Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kaiser matias

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

Kaiser matias

[edit]

Final (30/3/2); Originally scheduled to end 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) - Kaiser matias has been editing Wikipedia since December 2004, during which time he has made over 14,000 edits. He is a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey, and is the main editor of the Good Article, Joe Sakic. He has participated in numerous XfD discussions where he has displayed a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Kaiser matias is a experienced, civil user who is unlikely to misuse the tools. Epbr123 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Kaiser matias here and accepting. Thanks to Epbr123 again for the nomination.


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: I would probably continue to go on with working along the ice hockey project, which sees the occasional vandalism and disputes. My free time tends to limit my time to the project.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: While I'm not one to flaunt my achievements, I've done quite a bit over the years. A few months ago I began assessing the articles within the scope of the ice hockey project. At the start of it nearly every article, some 9,000, were unranked. Within a few months of steady work, I finished it up, and now only have to spend a few minutes a day going through and looking over the random new tagged article.
My personal pride would be the Joe Sakic article. After photographing him at a hockey game a year ago, I began the slow process of improving the article, to it's current status (see the differences here). As it stands, the article has now passed GA, and is once again an FA-candidate, which looks promising.
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: The biggest dispute of recent memory would probably concern the Joe Sakic article, and what the actual link of the title should be, Joe Sakic or Joe Šakić, and bulding upon that, whether to say if his parents are from Croatia, Yugoslavia, or the Croatian-speaking Yugoslavs. The dispute was ended upon tedious research and reliable sources that I spent looking for, aided by others involved in the dispute. If something of the the like were to happen again, I would probably use the same tactics.
4 Some might view your comments last year on Talk:Joe_Sakic as a bit snappish and bitey. [1], [2]. How would you respond to this? Would you do things differently today? Dlohcierekim 14:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would have to agree with the comment describing how I expressed my views, and I would like to take an oppourtunity to explain as best possible. Up to that point I had little experience in dealing with any type of controversial subject, and like many, many users here, was rather overwhelmed with the whole experaiance and not certain how to deal with it properly. Over the last year, I have spent a great deal of time learning how to resolve conflicts in a more civilised manner. An example I would like to show is from April, 2007, when I took it upon myself to supervise a page that would end up being edited nearly 100 times in 24 hours, and then several more times over the next day or 2. The article was about hockey ovetime records, and at the time there was a game slowly making its way up the list. The relevent page is linked here: [3], and on the talk page I tried to keep order, which seemed to keep some order and ended up getting the page protected for the next while. While in hindsight I reverted WP:3RR, I feel it was necessary to keep the page from being updated every time the game passed another on the list.
In conclusion, I feel that I have learned how to be more civil in discussion regarding touchy subjects, and will continue to resolve any conflict by way of using a third party and/or finding appropriate references.

Optional question from SorryGuy

5. Your answer to Question 1 is unclear to me, so I was wondering: What specific admin tools do you plan to use and for what tasks? Even more to the point, what exactly is your motivation for wanting to become an administrator? SorryGuy 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would probably use admin tools to do routine work around ice hockey articles, namely solving disputes, protecting pages, deleting articles that require such action, etc. Like I said, as a university student, I don't have as much free time as I'd like to spend on Wikipedia, and so my time is rather limited to association with ice hockey articles, though I'm trying to slowly branch and learn about the other aspects that Wikipedia offers.

To answer the second part of your question, I have a short simple answer. To be quite honest, I had no real desire to become an admin. A couple days ago I recieved a message asking if I'd accept a nomination. Sure, the thought had crossed my mind beforehand, but I just haven't had the initiative to continue on with it.

So to continue being honest, whether I pass this nomination or not, I don't think it will have a major impact on what I do. I'll continue going on and doing what I do here, which includes trying to expand the information contained in the ice hockey articles and expanding general information contained on all Wikipedia. A simple title with some extra tools is not going to stop me. Kaiser matias 04:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support Seems like a good candidate. Always handy to have the tools too if you're kind of 'supervising' a project...any project. --MoRsE 10:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom. Epbr123 10:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - seems fine. — Rudget contributions 11:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No major concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support adminship is no big deal. I saw no indication nom would abuse the tools. Specialist admins are a good thing. I think the subtext of his question 3 answer says he knows to 1) seek third opinion, 2) seek to establish consensus through discussion, 3) resort to dispute resolution processes instead of edit warring or wheel warring. Dlohcierekim 14:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Experienced article writer; unlikely to cause trouble. Additional training in admin areas would be helpful, but is not essential. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Will do fine with the tools. Won't abuse them in the specialized area. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Nothing wrong with having admins that are knowledgeable and active in narrower subject areas. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Burnaby Joe Support I have had many contacts with Kaiser for some time now, and they have never been anything less than professional, positive, and enjoyable. Kaiser is a great editor who doesn't just tinker with an article; he improves them substantially. So what if he concentrates on a particular topic? What he does for the topic goes above and beyond. Give him the tools, and nothing but good shall happen. Jmlk17 21:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Just because his edits lack a in topical diversity doesn't seem a great reason to oppose. I don't have any reasons to oppose. --Strothra 22:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as above Redrocketboy 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. User does have some need for the tools and will not abuse them. I do not suspect he will use them often, but seeing as he can be trusted, he is a great example of adminship not being a big deal. SorryGuy 07:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Adminship is only supposed to considered Janitorial work (Maybe we should change the name From Admin to janitor, hmmmm...) This used has show no intent to harm wikipedia and gladly edits and improves his subsection of the 'pedia. Even if he doesn't plan on using the tools, It is always nice to have them handy in case crisis strikes or he sees something only n admin can do. The Placebo Effect 07:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support — Well-rounded article contributor, actually gets Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. I certainly see no problems here. Admin specialists are just fine. I also like his attitude toward the mop. - JodyB talk 15:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - The Transhumanist 16:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I applaud your speciality (not a negative) and the way you conduct yourself. Monsieurdl 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support An indefatigable, calm and reasoned editor. Speaking as a frequent AfD flyer, I can't imagine using AfD edit totals as a prerequisite for adminhood; carried to its absurd limit, I'm sure that there's some area of Wikipedia that Jimbo himself hasn't much touched.  RGTraynor  05:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support as a prolific, easy-going, experienced editor, with no reason not to trust. WikiProject Hockey could use another sysop to mop up the messes on the ice. Bearian 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearian, if you make any more hockey-related satirical jokes, I will send in the enforcer. --Maxim(talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I don't know much about ice hockey, but that's my problem not his. Lots of concentrated editing may be a handicap but it certainly doesn't rise to a distrust with the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I definately support this candidate. Is always level headed in debates and brings alot to the table. We could definately use more like him. -Djsasso (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per nom. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Nobody voiced any concerns that this candidate might abuse the tools, and per Angus McLellan's reply to opposition #2. — Sebastian 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (If anyone sees a reason to change my vote, please let me know on my talk page. I'm not voting to do the candidate a favor, but because I think it's the right decision for Wikipedia. Therefore, please refrain from thanking me on my talk page, unless you have a really original or funny idea.)[reply]
  24. Support The mop isn't that big of a deal. --Sharkface217 01:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Met him through WP:HOCKEY, the nom sums it up nicely. Maxim(talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No convincing reason to oppose. Acalamari 23:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Looks good to me. James086Talk | Email 13:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I thought I already had expressed support, see my comment below. Kaiser matias's response to Jeanenawhitney's oppose should be quite enough to allay any concerns here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Per nom and Jmlk --WriterListener (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Experienced editor; objections noted, but I see no harm in specialists.--Bedivere (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose - Lacks any qualifications other then they edit hockey related articles. MoRsE states “Always handy to have the tools too if you're kind of 'supervising' a project...any project.” That just is not a good enough reason. It just means we give the tools to a person that would probably use them to protect their own work. In their answer to Q1, “My free time tends to limit my time to the project.” Does not seem to understand that what they would be taking on if granted this position. Final summary, lacks qualifications, needs more experience out side of hockey related pages. --Jeanenawhitney 12:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well how about "Users contribute to Wikipedia in different ways. Don't deny Wikipedia a valuable administrator simply because a user contributes in a different way than you do." --MoRsE 15:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to say that I would have to agree that I need more experiance outside of hockey-related projects, and have been taking some measures to that degree. While my time tends to be limited, I am spending a larger proportion going through the many different aspects of Wikipedia and learning how everything works. While this is not necessarily reflected by any edits, as edits are not always measure a user, per stated on WP:WBE. An example of my learning of the finer points of Wikipedia would probably be my 2 attempts to feature an article, Joe Sakic. The first one I nominated with very little knowledge of just what makes a FA, which led to it failing (link). After seeing it fail rather quickly, I spent some time looking over some other FA's and watching the whole process, learning what is expected by the community at large. After extensive editing, the article has been renominated (link) and is currently stalled from passing on lack of enough support, with comments regarding the extensive sourcing (Note: This isn't a self-promotion to solicit support to pass the article). Kaiser matias 17:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose less than 20 AfD comments in past 1500 edits---all of which are related to Hockey. Almost all edits are in one silo---very little diversity of thought/perspective. To respond to MoRsE above, I have no problem with people having their own silo's where they tend to work. But when preparing for an RfA, gaining experience elsewhere is crucial. Show me that you can contribute to other articles. PArticipate in AfD's.Balloonman 18:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Me, I think that concentrating one's efforts at XfD on things that one knew about would be quite ok. And if I look at the candidate's comments, I don't see "fanboy keeps", IYKWIM. If Kaiser matias only uses the extra buttons to clean up problems in one little area, that's still a plus. For every admin who spends hours a day on adminstuff, there must be a dozen or more who only use the tools occasionally, and it's not like there's a shortage of extra buttons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So what if an editor is focused on one particular topic. If the editor does solid work and is a decent wikicitizen, then that's a boon to wikipedia. It can be helpful for the hockey community here to have such a hockey-focused editor be an administrator. Kingturtle (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: An administrator should be more well-rounded and focused on a broader spectrum of topics that are, in this case, outside of WP Ice Hockey. While I commend your efforts for helping to revert vandalism and perform other cleanup operations there, there is no justifiable reason to have adminship based solely on that if the focus is going to be minute. 95% of the time, an editor can post it at AIV, ANB, etc. and have the case resolved fairly quickly. I would suggest expanding your territorial range to outside of the WP, and hit up WQA, comment on ANI, etc. and come back later -- you have promise! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral for now. Without a doubt a valued article contributor, but the candidate's answer to Question 1 leaves me pretty cold. There is no indication of needing or even wanting the tools. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - as per comments above. He is a valuable contributor but his answer to Q1 does not give any reason for becoming an Administrator. He has given no examples of work he would undertake using the tools. PookeyMaster 00:58, 3 December 2007 (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.