Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mattbroon

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.

Contents

mattbroon

Final (0/5/1); withdrawn per WP:SNOW by EVula at 04:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

mattbroon (talk · contribs) - Although, relatively new, I believe that an opinion from a fresh, newer user will be useful. All current admins tend to be older and have traditional views on Wikipedia. I believe that I can be a breath of fresh air. My edits have been very successful and accurate. I ask you to possibly look past issues such as inexperience, and to instead try to understand my passion for this job as described below in my answers to the questions. Finally, I thank you for considering my nomination, and ask you to be honest and thoughtful in your comments. Mattbroon 02:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Generally, all admin work upon which assitance is required. I believe it is important not to be picky about what is important and what is not. Overall, all Wikipedia rules should be followed, and when these rules are put into levels of importance, it takes away any sense of authority. I will try my hardest to take part in all admin work, focussing on all issues as eqauls
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:Editing false documentation, as many people both in the world of work and in education use this resource as a reliable encyclopedia. To have false documentation, can lead to misinforming many people which leads to this resource being demonised as unreliable. All false documentation must be reviewed. Also, i have been very tough to crack down on vandalism. Wikipedia should be suitable for use of all ages and any inapropriate posts should be removed immeadiately, for the rsake of Wikipedia's reputaion. My most proud achievement, was unprotecting the Margaret Thatcher page after careful discussion with all the members who had been responsible for its protection.
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, i have not been involved in any major conflicts, however, I will be honest, some members have caused me stress. I find users who use vandalism stressful, however i deal with it by simply removing the vandalism. In the future, I will deal with conflicts in a calm nature, and discuss the issue in a personal way with the relative people. I believe you wont get anywhere with edit wars and the like.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose, pretty much per your own reasoning right down the street, or this one as well . Also per complete lack of experience in all areas, account created today, edit summary usage, e-mail not enabled, spelling, support of own RfA, placing current date on RfA tally, <any other conceivable reason here>, etc. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. I strongly recommend self-withdrawal before imminent WP:SNOW closure this causes migraine to someone else. Húsönd 04:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Dear God No Absofuckinglutely not. --Lucid 04:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    There's absolutely no need for that - Alison ☺ 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Check this user's contribs, really --Lucid 04:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    I have to agree with Alison. Looks to me like a brand new user, and there's totally no reason to use that language. --JayHenry 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Then you aren't looking hard enough. --Lucid 04:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    (ec) I've already been involved with this editor today re. the Margaret Thatcher article. My point is that there's no need to be so contemptuous, regardless of your motivation - Alison ☺ 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strongly recommend withdrawal. Users have varying levels of expectation for experience, but you need more than a few hours' worth of editing Wikipedia to understand what being an administrator entails. Take your time to explore Wikipedia more thoroughly as an editor and find articles and tasks that you enjoy working on. — TKD::Talk 04:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose too new here, too few edits, etc. etc. New England Review Me! 04:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose Is this a joke? Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. neutral - way to new an editor to be able to judge one way or another - Alison ☺ 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
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.