Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MatthewFenton 2

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.

[edit] MatthewFenton

Final (8/32/9) ended 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

MatthewFenton (talk · contribs) – I previously self nominated earlier though withdrew as I still required some experience before I would make a good administrator. I believe I would make a fairly good administrator now and I believe I could help a lot of users.

I help out at WP:AIV and I also help blocked users by offering advice, I believe with the mop I could help clear the morning backlogs that occur (GMT) at WP:AIV and Category:Requests for unblock, I would also help with speedy deletions as at times it can be sometime before the speedy backlog is cleared.

I try and be as helpful as possible when users require assistance, I do some vandal fighting but I am primarily a spam fighter and the mop would also help in stopping persistent spammers, I have a healthy 600+ Wikipedia space edits, and over 2800 main space edits, I have created a fair few articles and I am primarily pleased with my work on The 4400 articles, and have also done some work on Lost (TV series) which is now a FA, I am actively involved in several WikiProjects and I have my self created two WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject The 4400 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost)

A few articles I’ve created include: Wake Up Call, Voices Carry, Hollyoaks: In the City, you can see all the pages I’ve created here, I’m presently working on getting Battlestar up to a GA and possibly a FA.

I would also like to help out at AFDs and would be more then willing to help clear other backlogs if they occur. Thank you for reading my self nomination . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self nomination . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would primarily be interested in helping out at WP:AIV clearing the morning backlogs that build up over here (UK) and helping out at Category:Requests for unblock. I would also like to help out at AFDs and would also be willing, and also want to help clear other back logs. I would also like to help do more spam fighting by halting IPs and users that persistently spam articles, and blocking persistent vandals.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The work I am most proud of is my work done on The 4400 related articles, I’m currently working on getting Battlestar up to a GA or possibly a FA. A few of the articles I am most proud of in relation to The 4400 are: Wake Up Call, Voices Carry, I’m also currently working on some Andromeda related articles and have created and will also be doing more work are: DSX (Andromeda) and Weapons of Andromeda, My primary contributions on Wikipedia are related to television I however also contribute to non-TV articles such as: Windows Live Messenger and I created Conker Media. I’ve also done some work creating stubs such as biographies (Craig Sweeny, Britt McKillip et cetera), You cans see the articles I’ve created here, I’m proud of each and every one of my contributions.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, I’ve been involved in conflicts but I understand most users have as well. My most recent clash was over articles relating to Cylons when a user redirected several articles to an alternate article (i.e. Number Three to Cylon (Battlestar Galactica)) several users disagreed with his redirect (including me) this was settled amicably during the night and morning on the talk page of Battlestar Galactica, sadly the user also left Wikipedia on a Wikibreak.

Other questions:

  1. Question from McGinnly: Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments

MatthewFenton's editcount summary stats as of 21:07, September 18 2006

Discussion

Support

  1. MatthewFenton is a very dedicated member of Wikipedia, and would be able to sort out conflicts well as of past experience. -- Mattythewhite 10:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    Support Kokota 12:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    Indef-blocked sockpuppet of User:YaR GnitS. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 15:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support I have seen MatthewFenton mature so much on Wikipedia over the past couple of months and I think he would make an excellent admin. SergeantBolt (t,c) 13:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support - trustworthy user, with pleanty of experience with a large and decent (recently flawless) upload log --T-rex 15:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - Very strong, but kind user, would not abuse sysop. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. --Mike 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Great person to have around. --Thorpe | talk 21:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Singopo 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Doctor BrunoTalk 19:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (nom 4). – Chacor 09:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose is somewhat dedicated member, but one reason to oppose is per Chacor. I also suggest withdraw. Hello32020 12:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    Just a note that nominating that article was a judgement call, Angela her self has also nominated her own bio for deletion citing notability. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    As pointed out by Sjakalle on the debate - the 3rd nom had just closed weeks earlier as no consensus. Your re-nominating of it, plus even going as far as to say "Speedy delete", definitely leads me to question it. – Chacor 12:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    I considred it borderline A7, and I also understood that not everybody else may not share this opinion so after taking it to AFD I added my opinion on the AFD page. Also as it had been several weeks and the previous resulted in NC I believed it may get a consensus then. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Well on the way. Not quite ready per the speedy delete issue above. Also, told user they were not blocked when they were IP blocked indefinitely for IP vandalism. Just needs a little more experience to deepen understanding. Dlohcierekim 13:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    If you look at there block log here you will see no blocks listed, all checking for autoblocks listed none hence i was led to believe there was no collateral damage and they were not blocked. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    Switch to strong oppose based on many concerns below.Dlohcierekim 00:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Suggest w/d - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Needs more experience. Suggest withdrawal and examining the advice provided on this RfA. SuperMachine 14:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Matthew I feel is a productive editor of the encyclopedia, and I wouldn't mind supporting in a few more months. However, three elements of his behavior make me question his judgement - the clash with Ed_2gs over a 3rr that spawned sections on ANI and an rfc on Matthew, his nomination for AFD of articles on people who he feels to be non-notable (one of which was a front page article while it was on the front page) most of which have ended with keeps, and his previous talk page archival scheme which seems to have been moving his talk page to a subpage and then asking for it to be speedied. That all was only in August, and I feel that is too recent to support this RFA in good conscience at this time. Syrthiss 14:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    I changed my arhciving ways to just use one sub page /Archive/Archive 1 - I dont see the problem in me deleting redundants :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    I know not everyone agrees, but I think talk pages should be kept as intact as possible. Yes, it's available in the edit history, but it's so much easier to review if you don't have to run through a series of dif's. Dlohcierekim 14:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    I keep it all here , i use to have 4 archives but merged it all into 1 archive. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    replied at user's talk page Syrthiss 15:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Strong, speedy oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (nom 4), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynna Kydd and especially Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton, which are way too recent to be ignored. Definitely not to be given the delete and block buttons at this time. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 15:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton. feydey 15:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Feydey. Michael 16:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose and strongly suggest a withdrawal to prevent this from becoming a bloodbath. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh's said it all. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 17:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per all comments above. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination soon. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose as per Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh's evidence, unwilling to trust with tools. Pete.Hurd 18:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose as per all above.— OLP 1999 19:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per recent disruption, would support if he avoids that disruption around december, as he is an very good editor at times Jaranda wat's sup 21:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. User means well but isn't ready yet. Reluctantly oppose, and suggest ending the debate now. DS 21:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Just doesn't seem ready yet. If he continues to mature as an editor I would support sometime in the future. Sound and Fury 21:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per all the above oppose votes, particularly for recent blocks in August and Afd participation. Strongly suggest withdrawl and trying again later.--Jersey Devil 21:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per recent block log entries. Ansell 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose—Presently you fail to meet my criterion (If you’re going to field the emotional responses of blocked individuals or authors of deleted articles, you need to be rational—not easily annoyed—avoid overreactions & emotional tantrums—show some sense of humor.) as illustrated by recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton entries. Intelligent enough that you should get there, hopefully soon, but I with regret must currently oppose your RfA. Williamborg (Bill) 00:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Nominating Cynna Kydd for deletion after its FAC and more importantly while it was on the front page was a recent extraordinary lapse in judgement. Per this and the above discussion, it's hard to trust such an editor with block and delete buttons. Grandmasterka 01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  21. No way! I've seen some extreme incivility, bad judgement, and frankly, wikistalking, from this user. He made life very unpleasant for some of our admins not too long ago after one of them made a difficult but necessary decision that Matthew didn't agree with and just couldn't let go. --Cyde Weys 01:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. There is substantial evidence to suggest this user would abuse the tools. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Looks like a good user who needs to spend more time on the 'pedia. I suggest they withdraw and try again after 3-6 months of AfDs etc. TewfikTalk 04:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose despite not wanting to pile on. Candidate was the uncivil straw that helped me decide to leave esperanza. MLA 08:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose, not now, I can't trust him with the tools due to his uncivil past. -Terence Ong (T | C) 10:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose due to recent RFC and incivility. - Tangotango 11:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. I've not come across this user, but there are any number of incidents being cited, any one of which would prompt me to oppose. --Dweller 11:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose - lots of evidence to suggest that he would abuse the tools. One of the least suitable people that we could make an admin. ed g2s • talk 18:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose, suggest withdrawal. - Mailer Diablo 21:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose Not now, or anytime in the near future. The AfD on Cynna Kydd was absurd and I would be troubled with the tools in these hands. Sorry, Yanksox 01:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose sorry Matthew. I believe you have good intentions, but your insisting blocks be used as punishment and your attempt to have Cynna Kydd deleted while it was on the main page shows a profound lack of judgement. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose - I cannot support this. I believe that you would get into some serious trouble with the "trigger-finger" on the advanced tools. I have looked at the discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton, and I just don’t feel you are ready for an admin role. Sorry. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I multifactorially suggest withdrawal -- Samir धर्म 09:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I'm going to choose neutral because, although the incidents brought up by other users do not sit well with me, they were a while back and I think this user has got the right intentions. These two aspects even my vote out to neutral. --Alex (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Withdraw this RfA and seek an editor review instead. Reapply in three months or ~2000 edits. (aeropagitica) 17:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I can't support and don't see the need to oppose. I suggest this candidate withdraw. Bastiq▼e demandez 19:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I don't see what all the fuss is about with the Angela issue. We all make mistakes and that was a minor one. Besides, she is barely notable at best. --kingboyk 20:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. An intelligent user, and dedicated to the project, but sometimes a bit too rigid and rule-oriented for my taste. I can't fault him too much for that; sometimes he strikes me as having the exact same style I might have had a few years ago; but reason and discretion have to leaven the mix. Please continue making your contributions, think carefully about the practical effects of suggestions and nominations you make, and your time will come. Newyorkbrad 21:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Sorry, with the concerns raised by the opposes, I must recommend the User:MatthewFenton withdraw and spend more time gaining more experience and developing himself.-- danntm T C 03:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral instead of oppose to avoid making this more of a bloodbath. Please read and correct the issues brought up after withdrawing and come back in a quarter or so. Erechtheus 08:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Though I find this editor's contributions helpful overall, I don't always agree with him, and do have some concerns about his choices on RfA. However, opposing would be wrong of me, as I believe he can, and eventually will, do good work with the tools. Good luck in the future. Thε Halo Θ 22:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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.