Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/IMatthew 2

Add links
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.

iMatthew[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Final tally (45/20/8); Scheduled to end 16:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Withdrawn by candidate. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iMatthew (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentleman, iPresent to you iMatthew. iMatthew has been active here since December 2007, and has gained over 13,000 edits since. I first ran into iMatthew on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juliancolton 3. Since then, I've been constantly running into him, and I'm impressed by what I see. When I first met him, I saw a friendly user, a user who has clue, a user who would be a good user for adminship.

iMatthew's past RfA failed mainly because of his answer to one of the questions. I think he has learned from this experience, and will not make the same mistake again.

iMatthew mainly works on hockey articles currently, contributing to 9 FAs/FLs/F<insert letter here>, 11 GAs, a GT, and 11 DYKs. Also, looking at his talk page archives, I see him working cooperatively with users he has had conflicts with. He does not hold a grudge, which is a very good thing for an admin to have. I also see others coming to iMatt for help in many respects, whether it has to do with article building or not (e.g. [1]).

In his admin coaching page, I found some concerns, but that is many months ago, so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Also, from the last RfA, he was mainly opposed for his answer to a question, replying that verifiability is more important than consensus. However, not all situations are the same, and the example he gave is a good example of when verifiability is more important than consensus. He also responded after the RfA by using his admin coaching page to work on correcting the problems raised. I see this as an admirable trait.

iMatthew will definitely improve the project as an admin. He is a friendly user, who, although may have some minor problems, will be a net positive. Xclamation point 02:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by  GARDEN 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to present to you iMatthew for adminship. iMatthew has been on Wikipedia since mid-2007, and since then has racked up over twelve thousand undeleted edits on the project. His contributions mainly fall in the category of sports and recreation, with contributions in the realms of professional wrestling and ice hockey.

It would be pretty safe to say that iMatthew is a seasoned content writer. Of course, coming from someone with such a low level of article contributions, this could be construed to be an understatement - but I assure you it is not. A cursory glance at his userpage shows that he has an impressive eight featured lists, twelve good articles (four of which compose a good topic) and even a featured article, rounded off with eleven did you know items. The sheer volume of content that iMatthew has featured shows his obvious commitment to the project and its underlying goal of becoming a full and detailed encyclopedia.

I'm not going to blatantly fabricate here and say iMatthew is the perfect candidate. However, his mistakes have all taken place months ago, which is time enough to learn, which he most definitely has. He has consistently impressed me with his situation handling, and for that reason, I am nominating him for adminship.  GARDEN  12:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'd like to thank the nominators very much, and I accept. iMatthew // talk // 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, really withdrawing this time. iMatthew // talk // 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to work with page protection more than any other area. I have some experience over at RFPP as the requesting side. Besides page protection, it is likely that I would check the admin backlog daily, and help out whenever and wherever the help is needed. I'd like to work at WP:DYK more, placing items on the main page once approved. As an admin, I would be able to appropriately act on discussions at the administrative noticeboards as well. I am somewhat interested in closing deletion debates.
It is my intention to be generally available to anybody who needs administrative actions performed, as I am online frequently. My talk page will be completely open to requests, and I check my e-mail every day.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Content contributions. I have a featured article, eight featured lists, a good topic, twelve good articles, and eleven articles featured at DYK on the main page. Writing articles is what I do, and there lie my best contributions.
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: Yes, I have. When I get into a conflict over editing, I try to discuss anything with the other parties instead of edit warring over it. If it can't be resolved by discussion between myself and the other editors, I ask for outside opinions from uninvolved editors.
For example, lets take one of the many major conflicts from List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees. This goes back to November I believe, where edit warring began at this article for multiple things. I at multiple times tried to come up with ways to get consensus first, or create page guidelines to avoid the edit wars. I had to request the page be protected many times as well. I feel that I overall, it was a very stressful situation, where I was dealing with many editors who were unwilling to help resolve the dispute, and some who wouldn't settle for anything less than their personal desires. As shown in the links, I tried and tried to come up with solutions to satisfy everyone, but most of them failed. I felt in the entire situation, I kept my cool as much as possible, and acted as professional as possible.
Optional questions from Aitias
4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A. Yes, if it was pure vandalism, an editing test, nonsense, attack pages, pure advertising, or obvious copyright infringement.
5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A. For myself to grant rollback, the user would have to have no past records of being disruptive (within the last month or two). Signs of good editing and an appropriate demonstration of needing rollback would be required.
6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. You may not be use a non-free image of a living person on Wikipedia 99% of the time, as they are alive, and a picture of them can always be taken. However, in very, very extenuating circumstances, exceptions can be made. If it's a person on a DVD cover, movie poster, or things like that - it's also ok.
7. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?
A. I would block the IP myself if it was blantant vandalism. Any adminstrator would have done the same thing, so it would not be conflict of interest.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
A.If the account had disruptive, Grawp-type contributions, or a page-move vandal.
Optional question from Trusilver
9. Speaking of blocks, as Aitias mentioned above... Please explain, in your own words, the difference between a block and a ban. (extra credit if you tell us in limerick form).
A. A block and a ban both prevent editors from disrupting Wikipedia. A block is a technical measure taken to prevent a user from being disruptive. A ban, a social construct, is a formal revocation of editing privileges, given to a disruptive user with no intentions of positively contributing. A block can be decided by on one administrator, but a ban can be issued by Jimbo, ArbCom, or community discussion. Users can also be placed on topic bans, where they are not allowed to edit in certain areas. Topic bans can be from !voting in RfAs, contributing at AN/I, or from editing Politics articles (examples).
Additional question from VX
10. What do you think of WP:IAR and have you ever had to use it? When do you think it would be appropriate for an admin to use IAR?
A. WP:IAR can be a very helpful policy, however many editor mis-interpret it. Too many people think that you can ignore any rules whenever because there is a policy called "ignore all rules." It's only to be used in a case where other policies prevent you from improving Wikipedia, which is the only time it's appropriate for an admin, or any other regular editor to apply it.
Question from Pedro
What are your thoughts on using Internet Relay Chat as a Wikipedia admin tool? Are there advantages to discussing situations in private chanels that non-admins cannot see, and then using the tools based on those discussions? Are there dis-advantages? Your thoughts would be appreciated.
A. It's a more direct way of communicating. If non-controversial decisions can be made there, then why not? If it's a larger more controversial topic, then it must be discussed on Wikipedia. Thinks like blocking/banning/protecting and other administrative actions should not be discussed on IRC, though.
Optional Question from Townlake
12. Why did you withdraw this RfA, and why did you un-withdraw it shortly thereafter?
A. I don't feel this is working in my favor. I would generally keep it open, and learn from the opposes, but all I see from the opposes are saying that nobody is permitted to mess anything up. And if you do, even if you are a positive contributor, you can't be trusted with administrative tools.
Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim
13. Explain why this edit is or is not a violation of WP:BLP.
A.
14. Should admins ever enforce content policies like WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:IAR if they have to violate social policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:INVOLVED and WP:Edit warring to do so?
A.
15. Would unprovable but likely off-wiki co-ordination change your evaluation of WP:CONSENSUS on a particular article?
A.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

I agree, I'd very much like to see some evidence put forth. Also, if these are occurrences are IRC, then I'm going to irate. That's a playground for immature children. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO this is turning into another Dihydrogen monoxide 3, with opposers being bullied into supporting, and lots of discussion regarding it going on in IRC channels. We should all calm down.--Pattont/c 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was certainly offended by the accusation on IRC that I was 'backstabbing' Matthew, but yes, I think the user in question had good intentions. Too early to call this another DHMO3, but yes, you're right about the potential if this doesn't stop. — neuro(talk) 19:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too familiar with the RfA in question other than the fact that it had the most supports of any RfA in the history of Wikipedia and a few other things, but I think by the time Dihydrogen Monoxide accepted that RfA nomination, he was one of the most prolific editors on the entire site - beyond that of even iMatthew. I don't know if he'll break 300 supports, but this certainly has the potential to develop into something similar. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it was one of the most barbaric and incivil discussions that ever took place on this site. Opposers were bullied into submission (Not by Giggy, he's a great editor) by various people and flamed beyond belief, some to the extent that they would have been blocked had they not been admins.--Pattont/c 21:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to badger anybody, but I feel that in some ways, I'm being unfairly judges. Many comments here are about a few incidents that have occurred, and while I take full responsibility for my actions, I'd just like to note that I am not perfect. Many of our top administrators make mistakes like mine daily, but if they were to go through another RfA, they'd pass with flying colors. I can't (nobody can) go though their entire time on Wikipedia without screwing something up somewhere, and making many wrong decisions. It's human nature to mess up, but it's also human nature to learn from those mess-ups and move on.

As for the IRC comments running about, I'd like to note that I've not been involved in these conversations. I've seen some going on, but they are all generally talking about it, like any other RfA. Comments like "I liked A's rationale" and "B brings up a good point." However, nobody has made comments persuading others to support or oppose. I encourage everyone to drop IRC, as nothing is going on there, and I'd rather not see my RfA turn into "Why I hate IRC." iMatthew // talk // 20:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"However, nobody has made comments persuading others to support or oppose." | I'm pretty sure that is what happened to me, but anyway. — neuro(talk) 21:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, to some extent. IRC != Wikipedia; the former is to socialize and relax, the latter is where we should be investigating the candidate. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support — Jake Wartenberg 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extremely strong support as nom  GARDEN  17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. E/c'ed should have been first support - the noms say it all. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You can count this as my co-nom I guess. In all my interactions with iMatthew, I have found him to be a curtious, good-natured person. He's apt at article writing and there's no way he'll abuse the tools. He goes out of his way (or at least goes out of his way to help me ;) ) others and will be a fine addition to the admins we have already. In short, I think that iMatthew is someone who will not abuse the tools and is definitely a net positive -the qualities we need in administrators. I hope that was good enough :) VX!talk 17:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support: should already be a Supercalifragilisticadminalidocious. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support PeterSymonds (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak support Not the most qualified candidate I've ever seen, but good enough. Net positive for the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support, of course. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Majorly talk 17:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Pattont/c 17:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Definitely. --Chasingsol(talk) 17:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support No problems here.--Giants27 TC 17:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - See my nom above for details. Xclamation point 17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak support Issues of incivility are not enough to make me want to oppose this candidate at this time, because looking at his other contributions, they all seem to be very well made and if this user was to become an administrator, I feel that it would be a net positive for this Wikipedia. Razorflame 17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Good user, opposes are unconvincing. LittleMountain5 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support See my oppose below. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support God yes, I've often wondered why he isn't an admin already. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support. Very easy choice. Wizardman 17:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I have had very little dealings with this editor myself, but I don't see any serious problems and Garden has shown to have pretty good judgment when it comes to RfA candidates. I'm all for giving him the mop. Trusilver 17:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No major issues, and the incivility to be is not enough to oppose. America69 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I was originally going to do a co-nom, but I suppose it's poor form to show up so late when the other nominators have covered IMatt so well. All I can say is I've seen him mature greatly since I first met him. He's learned to have a cooler state of mind and addressed the problems that plagued him in his last RFA. I daresay he was a bit hesitant to undertake this again, but we managed to convince him otherwise. bibliomaniac15 19:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Good Editor and I Assume good Faith that the user will overcame the concerns raised and do not see any scope for misuse of tools and the candidate has shown improvement since the last RFA.The user has been around since July 2007.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Behavioral problems aside, I do not believe this candidate will break anything. ArcAngel (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support The more hockey interested Administrators, the better. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I can't say it much better than Cyclonenim. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support - Despite some concerns in the oppose and neutral sections, my impression of Matt is that he is highly trustworthy and capable, and will take the concerns of the opposers to heart. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Going off of some of the candidate's hockey related edits, this user is a New York Islanders fan. Frankly, if this user can handle the ups and downs of the Islanders, then he can sure as hell handle administrator duties. All kidding aside, he may have a rough edge at times, but I don't consider that a bad thing. The major thing I've noticed when I've run into him is how efficient he is. These days, efficiency is what we need most around here with all the backlogs we have. – Nurmsook! talk... 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh, you making fun of the Islanders!? I guess you deserve to. :-/ iMatthew // talk // 20:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support – TheLeftorium 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Slightly hesitant but mainly Support - Haven't met the fellow in question, but his contributions speak up for himself. I sure that he's learned a whole lot since his previous RfA. However, I disapprove of actions on the IRC, as they reflect upon one's behavior... (Why do the best editors have the most controversy in their RfAs?!) Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 20:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Per all of the above. astatine-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Net Positive Support - Concerns about maturity and quickness-to-judge. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support A great editor with a great sense of humor. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. I find myself somewhat concerned by a few diffs raised - I get a general feeling of occasional immaturity and hastiness to act; and that ANI report about the page moves was downright odd. But balancing this I see a lot of good contributions and intelligent additions to discussions that suggest a user who's sufficiently sensible and familiar with policy not to go too far wrong with admin tools. I see this as a clear net-positive situation, best of luck. ~ mazca t|c 23:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - with a caution to try to be careful if you find your temper rising. Often, when I am getting angry, I just type out my reply and leave it on preview while I do something else for ten minutes or so. Then when I come back to it, I usually find that I am very happy I did not write what I was originally going to. (seriously, you have no idea...) J.delanoygabsadds 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, it's official, you're scaring me, man. SimonKSK
    ? J.delanoygabsadds 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I support him, I believe he could be a good admin, and he is nice and helpful when I have a conversation with him SparksBoy (Counter Vandalism)(talk) 01:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support While I do note what has been said in the opposes, I still believe that giving iMatthew the tools will be a definite positive. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Think twice before accusing people of anything in the future, and seek help on that IRC habit. Tan | 39 03:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. All-around great editor. --Eustress (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - smart, clueful, introspective when mistakes are pointed out. Donnez le mop, tout de suite. //roux   03:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, most definitely. Nothing but good interactions with this user. —La Pianista (T•C) 05:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support – I've always been a supporter of iMatthew. Would make a fine administrator. — RyanCross (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Weak Support I'm a bit torn because I usually see iMatthew in good ways but opposes and neutrals raise valid concerns (and the withdrawal and un-withdrawal was weird as well). But I am willing to assume that you have matured since the last RFA and so I'll support, mostly per J.delanoy. I suggest you take his advice, I too like to preview comments multiple times sometimes and then decide not to save them. Sometimes reflection helps us all. Regards SoWhy 08:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, because I can see no reason not to. --Aqwis (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Syjytg (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Having looked over the last RFA, this editor seems pretty immature. That's a very bad quality for an admin. Friday (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC) PS For those that wanted me to clarify.. I'm looking at the previous RFA and some things linked to from there. You'll either see it or you won't. From what I see, it seems pretty clear that IMatthew acts just like a little kid. I don't want admins who act just like little kids. I doubt any debate over specifics will change anyone's mind, so I don't see much point to going there. Friday (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's harsh, and shocking at the same time. Considering my actual age, that's odd. iMatthew // talk // 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is worrying. Any specific examples or is this just your gut feeling?--Pattont/c 17:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree. Granted, IRC is not Wikipedia but harassing users on IRC and calling them stupid etc shows true color and that is not what I would like to see in an admin. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Hearing his recent comments makes me want to reconsider... imatt is handling this very maturely and I feel that I can strike this. Matt, I'm sorry for any hard feelings, and thank you. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Has this ever happened?  GARDEN  17:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Harassing users" is a strong, very strong claim, in light of former problems. I and the candidate would (I'm sure) appreciate some elaboration. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm completely aware of what he is talking about. We were talking earlier on, and I thought this was settled, but it seems not to be. It's fine guys, we don't have to bother SwirlBoy. iMatthew // talk // 17:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean he gave out to you on IRC for spamming? That's something I look for in an admin--Pattont/c 17:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Whilst copyediting these answers upon request earlier, I noticed massive misunderstandings, and occasionally completely and utterly incorrect answers to questions, especially on page protection, the roles of blocks and bans, and various others. I would usually be wary of opposing this RfA on the premise that Matthew wouldn't break the Wiki, but the evident gaps in his knowledge of policy leave me wary that Matthew is, at this point, an unsuitable candidate for adminship. Some of the earlier answers have now been brought in line with policy (as I did notify him that the ban/block one in particular was particularly incorrect, not just aesthetically either) - but I am extremely worried that the gaps demonstrated in his knowledge of policy through these answers is an indication that there are many more gaps in his knowledge which !voters at RfA are simply not going to know about, and will only find out when it is too late. People can wave WP:WTHN and whatever at me all they like, but there is no reason why he cannot try again when his knowledge is more firmly cemented. His editing of the questions for me indicates a want to answer to what people want to hear as opposed to what he actually believes (which is what he met strong opposition for at his last RfA). Again, sorry. I really didn't want to do this, but I would be speaking against my mind if I were to !vote in support of this request. — neuro(talk) 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I have now been accused of 'backstabbing' Matthew (on IRC), I figure I should expand. My copyediting was self-limited to only aesthetic (ie. mostly spelling/grammar issues), so I did not correct the mistakes that I saw whilst doing it. I am not opposing, like I have been told, because I was asked to copyedit - in fact I find it to be a positive attribute that a candidate would have others review their statements - but I felt entirely unhappy with various questions about the board indicating a lack of policy knowledge. Matthew has told me since that he answered the questions at 3am, and subsequently re-edited them this morning whilst half asleep, so the answers were in fact like that because he was not fully awake. Whilst this is a reasonable excuse, the problems were and are vast enough to still leave me wary. It's not necessarily the problems themselves, it's what they may imply about his knowledge of other areas of policy and general guidelines, which won't be asked about in this RfA (simply because there are too many questions to ask). — neuro(talk) 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting extreme concern (potentially leaning strong oppose) due to User_talk:IMatthew/Archive_11#Hardy_Boyz, User talk:Wwehurricane1, and Caspian's diffs. — neuro(talk) 01:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - 2 months ago, I would have supported him, no questions asked. He is a fantastic editor, with many FAs, and whatnot, but recent events make me oppose. Matthew shows a lack of AGF at times, as shown here and here. It makes me wonder what would have happened if he was an admin. I am certain that he will not break Wikipedia, but I am certain that his lack of AGF will drive away editors. SimonKSK 18:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first link I agree with. The second, however, I completely disagree with. The user he was in the "spat" with was not assuming good faith, and I see no incivility in iMatthew's responses.  GARDEN  18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There could have been a better response though. SimonKSK 18:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely with your first point, and I was sure it would be mentioned. It was my fault for not assuming good faith, and I've apologized twice to the user. We are on good-terms and all is settled there. iMatthew // talk // 18:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The second link may be of interest, but it doesn't appear to show a lack of AGF. Am I missing something? — neuro(talk) 18:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weakly opposed to this nomination: our mutual involvement with one or two problem users leads me to agree with Friday, and I'm concerned your participation as an admin in noticeboard/warning/blocking type issues might do more harm than good. Not so strongly that I’ll gouge my eyes out if this succeeds, but not so harmless that I’m willing to support or remain silent. If pressed, I’m not sure if I could provide specific diffs or not, it’s more a gut feel after some brief interactions. The way you dealt with User:Kalajan seemed a bit overbearing and generally unhelpful, for example; although in that particular case I suspect the end result would have been the same no matter how that problem editor was handled, it could have actually been counterproductive with a borderline editor. On the plus side, it’s certainly nice to see all those FA and GA icons on your talk page; helps to average out my 0 GA 0 FA. And you seem like a nice guy, so I feel guilty being in this section. But I'm left feeling too uncomfortable to do anything except oppose. --barneca (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - I'm going to have to oppose here I'm afraid. One reason for the oppose is "hounding" new editors (lack of AGF) to try and get them to "break" when they are not a sock... if he had the admin tools, chances are that he would have blocked, and that would have been bad for everyone concerned. Is this a joke or not? Sounds more like a threat to me... doesn't sound one bit jokey to me. Several people above note incivility and unhelpfullness, and I tend to agree. iMatthew, you are a great editor, but I don't see you being a good admin. I also hope those support do really 100% want to support and are not being egged on about this on IRC, because that will ruin this RfA. D.M.N. (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was completely a joke. We are good friends off-wiki, and I was joking with him. iMatthew // talk // 20:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the "egged" part, I disagree. I support him 100%. VX!talk 20:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't saying the supporters don't support him... I just hope some of the supporters haven't been told to on IRC. D.M.N. (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not seen any IRC canvassing for this RfA, but I can understand your concern. Perhaps some !voters felt that they had to support, but even if they did, I don't think that can be construed as Matt's fault (because it isn't even if it has occurred, of which I doubt it has). — neuro(talk) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As the user who he left the message for, I knew it was a joke. You see, I like to watch Survivor, but I often forget that's on, so I asked iMatthew to remind on IRC whenever he could. On that day, he was not going to be on IRC when I was, so he left me a message. Perhaps it was a tad more dramatic than it should have been, but it was just good fun. -- Scorpion0422 20:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose There are some awfully questionable and peculiar diffs cropping up in the neutral section (the ANI report is extremely distressing and not actionable). I was torn when I initially arrived at this RfA. I honestly thought I'd be supporting, but, from what I'm seeing, coupled to my disdain for what transpires behind the scenes on IRC, I'm going with my gut here. I'm just not at all comfortable supporting. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose It's unacceptable how the user dealt with User:Kalajan. Maybe this is an isolated incident, but is too recent to ignore it. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he was dealing with Wwehurricane1. That was kind of the point. — neuro(talk) 20:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he was dealing with both. SimonKSK 20:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually,


    ... — neuro(talk) 21:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talking about this. My point is that I can't trust a candidate with this lack of good faith when interacting with others. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Too many concerns have been raised both above and in the neutral section. They can not be ignored. Sorry. — Aitias // discussion 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per incident with User:Wwehurricane1 - I won't support a candidate who tries to bully a user into confessing like he did, far too recent, and his immaturity, shown in this converstion I had with him with at the end of December where he basically accused me of being out to get him. I've known Matt on wikipedia for quite a while (check my archives) and I'm of the opinion that he is nowhere near ready for adminship. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose has the wrong temperament. RMHED. 22:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Answer to Q9 practically copied and pasted from WP:BAN (and if we're being picky, part of answer to Q10 paraphrased from WP:IAR). Answer to Q8 is thin. Last part of answer to Q6 is hideously wrong. Just a general feeling of being unconvinced here, I'm afraid. Black Kite 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstood what iMatthew was saying on Q6. The album cover at Born to Run contains a picture of a living person (Bruce Springsteen) and this is perfectly appropriate image use (even for very strict fair use people, this is an iconic album cover) on the article Born to Run. You seem to have assumed that the question was "when may a non-free image of a living person be used on the biographical article of said person". That's not the question, however, and while his answer could have been somewhat clearer (since many people might think the question implied of said person as you did), it's not wrong, let alone hideously so. --JayHenry (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's what he meant, that's fine - I read it, as you say, that it could always be used in an article about that person. Black Kite 11:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - not ready yet based on the diffs that have been presented. If it's any consolation, it took me quite a while before I felt I was ready for adminship. I'd wait another 6 months at least. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Per Aitias. I'm sorry to do this again, but its for the best. Seeing how people above me and below me, are showing evidence on his edits/actions, this is some really troubling stuff, especially with someone trying to gain trust from the community. Matt your a great guy and you've done some good here, but I just don't feel that you are ready to receive the tools. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I can not imagine having admins who have a tendency of childish behaviors just like the candidate acted in a RFA page[2][3][4]--Caspian blue 01:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I reach the same conclusion and concur that those edits were childish and unwarranted, I don't think showing three diffs from one incident shows "a tendency of childish behaviors". — neuro(talk) 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I don't like the taint of IRC around this editor. He also comes across as a bitter person (see his answer to Q12, and this). The discussions noted by NiciVampire and J.Mundo are also unacceptable. seresin ( ¡? )  02:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. He lacks maturity. Furthermore, he tends to assume bad faith too often. Do not ask me to elaborate on this. Any questions from his supporters regarding my oppose will go unanswered. Caden S (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so I'm in the neutral section and not a supporter. I know that I would appreciate, and I suspect IMatthew - and the bureaucrat(s) who will determine consensus on this RfA - would also appreciate it if you would expand with some diffs supporting your statements. You're free to oppose - I doubt anyone would question that - but you do make a fairly serious charge...in the interest of consensus, it's worth spending a little time to explain. This is a discussion, after all.  Frank  |  talk  03:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he is talking about the wwehurricane incident. SimonKSK 03:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I'm going to have to oppose this one. Whilst iMatthew is a nice and helpful user, I agree with the above criticism on the adequacy of the mop. Good guy, I actually don't think he should even have the mop based on nature. That's a personal aside. Keegantalk 06:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, based on the diffs brought up in this and the Neutral sections - I have concerns about the maturity of this user, and his ability to work with others in a constructive way. Please note that this is not an age-based oppose - I don't know, or care, how old IMatthew is, I simply don't feel he has the right temperament to be an admin. Robofish (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose The bullying and false accusations against Wwehurricane1 took place five days ago. The nasty exchange with Truco, cited in the Neutral section (where iMatthew called Truco's comments "childish and stupid"), took place two weeks ago. I am sorry, but these incidents are too recent to be overlooked. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose incidents of incivility too recent. Hipocrite (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Q12. Keepscases (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - I wont go oppose or support unless something major happens. However, I have seen him act immature, and X's own comments about his actions during coaching is problematic, regardless if it was a few months ago or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Matt is a good faith user, at times, and contributes well to Wikipedia. He tends to let his professional wrestling edits go to waste by not acknowledging them, but he is a good writer and editor overall. Though, his immaturity sometimes stands out and as an admin would not cope well. Matt and User:Garden run the Wikicup. Now, Garden nominated Black Eyed Peas discography for FLC, and Matt hasn't reviewed an WP:FLC in a while, yet all of a sudden he supports this nomination by Garden. I told him that his vote was COI since he and Garden have close ties and speak to each other often, even outside of Wikipedia. His response here and here show how he avoids using GF at times. In addition, an admin should be able to determine whether a user is a sock; not everyone is perfect, but this report shows me that Matt needs more experience in such areas. This also puzzles me. In addition to a grudge.--TRUCO 19:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - comment - it's very hard to get a handle on this editor. Lots of social edits, some listwork or busywork stuff, but not much is evident with regards to "how would they behave as an admin?" I'm troubled by this recent report to AN/I, where they singled out an editor [5] for correcting the capitalisation of page titles]. The lack of a User:IMatthew in that user's talk history at that time is also troublesome ... WilyD 20:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Social edits? I have never seen IMatthew use Wikipedia as Myspace. Can you give an example of Matt's "social edits?" SimonKSK 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would call User:GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion and activity there "social edits", for instance. It's not an enormous drawback in this case, just noting that it's hard to dig out working edits, notably those that relate to administrative work (speedy tagging, AIV reports, XFD discussion, MEDCAB, UAA, whatnot). WilyD 20:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    EfD states, "Your participation here can not exceed 1% of your regular daily edits," besides, Matt has been on EfD for sometime now. SimonKSK 20:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, I can't speak to that. How much social editing is "a lot" is obviously subjective, and I won't begin to try and quantify it. There was enough that it attracted my notice ... WilyD 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tend to agree with Simon here. I disagree that he is overtly social, and after all, this whole site is based around being social. — neuro(talk) 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm ... you probably mean overly social. He's obviously overtly social, I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree with that. And the whole site is not based around being social, it's based around being collaborative. These aren't remotely the same thing. WilyD 20:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Willy, I'll admit that at time's I can be overly social, however we all are. As a community, it's pretty important that we are able make friends and talk to each other a lot. Even the conversations about each others personal lives are not a negative to the community. By learning about other editors and making friends, editors feel more comfortable around their peers, and I believe that makes for better discussions, a friendlier environment, and a less tense/awkward atmosphere. iMatthew // talk // 20:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why people feel the need to jump on me without understanding what I've said (or even reading so closely as to get my name correct ...) - I've already explicitly said the amount of socialisation is not a particularly big deal, though it is comparitively high, at least enough to attract my notice/comment. More important is that I couldn't find very much that would allow me to evaluate your fitness as a perspective admin candidate, and of the few bits I did find, one was strange and possibly bite-y. WilyD 20:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did mean 'overly'. And yes, I meant being social, not collaborative. Since you were so anal with my misuse of the word 'overtly', here's a definition:
    "social: public, friendly"
    I for one would rather have a public and friendly administrator than one who refuses to engage and is unfriendly. — neuro(talk) 20:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, this isn't an either-or, I think. One can be helpful & collaborative without being socialable (I would consider myself in that bin, for instance). One could also be socialable and useful, or any useless. Friendly/helpful are far more important - realistically, how much an editor chit-chats with their friends doesn't matter much - here it's just a very minor aside to why it's so difficult to find history to properly evaluate IMatthew as a perspective admin with. WilyD 20:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm ... you probably mean sociable :) --JayHenry (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So I did. WilyD 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Well, if I wanted to be anal, I could go "socialable" and "comparitively", but yeah. :P — neuro(talk) 21:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Anyway, I came here looking to support. He was # 2 on my admins-to-be list (after Gary King). But, IMO, civility is required in an admin, and you need to show it better. Not saying you're not a nice person, I know you are Matthew, but... Ceran→//forge 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral for now. I had planned on supporting, when I first saw this RFA. Then after seeing some of the puzzling stuff brought up in the opposes, I'm moving to neutral until I can do some more scrounging around. I had attempted to go neutral earlier, but the RFA closed while I was typing my comments, so I didn't bother. But since it's back, I'll post. I am concerned by User_talk:IMatthew/Archive_11#Hardy_Boyz, fighting for "credit" on an article. I will not comment on whether or not "credit" is due, as that is irrelevant, but as per WP:OWN, what's the point? Useight (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I added myself to the Good topic nomination as a major contributor, and she removed me. I re-added myself with an explanation in the edit summary, then that conversation started. iMatthew // talk // 00:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral for now, because of too many occurrences of the word (initialism) IRC on this RfA. Ordinarily I'd oppose on that basis, because I can't stand the drama (I still have 3 teenagers at home, thank you). However, IMatthew - an editor of whom I have a favorable opinion otherwise - has sensibly pointed out that this shouldn't be a referendum on IRC, and I suppose I have to grudgingly acknowledge that point. Since I don't frequent IRC (ever), I can't properly oppose on that basis. Yet. But I can't ignore it totally, either. Yet.  Frank  |  talk  01:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral For now. Although I note is has to be excruciating to go through this RfA and the last one. I have a great deal of sympathy for iMatthew. Protonk (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I've known Matt for a little while and we've had our ups and downs, but I feel he would be a great admin if he could control a few aspects of his personality on here. However, I feel if he is given this power that alot of problems would come from it. So I'm 50/50. He would be a decent admin, but then again the power might go straight to his head, figuratively speaking. I want to support considering the valuable contributions he has made and that he understands alot of the guidelines and is very active. Though I can't bring myself to support or oppose. So for now, I'm neutral.--WillC 08:21, 17 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/IMatthew_2&oldid=1089812705"