Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattinbgn

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] Mattinbgn

(61/0/0); Scheduled to end 06:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattinbgn (talk · contribs) - It's my pleasure to nominate Mattinbgn, one of the hardest working members of the Australian WikiProject, for adminship. Matt has made 14540 edits, including over 8000 to the mainspace, contributing heavily to articles such as Featured article Riverina, Good article Palm Island, Queensland, Good article Archie Jackson, and Good article Wagga Wagga, New South Wales. He has also worked heavily in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia (187 edits), where I'm certain he's developed a thorough understanding of the deletion processes and policies - this is also noted in his AfD contributions. It is my belief that Mattinbgn would make an excellent administrator, and I thus nominate him. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, thank you to DHMO for the kind words. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:18, 12 December 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: In general I intend to continue working much as I have; mainly on Australia-related articles particularly Australian places. My watchlist consists mainly of Australian towns and cities and trying to keep them neutral and factual takes up some of my time. I also have on my list some schools and biographies that tend to attract the easily bored or vindictive from time to time. Using the appropriate warning tags has meant that I haven't had to make too many reports to Administrator intervention against vandalism or Requests for Page Protection but I have done so where necessary. The tools will assist in maintaining these articles.
As mentioned by DMHO, I take an interest in AfD debates, especially ones listed at Deletion Sorting/Australia and I feel I have a good enough grasp of policy to be able to judge consensus and close these debates when appropriate. I also patrol User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult and cleanup, tag or propose for deletion articles there as appropriate. Once again the tools may be useful here when dealing with clearcut speedy cases such as attack pages. I may from time to time have a look at articles tagged for speedy deletion when a backlog develops.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My first collaborative project was on the Riverina article, which I enjoyed immensely. It lead to a Wikiproject that while small, has been very productive and in my very biased view the Riverina is now the more extensively covered rural region in Australia on Wikipedia. I have created a number of new articles on Australian towns and some of my favourites include Jandowae, Queensland, Bundarra, New South Wales, Jennings, New South Wales and Booleroo Centre, South Australia. Recently I have started to take an interest in cricket related articles. I am quite pleased with the work I have done on Archie Jackson and I have enjoyed collaborating with others on articles such as Sid Barnes. One of my favourite cricket articles that I have worked on is Peggy Antonio.
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:Discussion on AfDs can get quite willing at times, even when you have great respect for the editors with whom you are disagreeing. I like to think that I am mostly able to remain civil and assume good faith but when I have let myself down I am able to apologise (see here)
The only time that I can recall where I have lost my cool was here. While I feel I was sorely provoked, I should not have responded in the manner that I did. After posting that response, I realised that I was getting too wound up about the issue and decided to take a break for a week. During the break, I realised that Wikipedia is just not that important, especially such minor minor issues. I'd like to think I returned to Wikipedia a better editor, certainly a wiser one.
Remaining cool, explaining oneself as clearly as possible, referring to the appropriate policy or guideline, commenting on the content not the contributor and if need be just letting it pass is the best way to avoid wiki-stress and conflict.

:Additional, optional question by Master of Puppets

4. Due to your lack of an answer to question 3, I'm assuming that you have never been involved in an edit conflict. If you were faced with one, what course of action would you take; would you hand it off to another editor or would you try to settle the dispute yourself?
I asked this question prior to the candidate's answering of question #3, and am withdrawing it as it is unnecessary. Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, it took a little longer to find the diffs I was after to answer the question in the manner I thought it deserved. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Dlae

4. If Larry Sanger were to have uploaded and activated a non-free use image (assuming no rationale given), would you delete it?
A: I am not sure how Larry Sanger uploading the image is relevant (the whole Jimbo/Larry thing doesn't interest me) and I assume the image meets the other requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. The first thing I would do is talk to him and remind him of our requirements. If I thought the image was particularly useful, I would even offer to help write the rationale. In the end, however, if the image doesn't comply with policy in that article and is therefore orphaned, then the policy needs to be enforced. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopaedia.
Fair use is one of the most confusing concepts that new editors confront on Wikipedia and it is common to see new editors with long lists of fair use notices on their talk page which must be disheartening for them. I must admit that I am not exactly full of good ideas of how that probelm can be fixed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A: No. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 01:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

6. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
A: No, I was not aware of this case in particular. I don't tend to spend much time at WP:RfAr or WP:AN/I for that matter either. Having read the case now, the issue seems clear and unambiguous to my mind. Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors need to be extremely conservative when creating or writing articles that are about or involve living people. This is not only to protect the Foundation from legal liability, although that is important , but because it is the decent thing to do.
Sitting behind a keyboard, it is sometimes easy to forget that the people we are discussing and running through our guidelines and processes, even the ones who seem to be rich and powerful, are real people with real feelings who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. As Wikipedia grows and becomes the reference of choice for more and more people, how we treat content about living people becomes extremely critical. At all times, editors should remember that this is an encyclopaedia; not a Red Top, not a partisan blog and not even a popular culture directory. Unilateral action by an administrator to frustrate this clear and unambiguous policy is wrong and deserves censure.
7. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
A: Firstly, what I wouldn't do is unilaterally re-create the article. Someone has deleted this article, presumably in good faith, citing BLP concerns and their reasons deserve consideration before any re-creation. Secondly, I would not leap immediately into forums such as Deletion Review or AN/I. As per my answer to Q. 76, the people who we run through our processes and procedures are real people; unnecessarily creating further discussion on topics and issues that are obviously of a sensitive nature to those people is only increasing any offense that may have been given.
I think that if I was concerned enough about a deletion, I would contact the person who deleted the article to find out what precisely was their concerns with the article. If, after hearing these concerns, I still felt that the article had a place in Wikipedia, only then would I raise the issue at Deletion Review. If, after putting my case at DRV, the consensus was to confirm deletion, then it is time to let it rest. Administrators should act in line with policy and following consensus, not in line with their personal preferences.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mattinbgn before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Please note that the first 7 supports were added before Matt had transcluded the RfA on the main page. Mainly because the Aussies are all very eager to see him pass. Please don't make this his fault. I've transcluded it now to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but do note that he hasn't answered the 3rd question yet. Thanks! ~ Riana ⁂ 06:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. support --.snoopy. 22:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. First support comes free with the nom. Good luck, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong support Great teamworker, great writer, very helpful.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strongest possible support, I trust Mattinbgn and his judgement. From my experiences with him, he appears to be wanting to solve disputes, not wanting to inflame them. Spebi 05:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Had a nomination written in Notepad from about a month ago for this candidate. Giggy's nomination is plentiful, though, to get the picture that Mattinbgn is a fantastic user who would make an excellent administrator. Strong support without reservation. Daniel 05:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    Heh - Revenge for Spebi, mate. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong support of course, meticulous in every way.--Grahame (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - a delight to work with, a conscientious editor and an asset to the project who would only use the additional tools wisely.--Matilda talk 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    Just to clarify I was formerly known as User:Golden Wattle, which is a little bit relevant for part of the answer to question 3 --Matilda talk 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Obviously. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. As tempted as I was to vote "protest oppose" because of the seven who voted before transclusion, I just can't. A quick look through his contribs shows he'll make a great admin. I also trust Daniel, Riana, Blnguyen, and H20 too much to oppose for that reason. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support per the nom and the other comments, above. We could definitely use some more Admins with great content contributions such as these. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  10. Support very well-rounded, thorough and trustworthy editor. Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support, almost the perfect candidate in my mind. Enthusiastically endorsed by me. Lankiveil (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  12. Support Well-rounded candidate - excellent article writing, participation in admin-related tasks, nice answers to questions and good Wikipedian, overall. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support even if he is Australian. Nick mallory (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    Those Australians! Always creating hubbubs and getting into trouble. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. I'm amazed he wasn't an admin ages ago. Rebecca (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - excellent reputation & hard worker. Will make a super admin - Alison ❤ 10:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support a great Australian candidate --Stephen 10:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support - an excellent contributor to mainspace (Australian place articles), Wikiprojects (WP:ACAT) and Wikipedia via AfD's and deletion sorting. Should have agreed to be an admin ages ago. Euryalus (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support but if you stop contributing to mainspace because you like your new toys too much, I might throw all my toys out of my pram. Good luck. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support... I have never met or worked with mattinbgn, but his history seems excellent and I have few doubts that he will continue to contribute in the same valuable fashion as before. --Storkk (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - has been an excellent contributor across many areas over a long period of time (and has somehow managed to photograph half of Victoria in between times). --Melburnian (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support, impressive contributions. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 14:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support - excellent history and contribs. Jauerback (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Yeah! - — Rudget Contributions 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support If anyone votes oppose for the pre-transclusion votes, they're going to get a severe tongue lashing. GlassCobra 17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Very strong support - One of the Australian project's hardest working editors, especially on the thankless administration tasks and on country towns in three states of Australia as well as infobox rollouts, his editing is of high quality, his contributions to AfD debates are consistent and in line with policy, and I have long believed he would make an excellent admin. I have also never once seen him lose his cool with anybody, and he has worked cooperatively with other users in various venues. Thoroughly deserves the mop, and will use it well. Orderinchaos 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support I thought he was an admin. Twenty Years 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Gothnic (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Yes, I think so. G'day -JodyB talk 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. Nice editing, will do fine with the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support as he looks good. I don't get the Aussie rules though. LOL Bearian (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Phew! - nearly missed this one due to real-life lack of time. Absolutely, 100% support this great co-worker and part of the Aussie team. Very glad to see the nomination and my best wishes. --VS talk 02:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support No problems here. A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support solid contributor whose judgement I trust. Go the cabal! —Moondyne 03:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    See! Someone appreciated my joke ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Strong Support - No Problems. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. He is making a great contribution and knows what he is doing. Will be a good admin. --Bduke (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. Seen him around and think he'll make good use of, and be trustworthy with the tools. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. I don't get why everyone puts "Support" when they've already included themselves under the corresponding section. Dlae│here 17:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. 40th support NHRHS2010 talk 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. Makes a nice change to see a candidate who's made significant contributions to the main space. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. AAA Support. Another Australian Admin. - Darwinek (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support -- a fine candidate, more than qualified for the role. - Longhair\talk 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support - Great contributions to Mainspace as well in several WP sections.--JForget 18:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. Dihydrogen Monoxide nominated, so that's a good sign, and if Daniel was hoping to nominate, that's a bonus. I can trust this user. Acalamari 02:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. Strong Support Matt have does some excellent work on Australian related articles and I can see no reason why he can not be trusted with the mop. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support Great editor! He will do a good job as an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support Good answers to questions and in general, a great editor. Good luck! Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 22:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Does anything need saying that hasn't been said already? Jhfireboy Talk 02:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support lots of bloody good 'pedia building. Strewth. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  52. (+) Could not hear a better answer to the questions regarding sensitive material. Overall, no outstanding problems. 哦，是吗？(review O) 04:51, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
  53. Support, kangaroos, barbies, tinnies, bloody sheilas, Harold Bishop, didgeridoos, Mattinbgn - all good things to come out of Australia. Neıl ☎ 11:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  54. Strong Support - terrific candidate! A big well done! Lradrama 11:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support Lawrence Cohen 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support Okay. Jmlk17 20:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support. Another one of those people who you always assumed was an admin all along! -- Chuq (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support regular contributor to Australian collaborations too. Definitely past time. --Scott Davis Talk 08:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support What they said the way they said it and fact that they said enough said Gnangarra 14:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  60. Of course. Sarah 00:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support I like neighbours. In all seriousness, excellent candidate. No problems Woody (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
[edit] Neutral

Neutral Incredibly thorough, trustworthy editor. Just one question which I'd like to see answered. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he's either answering Q3 now, or will soon. If you look at the history you'll notice he's been (relatively) slow to answer all of the questions, and is obviously taking his time to ensure he gets them "right". I doubt he's never been in a conflict. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Well, if he answers Q3 I'll read his answer and change my vote. Sorry about my lack of patience. Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
He's answered it [1]. Thanks for your consideration - will you also consider withdrawing your optional question, just to avoid confusion or the impression that he ignored it? Thanks, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:11, 12 December 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.