Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MatthewFenton

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 (0/13/7) ended 10:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

MatthewFenton (talk · contribs) – I believe i can improove wikipedia by becoming an administrator, I have been a member for some time now and a reader/editor for longer. There are various reasons why i would like to become a sysop and i shall list a couple.

  • To help rid wikipedia of vandalism.
  • To make wikipedia better place, and improove the content of wikipedia by helping others.

I do not have thousands of edits like some people, however i do not believe having thousands of edits instantly qualifies you for sysop position, I generally go on wikipedia quote a few times a day and i like reading the articles users write and also submiting my own and my own edits to articles. Thank you. I have decided to withdraw my nominations and thank users for there comments, they will help me improve my self and gain more experiance. I may try again when i have more experiance and more edits under my belts. Once again thanks. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 10:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept Withdraw
Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose Your level of activity is not quite enough for adminship. Please do continue contributing and involve yourself in the different activities of Wikipedia. Also remember spellcheck is your friend! --Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 17:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose (via edit conflict) Not enough experience yet. You want to help rid Wikipedia of vandalism, but I see no reports to WP:AIV. You don't have enough main article edits, either, and not enough User talk edits. Please try again for adminship when you have more experience at Wikipedia, and note that time doesn't always guarantee experience. —Mets501 (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Reluctant oppose. I've seen you around and you are a good contributor; but you haven't displayed a huge need for the admin tools. More experience is necessary. — getcrunk what?! 18:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Not enough experience. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 19:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Edit count. -- Steel 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Not enough edit counts. Gain more experience first. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Little edit counts. Unexperienced. therefore, I sadly oppose him to be admin. *~Daniel~* 22:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Not enough experience.--Jusjih 23:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. A good contributor who needs some more experience before becoming an admin. Zaxem 03:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. 'Oppose per above + some more: a) doesn't seem to know how big a page should be before archiving (see here). b) reading his talk page, found mainly negative/automated comments, but not much "thanks for reverting X page" or "thanks for stopping X vandal". c) signiture doesn't link to his user page, but only talk/contribs. d) activity quite low, could be worse though. e) has only 0% support at the moment, and I have a degree of trust for the users that have voted f) calls wikiquote "wikipedia quote", i dunno what that means but it can't be good. Please don't put me in the blender for opposing another RfA, i'm starting to get sick of it. on the positive side, he's allowed to use vandalproof, but that isn't going to sway my vote. MichaelBillington 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with all your comments except one. I don't think you should vote oppose just because nobody so far has voted to support the candidate. We are all entitled to our own opinions on this and shouldn't just follow the hurd. Be bold stick with what you believe is right. --MarkS (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose simply not enough edits...sorry...I suggest coming back in a few months when you've got a few more edits under your belt. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. An up and coming user who may make a good admin in the future. Based on the indentifiable edits he simply does not have enough experience. He says he has been an editor before become a member and I assume these were IP edits. If there are enough of these and they are clearly attributable to him then I might be willing to reconsider. --MarkS (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral, remembering not to pile on. — Vildricianus 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral (edit conflict). Good contributor but I think you need a bit more experience. One of your reasons for wanting to become an administrator, as above says "to help rid wikipedia of vandalism", and another says "to make wikipedia better place, and improove [sic] the content of wikipedia by helping others." You can really do both of these points without being an administrator, anybody can help to achieve this. By the way, for future reference, improve is spelt with one 'o'. I expect you will be a great candidate in a few months time. — FireFox 18:24, 25 June '06
  3. Neutral While I do agree that quantity does not equal quality, I do think you need more experience participating in process, etc. Spell check is your friend! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral You (quite honestly) seem like a diligent editor, and you know what the admin tools are for (which is better than many RfA candidates.) You just need some more experience, and experience in the areas in which you would provide help with the admin tools. Take a look at the criteria I use for approving potential admins. Grandmasterka 22:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. Good editor, seems to be on the right track, needs more—and more varied—experience. Keep up the good work! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral ok editor, but needs a lot more experience in all areas. --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. not to pile on oppose.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • See MatthewFenton's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • Username MatthewFenton
Total edits        637
Distinct pages edited   319
Average edits/page      1.997
First edit      14:01, December 5, 2005
        
(main)  317
Talk    53
User    38
User talk       90
Image   34
Template        13
Template talk   11
Category        1
Wikipedia       78
Wikipedia talk  1
Portal  1
This is in regard to User:Mets501, I have not make any reports because i do not actively monitor every users vandalism i revert. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This candidate asks that edit counts not be taken to much into consideration as i believe that its not the ammount you edit rather the quality of your edits. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 18:12, 25 June 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Riding wikipedia of vandalism and spam, deleting pages which dont belong, helping others, deleting pages and closing the discussions at AfD and IfD and help reslove disputes.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Hollyoaks: I was once quite a big Hollyoaks fan and made some significant edits (from before and after i registerd) however within the past few months ive stopped watching this show as much and my edits to this page have been mostly minor. Windows Live Messenger: I've made some significant edits and also done the gallery for the page and merged data into new pages to imrpoove the articles in general. Redeparede: I created this article a short time ago and was pretty proud with the outcome, although nothing large i think it came out well. and lastly Charlotte Morgan (The O.C.)
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: I've been in a conflict over a silly thing (How to name something in an article) however i did not loose my temper and stayed calm. I dont believe wikipedia has ever stressed me, generally i am generally calm and if i get stressed and annoyed over a non internet matter i tend to stay away from the computer and go for a walk just in case.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A I would confirm that they are sockpupeting first, then i would ask the editor in question for an honest answer if he has been abusing wikipedia via sockpupetry i would also check the edit ips, If he gives an honest answer and he has i'd ask for a list of sockpuppet accts that hes created so that they can be tagged and banned indef. If he does not respond truthly and i am pretty sure he is sockpuppeting i would tag and ban teh accts im sure he is sockpuppeting on. I would maybe ban the main acct if the user has caused serious vandalism/spam/upset on any of these accts but i would prefer to consult annother admin first. Generally tho i would prefer not to as people deserve a second chance.
  2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A I would respect teh otehr admins decision, and i like to keep WP releted stuff to wikipedia.
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A The default font.
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A Major edit war and spam/vandalism/harsh words.
  5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    A I cant answr 100% as it depends on the situation, but i;d have to do some research my self before closing the AfD if teh result is no consensus.
  6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A I believe that at least a few people opinions should be counted before deleting things (except SD) so as to make things fair.
  7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A I do not generally get stressed over web matters and when i do get stressed 9web or not) i tend to stay away from things i can vent stress out on or ill talk to a friend.
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A (More info at top) To help others and improove wikipedia.
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A In a sense both, helping users and mediating is sort of political and deleting things etc is technical.
Optional questions by Ac1983fan (talk • contribs)(Optional for a support vote, that is. :))
  1. Now, let's say you are an admin, and you check WP:AIV to find out that User:Bob has been listed as a recurrent vandal at the Example page, and also violated 3RR on the page Cheese. What do you do?
    A:
  2. Same situation as above. Now, you go to check Bob's contributations, and you see no such evidence of vandalism or 3RR violation. The User who added bob to WP:AIV (User:Rick) is blanking Bob's userpage repeatedly, and calling him a sex-obbsessed vandal-whore on Bob's talk page. What do you do?
    A:
  3. Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
    A:
  4. Lastly, if you are not promoted to admin, do you still plan to become one?
    A:
The above 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.