Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MatthewUND 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] MatthewUND

Final (10/16/6); Ended 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

MatthewUND (talk · contribs) – This is a self nomination. I've been an editor on Wikipedia for roughly two years and currently have over 8,000 edits[1]. I was previously nominated for admin status back in February of 2006, but the bid failed 21/9/10. It seemed as though the main reason some people voted against my rfa was because of a perceived lack of interaction on my part with other users. Since this time, I have become a very active member in WikiProject North Dakota. I feel that my role in this project has allowed me to interact with many fellow editors who have an interest in articles related to North Dakota. I now think that I not only am a very active editor in the article namespace, but I also have a heightened level of familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures. Of course, being an admin would only increase my level of interaction with others. Being in WikiProject North Dakota has taught me how to constructively and civilly interact with other users for the betterment of the project and of Wikipedia itself. My main reason for desiring admin status is so I can be of service to my WikiProject and, of course, to the entire Wikipedia community. Recently, there was a spate of persistent vandalism on articles for North Dakota politicians. This is an instance where, if I had admin status, I could have hopefully done something to stop the vandalism before it got out of hand. I wouldn't abuse the admin tools. Instead, I would hope to continue on in much the same way I currently do, but with the ability to be put to service if an admin is needed in a situation I come across. MatthewUND(talk) 10:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I would be silly not to accept, huh? I'm withdrawing my self-nomination. Please see this page's talk page for further explanation. Thank you.


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 do 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'm always willing to lend a hand when it is needed. If I attain admin status, I would be very willing to help in any way the community needs me. For the most part, I see myself as continuing on the path I currently take in my editing, but with the ability to do my work in a more efficient manner and with the tools to help out when needed. As a member of WikiProject North Dakota, I would be the only admin in that WikiProject and I would be able to help out in that capacity. As I previously mentioned, an admin in my WikiProject would be able to stop vandalism when it first starts so it doesn't get out of hand. Also, as someone who maintains a watchlist of over 1,700 articles, I routinely revert vandalism throughout the day. With admin status, I could do this task faster.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As a very active member of WikiProject North Dakota, I have done extensive editing to numerous North Dakota-related articles. These range from routine work on articles for such things as each town or county in the state to major overhauls and expansions of other articles. Personally, the article I am most proud of is Grand Forks, North Dakota. I have worked on this "Good Article" since my time at Wikipedia started. It was originally little more than an uninformative stub. Currently, I feel that it now gives a thorough overview of the city. I'm also proud of my work with other North Dakota articles such as University of North Dakota.
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 can't say that I remember being in any major conflicts with other users. Occasionally, a new user will question why I would revert their dubious/improper edits to an article. I always try to civilly explain why their edits were improper. I firmly believe in not "biting" newcomers. If I ever encounter stressful situations in the future, I would plan on taking a deep breath and trying to first understand the other editor(s) perspective. I think it is important for an admin, especially, to keep a level-head when it comes to disagreements. I also think it is important for an admin (who is at least perceived as having a high "status" on Wikipedia) to be courteous and helpful to newbies (who have a low "status").

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: WP:IAR tells me that sometimes, especially when you're a newbie unexperienced with policies and guidelines, it is necessary to "ignore the rules" of Wikipedia in order to get something accomplished. In the case of newbies, if more experienced users witness routine ignoring of the rules by a certain newbie, I think it is important for the more well-versed editor to try to show the newbie why a certain policy is in place. However, it sometimes seems like the community gets a little too bogged down in bueracracy and policy and, perhaps, even some experienced users should take IAR to heart now and then. As far as WP:SNOW, this essay (not an official policy) relates to cutting off discussion or debate before it has come to a natural completion. The idea is that the policy is cut off because an unxpected outcome initially desired by a small minority of editors doesn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" of passing. I'm a little concerned with this mentality. We should allow for fruitful discussion to go on as long as needed to reach a valid consensus. Some of the most major changes in the world have started from just one small voice. If that voice had been cut off before others were able to join it, we would be living in a very different world today. I would be very leary of cutting off a debate. In my book, everyone should be given their chance to air their opinions on a matter before the book is closed on it.
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A:
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A:
7. Can you provide examples outside of Wikipedia where you have had to evaluate research and reliable sources? If yes, please provide examples.
A:
8. What is your educational experience with relation to research, proper sourcing, and reading comprehension?
A: This spring, I will graduate with a bachelor's degree from the University of North Dakota. I have majored in Computer Science and minored in English. As an English minor and a lifelong lover of the written word, I have a good familiarity with proper sourcing and research. I also have very good reading comprehension and my teachers have often complimented my writing ability. As a CSci major, I have a good background in technical matters.
General comments

Discussion

Forgive me if I have errored, but I was simply letting my fellow members of WikiProject North Dakota know about the RfA. --MatthewUND(talk) 10:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention Driken, Misternuvistor, Milk the cows, Rickabbo, DavidA, Mitchberg, Leopold Samsonite, Doubleplusungood, Jolomo, JWGreen and Bschott. (aeropagitica) 11:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I unfortunately was unaware that it would be wrong to let my fellow members of a WikiProject know about the RfA. As stated, one of the reasons I am requesting admin status is so that I can help out this particular WikiProject. Because of that, I wanted to make each member of the WikiProject aware of the RfA. Again, forgive me for my mistake. If reverting those edits would make a difference, I would be very willing to do so. --MatthewUND(talk) 11:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
See WP:SPAM for discussion of this topic. I think that it is more seeing no problem with doing it in the first place that is the issue here - rollbacks are after-the-fact. (aeropagitica) 11:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see the problem. Granted, I'm unfamiliar with WP's picayune traditions and numbing legalisms, but it seems to me to be both a highly innocent error and a non-issue, since to my knowledge everyone contacted was intimately involved in the project. I will support Matt; WPND could use his services.

Mitchberg 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Under the "Canvassing" section, it reads "Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article". The only people I contacted were active members of one particular WikiProject that I am a very active part of. --MatthewUND(talk) 11:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I supported Matt's previous RfA; since Opes nominated him for adminship, I don't see why the debate couldn't be reopened by Matt. And all the people Matt contacted were WPND project members; if he hadn't contacted them about this, I would have, just like Opes did last time. Matt should be judged on his excellent contributions and group-building abilities, not the way some users percieve he went about reopening his RfA. --AlexWCovington (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no questions of Matthew's abilities, but as I said in my comments below, it's the danger of legitimising canvassing for Oppose votes and a matter of fairness. Furthermore, there have been plenty of candidates as able and as willing as Matthew who have gone through the RfA process without canvassing and the RfA hasn't reached a consensus but where canvassing for a couple of extra !votes might well have helped the candidate. It's simply unfair not to have exactly the same rules, expectations and behaviour from all candidates. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
(self-removed uncivil comments. Worked out on talk page). --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 16:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what track record it is that I have, but it's irrelevant to this RfA and the idea that the RfA process should be fair to all candidates. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Reply on Bschott's talk page
  • I see that this debate has turned quite heated; I have no wish for major conflict. Let me state the situation of the North Dakota project in a quantifiable manner:
Today, we have 1143 articles, 183 categories, 23 templates, and zero admins. If you feel that this equation is imbalanced, please vote for Matt. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That is absurd. I didn't realize that was what you meant, or maybe I just did not believe it. Membership in a wikiproject which does not have admins should never have any bearing. Wikiprojects should not be at any advantage because of admins, and if they are, the Wikiproject is run wrong. -Amarkov blahedits 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for those editors opposing the RfA. I realize that I was wrong to leave messages on the talk pages of WPND members. What I now wonder is, do you think it was also wrong for me to leave a similar message on the talk page for WPND itself? I would like to know the answer so I don't make a similar mistake in any future RfA. --MatthewUND(talk) 00:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice on other aspects that you may want to clean up on are interspersed throughout the oppose vote comments. --210physicq (c) 00:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Terence Ong 10:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support. Being an editor for 2 years with 8000 edits, you certainly deserve to be an Administrator. The Blue Lion 10:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support- Good Editor with alot of experience.--Natl1 15:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support - Project North Dakota needs an admin. Recent vandal sprees have taken hours to block, at times. Admin tools have been arm's length or farther from our organization and we're worse for wear. Aside from this, MatthewUND's contributions are excellent and his part in building and maintaining Project North Dakota cannot be overlooked. As I said last time, there is no user I would support more for adminship. --AlexWCovington (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per Alex. Spamming your rfa isn't the best practise, but if the ND project needs an admin, Matthew would do well. f(Crazytales) = (user + talk) at 15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. SUPPPORT - To be honest, I like the fact that I was informed of this. The normal editor does not know much about this process and when we are informed, it certainly seems to ruffle some feathers. In anycase, while he and I have clashed over the Fargo, ND article a few times, he has been nothing but a possitive influence in the Project North Dakota. He is correct that all he has contacted are people who normally edit the North Dakota pages and I for one am willing to support him. How are WE, the real people this affects, suppossed to know about an RFA if no one is allowed to contact us? Back on track, he is a very good editor with experiance and a solid track record. Two years of solid work, over 8000 edits (some I didn't agree with but we met half way many times too). I don't think I would ever want an adminship as I deal with whinners day in and day out at work. Takes a special kind of person to put up with that and I think Mat has what it takes. Let's deal with the man's wikipedia history and from that we can see he would be a STRONG admin. MER-C, Meegs, Helio, tennisma, Lethaniol are basing their opposing on one single arguement, which personally I think he has passed. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article. Well he has already explained that he has not crosses this line. Now, regardless, I took an hour and researched many of your personal wikipedia history and found strings of mistakes that you have made, yet some of you have adminships yourselves... Does a single mistake (or a string of mistakes...you know who I am talking about) mean that you should lose your adminship? Matt has a cleaner track record than any of you so I would think he would make a stronger admin than any oppossing him. Sorry but my stance is SUPPORT. We need a strong admin for the project and Matt is the only one I think fits the bill. He is fair, just, willing to listen, does not get upset easy, calmly works things out, but is merciless with vandalisim. He has a strong, clean track record with many quality edits. He is someone I would enjoy as and admin, even if we clash sometimes over format ;) --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 15:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support: I am a member of WP:ND, and I wasn't notified (feeling a little left out, actually. sniff, sniff....). However, based on his accomplishments (edit count, block log, article quality, collaborations, etc.) - his work, if I may - I feel he is a good candidate for adminship. Regardless of his knowledge of "the convention and guidelines", he can learn. We were all newbies once. If a serious concern is raised about his knowledge of the finer points of being an admin, what about an experienced admin volunteering to mentor him (something like the Adopt-A-User program does for newbie editors)? Again, being critical of his work performed on Wikipedia, I support him wholeheartedly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NDCompuGeek (talk • contribs)
  9. Fanatical Support: I second what Brian said above; for most of us who only do WP very casually, his attempt to get us (all WPND contribs) involved is educational. Given that so many WP Admins treat that status as a monastic symbol to be hidden from the peasants, I think Matt set a decent (if frowned-upon by some picayune, fussy standard of which few to none of us common peon contributors were aware) precedent. If it's an "ethical" issue, then give him two lashes with a wet noodle, tell him "Go Forth and Sin No More", and induct him so we can get back to work. It's a teaching moment and it'll get WPND an admin. The benefits far out weigh whatever the "offense" was. Mitchberg 18:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support: Canvassing no reason to stop a good editor from adminship. --Djsasso 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Canvassing: [2] [3] [4] [5], not to mention the diffs (aeropagitica) brought up. MER-C 10:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Even if Matthew did not know about the convention and guidelines against canvassing, it is worrisome that he did not realize that targeted notifications make developing and recognizing a meaningful consensus extremely difficult. Determining consensus is central to many admin tasks, so this is relevant. He looks like a very good editor, though, and I could probably support him down the road after he's participated in more project discussions (policy, *FD, etc.). ×Meegs 13:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Canvassing - a quick check of the WT:RFA talk page would have revealed exactly how frowned upon advertising your RfA actually is. It can work both ways, canvassing for supports is frowned upon because it legitimises canvassing for opposes, all objectivity goes out the window either way and RfA becomes a bigger bloodbath than usual. I'd also say the candidate also shows no need for the tools at this time and getting the extra buttons is not a reward for staying on Wikipedia for a length of time or for making a certain number of edits. There is, however, a certain train of thought developing that having an admin or two attached to larger Wikiprojects would be useful to spot and deal with very succinct forms of vandalism and on that basis I do think that MatthewUND2 having admin tools might be helpful in maintaining the North Dakota project. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose-per Heligoland. --teh tennisman 14:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose due to canvassing - must know better, and has not given a strong enough reason for why he wants Admin tools. Lethaniol 14:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose Stronger oppose. Canvassing, and little XfD participation. Plus, you think admins have somehow higher status. They don't. Bureaucrats, maybe, but I don't care if someone happens to be an admin or not. -Amarkov blahedits 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment No, not even bureaucrats. Jimbo, maybe. Or Danny. But not bureaucrats. --210physicq (c) 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to stronger oppose due to this. Wikilawyering to get around things is at least as bad as canvassing. -Amarkov blahedits 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Canvassing. Matthew seems like a very good user, but if he didn't know how frowned upon canvassing is, he isn't as fully aware of policy as admins need to be. -- Kicking222 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, sorry but a 2 year editor with 8000 edits shouldn't have to canvass, and should know better. Deizio talk 18:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose due to canvassing. An editor with as much experience as you should not be canvassing for votes. It lends an air of desperation even when there is none. And contrary to Brian's assertions, clean track records aren't that good for adminship, as adminship is a pretty dirty job. I am not keen to give admin tools to someone who hasn't engaged in a large dispute (per your answer to question #3), because it indicates that you do not have experience with dispute resolution. Also, your answer to question #1 does not give any indication of need for admin tools. Otherwise, you're a good user, but do learn from your mistakes and please engage yourself in Wikipedia processes other than article editing (not to say it's a bad thing). Also, next time, don't canvass for votes. --210physicq (c) 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment By Clean track record, I meant he was not 'dinged' for anything by an admin. No violations of any editorial or behavior rules. (self-removed uncivil comments. Worked out on talk page) --20:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Reply (retracted uncivil comments per Brian's talk page) --210physicq (c) 22:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment (self-removed uncivil comments. Worked out on talk page) --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 20:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Reply (retracted uncivil comments per Brian's talk page) --210physicq (c) 22:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment-Brian, I know I'm not exactly your favourite person at the moment, but the only thing stopping Matthew from passing this RfA is the canvassing issue. If there's nothing like this next time then a future RfA is likely to pass pretty much unoppossed. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Note Hm, if Brian so insists on slinging mud, perhaps he should have done it more discreetly? --210physicq (c) 21:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Retraction per change of sentiments and per agreement on Brian's talk page. --210physicq (c) 22:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Rather oddly, I'm happy that I'm important enough to get onto "people to crusade against" lists. -Amarkov blahedits 21:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. El Opposo Gigante. Yo hato el canvasso de voto - crz crztalk 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong Oppose • Canvassing is simply a symptom of a larger problem - either their is a lack of knowledge of policy, a lack of understanding of policy, or a disregard for policy. None of these are desirable in a sysop. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    (not replying specifically to this opposer) The candidate has undoubtedly gotten the point about the canvassing, and it will probably sink the RfA, but as long as it's open, it would be helpful to future RfAs if Matthew got feedback/criticism on other things. Just a thought.--Kchase T 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    I would appreciate any other constructive feedback editors are willing to give me. I'm not sure how many ways I can be chastised for making an honest mistake or how many ways there are for me to say that I am sorry. --MatthewUND(talk) 23:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Weak oppose partly due to canvassing, but also due to the idea that seems to be shared by both the candidate and his fellow wikiproject members that their project 'needs an admin'. Although I strongly support the idea of admins with content specialization, admins are for Wikipedia, not for individual subgroups. Opabinia regalis 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Oppose Before I read the opposes, I was going to support your RFA. However, the news that you canvassed was enough to turn my vote. Wikipedia administrators are expected to know the policy of Wikipedia inside and out. That a person who wishes to harness the coveted administrative tools, a person who would control the proverbial keys to the kingdom, does not know the policy of Wikipedia on canvassing is enough to warrent an oppose. WP:SPAM is one of the simplest and most common policies of Wikipedia, so much so that all users who wish to be a productive part of this community are expected to have read it. I hope you learn from this experience. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I would like to point out that I have also broken WP:SPAM before (twice, actually, see my archive) which is why I appreciate it so much but also judge harshly in this case. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Sí, sí. El solicitar es malo. Nishkid64 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose due to canvassing, the user talk diffs above and [6]. There is also low XfD participation and most of the project talk edits are to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North Dakota (that's not really a problem in itself, but considering that there are currently less than 50 project talk edits, this means there is little if any participation in other talk pages, such as WT:RFA or WT:AFD). However, there is a lot of participation in the mainspace; keep up that good work, work on the areas you need to, and come back in a few months for a likely successful RFA. –The Great Llamasign here 02:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose No doubt a good fellow, but he needs more XfD / policy experience. Also, I'm not sure about candidates who say they want to especially help out a particular Wikiproject through their hoped for admin powers unless the project is directly related to a Wikipolicy or other admin-related area (like discussing new guidelines or coordinating anti-spam efforts). Bwithh 02:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral for now This nom is a bit complicated as a case. On one hand, the user seems to be a perfect candidate (an established editor w/ a clean block log and tons of edits) and OTH they seem to be unaware of wikipedia ethics. I am therefore voting neutral for now waiting for more clarifications. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, agree with the above. I'm not a big fan of canvassing, but I wouldn't automatically disqualify someone for doing it; I don't think it's wrong per se to be enthusiastic about wanting to help out with administrative tasks.--Caliga10 13:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I'm not sure canvassing should be anathema, but it is distasteful, especially with a self-nom. I think he looks like a good editor, but I have to withhold support for the time being. Coemgenus 14:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - ok maybe not helpful bit I do agree with the three comments above. Good candidate but... --Herby talk thyme 14:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral this is a good candidate, but canvassing is a big faux pas, and someone who has been around here this long should know that.-- danntm T C 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Besides the c**v****g concerns which have been amply covered I'm also not impressed by the very limited scope of your contributions. Saying I need the admin bits for WP:ND is like saying I will only clean the floor around the ficus next to the big window. A bit more generalism (and XfD contributions) would be better. ~ trialsanderrors 23:51, 29 December 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.