I'm impressed by the users answers, and feel will do a good job as an admin. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Looks to me that this user will make a good admin. Captain panda 02:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Agree with Captain panda directly above. —METS501 (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support I'd like to thank the first 13 supports for not writing "Ha ha, beat the nominator". Pascal.Tesson 03:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Ha ha, beat the nominator 'fraid I didn't. ~ Wikihermit 04:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support I see no problems with this editor becoming an admin. (aeropagitica) 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Trustworthy with experience. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support -- why not really? Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Trust your nominator. Riana (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - as per Riana ..--Cometstyles 11:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support 1)Per contributions (although there is a fair whack of auotmation so I mean by quality not number) 2)Per civility demonstrated through talk page comments and 3)Per excellent response to optional Q5. This seems to indicates the candidate's concerns for the "public face" of Wikipedia, to which I couldn't agree more. Pedro |  Chat  12:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Cliché support I thought you were an admin. Seriously, I though you were User:Matt Britt and you changed your username or signature. Anyway, you have behaved with admirable wisdom and maturity and are deserving of sysop access. Shalom Hello 14:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Mop 'em up. I don't particularly care for any of the currently-unanswered questions, and I like the answer I see, and I like Matt's contributions. -- Kicking222 20:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  26. —AldeBaer (c) 23:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Answer to my question was satisfactory enough. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 23:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support I don't see any issues here...why not? Jmlk17 00:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. We need more active admins. Always great to see good candidates Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  30. Very Weak Support. I am troubled by your minimal contribution of content. However, you're a valued member of the community and should prove to be an OK admin. Please, take the time to focus on substantially expanding a few articles by contributing fact-based content. You'll be a better admin for it. Best of luck. Majoreditor 02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you Majoreditor, I will. mattbr 09:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. --BozMo talk 13:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - assisted newbies at the help desk, reported vandals and experience of the deletion process. Addhoc 15:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support no sufficient reason to prove he would abuse tools, satisfactory answer, support. WooyiTalk to me? 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support per answer to Q7 - which infers that they have previously thought about and thus answered the very many other questions. In fact, that there is an answer to (almost) every question indicates the willingness to communicate that is vital in the role of admin. LessHeard vanU 20:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support - excellent answers to the myriad questions asked, which are supported by the user's contribs. --Haemo 22:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. Good contributor, experienced editor. utcursch | talk 03:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  37. Strong support, based upon contributions and answers to questions. GracenotesT § 12:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support There is no indication that there will be a problem. Let him get to work. JodyB talk 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support good all-rounder; time for the mop Johnbod 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support per good contributions, good answers to questions. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. Excellent user. --Carioca 03:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Have seen this editor around. No problems. Xiner (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support No big deal, and we do need admins to clear up admin backlogs! :) -- Stwalkerster talk 17:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support per nom. Peacent 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support, I liked Mattbr's responses. Good luck. Carlosguitar 08:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    "its responses"? Gender-paranoia has gone too far! :-) Pascal.Tesson 09:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. I see no reason to think he will misuse the tools. -- DS1953 talk 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support, I also like Mattbr's responses to the 14(!) questions. --健次(derumi)talk 02:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support - Although I didn't like his answer to q6, because I believe that RfA is a vote, that isn't especially relevant to this request, and we won't go into that debate here.(Just don't run for RfB.) Otherwise, an excellent candidate who has my full support, with good contributions and a clear understanding of the tools. Waltontalk 13:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Pending answer to Q.5 Q.13 --Haemo 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Question period is over. --Haemo 22:41, 28 June 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.