Commons:Administrators/Requests/Mateus2019

 Support = 2;  Oppose = 20;  Neutral = 2 - 9% Result. Unsuccessful --Krd 18:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Mateus2019

Related requests:

• Administrators/Requests/Mateus2019

Vote

Mateus2019 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 13:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi folks! I would like to nominate myself to become an Admin here. I have tons of time and a lot of experience dating back to 2004. I would consider myself as a power user in this project and I am motivated. I got general knowledge / interests and 50+ years of life experience and an IQ=130. I am online since 2001. I am eager to work myself through the wide range of Admin tasks, and I would start with simple things like closing clearly situated a) DR, b) user blocks; later on file restoring issues and speedy deletion RQs, have a look at category maintenance workloads. On the timely horizon, conflict resolving could be another field of work for me. I am open to other fields as well. If a task would be unclear to resolve, I would rather ask s.o. instead of doing it with a 50-50 chance of error. We should maintain high standards towards our policies and useability, and I am strongly motivated to do so accordingly. I see myself with that anticipated accoladion as a plus for this project, at least as admin-related workload for others will be diminished. Many Commoner peoplz know me by the former user name “User:Mattes”. Thanks for reading + greetz from southern Germany, --Mateus2019 (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Votes

•  Oppose Thank you, but no. --Krd 14:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Using 3 accounts (even though two are no longer active), improper formatting the RfA, showcasing "50+ years of life experience and an IQ=130". All this isn't what I wish from an admin candidate. --A.Savin 15:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Based on this, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMateus2019&diff=559753265&oldid=559671628&diffmode=source I don't think I want this user to have access to some of the admin's tools. Also, ones IQ has little bearing on the ability of one to use the mop. Abzeronow (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  As evidenced by the abundance of bone-headed decision-making I've witnessed from existing admins.RadioKAOS (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose the diff Abzeronow quoted was direct at me. To me it looks like the user thinks he is very smart, but he looks a bit clueless to me. Multichill (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per others above. Yann (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per A.Savin, Abzeronow, and this malformed filing.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Support You guys are too harsh. Mateus2019 made a tiny syntax mistake, his User-Page is a mess, the renaming of the file may have been a waste of time but Mateus2019‘s rename is the way it’s supposed to be, isn’t it? Why discourage an ardent volunteer, why not find some job for him that he might be good at? Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Raquel Baranow: But We have other rights for gain experience and collective trust. --Mehdi^Talk 07:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Administrative actions on Commons have the potential to have impact on all of the other Wikimedia projects so standards here are a little higher than other projects. I don't like opposing candidates for adminship, but seeing that they reacted to a disagreement over renaming policy by making personal attacks is not what I want in an potential administrator. Abzeronow (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Abzeronow. Taivo (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Support, albeit just a moral support. You need to gain more experience and, most importantly, be more humble. Bedivere (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Микола Василечко (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose A malformed filling of RfA made the claim of IQ=130 suspicious. It gives me an impression that the user is a little bit arrogant. Even if it is true, high IQ≠a good admin. How can this kind of user still get moral support votes? --A1Cafel (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral ""IQ=130"" it doesnt matter how much high IQ you have. but, good luck. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 10:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Personal attack on users https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AMobileDiff%2F559753265&diffmode=source -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 12:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose With sadness, when I read personal attacks on our volunteers, I always hope that people change their ways. However, it continues even here. I read the I.Q. remark above as a personal attack on all other users who are being put down by being assumed to be lesser beings to the one who wrote that statement. I do not think I.Q. equates to skill, ability or interpersonal skills. I have seen other actions/statements from this applicant which are questionable, some as mentioned by others above, and I oppose this self-nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'd support the file rename, but not the attitude in the comments afterwards. Surely anyone with an "IQ of 130" should be out curing cancer or something, not wasting their time here. We're just not worthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose: Per several others here. Concerns about aptitude and attitude and possibly also of actions that might be taken with admin tools. Sorry. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 17:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Support: I don't have any problems with user Mateus2019, and I think he has enough experience. The IQ says nothing, I agree with other users above. Some things I don't take too serious. If I would not trust him, I would not vote to support Matteus2019. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose: IQ too high. He's so far obove us dumb people, we would never ever can understand him. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral I see a lot of good work, but I share some of the concerns mentioned above --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose per A.Savin. --Key0121.AutoConfirmed (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Kadı Message 15:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Kierzek (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Per all of the above, I choose  Oppose. Tryvix1509 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose While this site is badly in need of warm bodies, the most serious of its problems stem from the culture created by the existing pool of admins. That needs to change. This nomination doesn't show any signs of contributing towards that change.RadioKAOS (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Invalid request. --A.Savin 12:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  @A.Savin Assuming you're talking about the format, I just fixed it. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, should have been done by the candidate, right from the start. --A.Savin 15:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Please add Babel templates on your user page. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

pl. visit User:Mattes/Babel boxes --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC) BTW User:Mattes pages are still being maintained. --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Question I have two questions for you, all related to freedom of panorama. For the first question, since you hail from Germany, I will mimic my question to Kritzolina here. Mateus, what are your thoughts on Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-12#File:Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views04.jpg and which of the two will you follow: the latest ruling by lower regional court at Frankfurt allowing drone photos or the more-conservative ruling of Bundesgerichtshof (federal court) that still does not allow aerial photography? For the second question, the freedom of panorama introduction here in the Philippines is on the right track. But supposedly you come across these photos of suspected modern Philippine building, what will be your action on this? Will you leave the photos as they are (since FOP introduction here is pending) or will you nominate them for deletion on the ground that FOP was not yet existing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

well the court of the higher level would be binding imho. That case it should be taken to WMF lawyers because it will be a continious problem with other photographs. --Mateus2019 (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mateus2019: how about the second question? Re: Philippine FOP, if despite pending amendments to the Philippine copyright law, what will be your response should you find FOP-violating files now? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

difficult to handle, I tend to delete such images before FOP law in the Philippines came into effect, because FOP was not yet existing. --Mateus2019 (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• "3" user names: I have 2 @ WM Commons (cannot login to Mattes anymore, so I have created Mateus2019 → what is so problematic about it?)
• I am not an arrogant person, I have put the facts “tons of experience” and my IQ value in the sense that it is a “side dish” for the campaign. … next time I just skip that.
• “I.Q. remark is a personal attack on all other users who are being put down by being assumed to be lesser beings”: matter of taste. Facts may be stated. It is not my intention to state that people with lesser IQ are less worthy when below the value of 130 (it is a personal interpretation of the person who made the comment). If someone says “I can see”, then it is not automatically to put himself superior to / an insult for the vision-impaired. If someone says, that he has accomplished an academic degree, then it is not automatically an insult for High School drop-outs etc. pp. This mechanism is a bit odd and does’t work generally (depends on the intention).
• I also do not like self-nomination and so I have waited years after years, that a user nominates me. Nobody took action :-( For the last years, it appears to me that self-nominations are very common in this project though.
• In the overall view, I am sold here as being a trashy user. One could have written “... at least his contributions are ok/good”.
• My user pages are organized regarding their hierarchical structure.
• some reasons for contra votes are hard to understand, such as
  • malformation of the source code on this page: I have never created a RfA in my life beforehand ([] instead of {{}}) … such a big deal out of 380,000 edits? You people have no other problem with me, … then I am glad.
  • express my opinion towards User:Multichill: the text was not so nice. On that day, I was in a very bad mood which is rare [‘cause of an event at work which concerned my whole career -- in the meantime, this issue is settled]. I am sorry about that. I am normally a nice guy. He was not talkative on this topic. For the unpleasant communication with Multichill years ago, I lost my rename right. So I got punished, and I am cured.
  • In a RfA, the person’s goals, ambitions, abilities, general character and the loyality is important; not only the text of the campaign. --Mateus2019 (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Your User-Pages are “organized by hierarchy” but it’s not easy to find your Babel Boxes (someone, above, asked you to add some to your User-Page). Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)