Wikipedia:Administrator review/MBisanz


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hmm, I've done over 27,000 admin actions, probably a good idea to check in for some feedback.  MBisanz  talk 19:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm upset by you deleting a photograph I took even though you acknowledged that I had correctly identified its copyright status. This was heavy-handed. I'm sick of my legitimate donations to Wikipedia being deleted like this so I probably won't contribute anything further. G1MFG (talk) G1MFG
 * You are easily one of Wikipedia's most helpful administrators. You have nearly 30,00 log actions and are a very diligent administrator.  Having featured content, a GA and several DYKs speaks for your great article work.  You have great knowledge of bot policy and RFA.  I would suggest running for crat soon, as I can definitely see you being extremely productive in that role.  I also have to thank you for doing this.  It may seem odd, but blocking me indefinitely woke me up and showed me that contributing positively to the Encyclopedia was a must.  In short, you've done great work for this site. Meetare Shappy  Cunkelfratz! 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sam. You have shown great progress in the last year and I am glad you are a fellow editor.  MBisanz  talk 01:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cabal approved.svg Approve &mdash; You're most definitely an asset. Keep up the good work. —Animum (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything I've ever seen has brought a positive influence to the 'pedia. Always considered, unemotional, and considerate of all sides.  Sorry, can't find anything to complain about. — Ched :  ?  06:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Matt is one of the best Admins on Commons and is a credit to Wikipedia. He is calm, thorough and professional in his dealings with me. I wish every Admin was like him. And he also does excellent OTRS work on WikiCommons, too. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As copious flattery is probably not helpful, I'll offer a single piece of constructive feedback: I think you have a tendency to favour paperwork and bureaucracy (even for a clerk ;-)), which might be an aspect of your contributions to work on. Otherwise, you're usually diligent and courteous, and I have no serious complaints. Keep up the good work. AGK 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Needs moar cowbell. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What he said. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone said that these tend to turn into circle-jerks, so I'll take one for the team and give some negative feedback ;> I think your semi-automated deletions outlined at User talk:MBisanz/Archive 9 were a little heavy handed, i.e., there were a good number that should not have been deleted even though they met the arbitrary deletion criteria you came up with. But such is life in automation. Your response to the situation was admirable. Other than that, no issues. xenotalk 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair, thank you.  MBisanz  talk 04:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be bluntly honest - I used to really not like you very much at all. I don't know why, I just didn't. I didn't like your requests for banning page, nor the way you canvassed people to support your request for a WMF site account. There were probably other things too, so much so I opposed your request for flickr review "status" on Commons. Also, AGK's point - you are very bureaucratic as I can see, and I don't like that much. But... I have got to know you a little better, and I have found you are a decent person, and you clearly have the respect from the community for your work. I expect you'll run for more jobs - I don't support or oppose you doing that, but good luck to you anyway.  Majorly  talk  23:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think changing some nouns my sentiments would be similar towards you.  MBisanz  talk 01:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't have to jump through hoops to ban more of User:Jersay's socks because MBisanz wielded his ban stick and got rid of him. It was a no-brainer but most admins would expect me to file a thousand reports and wait a week for a response. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very impressed at the number of File (not File talk) namespace edits you have. It appears to be way above the norm. :) Rockfang (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of good work. However, I was disappointed in the apparent failure to see the conflict of interest in providing evidence to the Date Delinking ArbCom case, even though—bizarrely—ArbCom Clerks and trainees are specifically permitted to contribute without proper rules of admissability. The COI arose from the MfD sponsored ?twice by MBisanz to get rid of User:Tony1/AdminReview; the evidence proferred at the ArbCom case began with a totally irrelevant accusation of one of the parties on the basis of a diff from the AdminReview talk page. I thought this showed a cavalier approach to COI—even a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept and practice of COI. Please be more cautious in future. Tony   (talk)  09:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Postscript: Weeeell ... maybe I've been convinced more recently that Matthew has extraordinary procedural knowledge. I am very impressed.  Tony   (talk)  16:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * MBisanz makes the trains run on time.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some article writing (GA/FA) would be good. Always get familiar with how it feels both sides (esp WRT AfD, GAN and FAC). Lots of us round to help. just ask. Other stuff all good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You deleted an image at London Buddhist Centre without giving any notice whatsoever. Why was that, when there is a 7-day notice period? Bluehotel (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was tagged by User:NuclearWarfare, so he would be the person to ask.  MBisanz  talk 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you see this Bluehotel, I must note that I did actually post a notice to you on your user talk page. NW ( Talk ) 01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You deleted an image i had the autorisation to publish from the author himself, as mentionned. Any reason ?
 * The only image I can see deleted was Mcbessportrait.jpg, and that was because it was a duplicate of another image.  MBisanz  talk 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur with Majorly. I'll admit, you came off as a bit arrogant in the beginning, but as I got to know you better, I've found that your one of our most valuable users. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why the did you delete two fairly uploaded images, without even discussing it or telling the person who uploaded them? Being pro-active is not the same as arrogant and dismissive.  Wikipedia is not your personal property.  You can't secretly delete images, with no discussion.  Especially when they are fair use in the same way that 1000s of other images here are. And other people here have noted the same thing.  Doing 1000s of good edits does't allow you to get away with deliberately vandalizing articles. RK (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've double checked and you were notified by User:Polly of both images he had nominated for deletion. You did not contest the deletion for the 7 days the tag was on the page and they were deleted within policy for among other things not having a fair use rationale as required by policy.  You have since re-uploaded both images without any license information.  The images were not secretly deleted as there is an explicit process for nominating images and contesting the deletion of images.  MBisanz  talk 09:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Deliberately vandalizing articles"? Please assume good faith. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree—unproductive approach by RK. Tony   (talk)  03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely an asset to Wikipedia and Commons. A great contact for help with awkward image issues or problems on Commons (aided by the fact you're contactable in real time. Someone I'm glad to see joining a discussion or dealing with a sticky issue. Naturally, anyone dealing with image issues is going to annoy a few people, but I don't think that's anything to worry about. J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.