Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PastorMatt

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.

Closed per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] PastorMatt

(talk page) (4/9/1); Ended 16:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

PastorMatt (talk · contribs) - I have been editing articles on Wikipedia for well over a year. I began working in this project by editing an article for WGSR-TV, the television station I manage in Reidsville, North Carolina. As I began reading other articles within my sphere of knowledge, I found places to contribute information I have acquired through a lifetime of curious inquiry. Most of the articles I have written or expanded upon have been related to the broadcast stations I have either worked with or had access to information about. In recent months, I have expanded the scope of my editing to articles on North Carolina highways, municipalities and communities with which I am familiar. I feel that I am ready to take on bigger challenges, and to interact with a wider group of people who will be able to expand the mission of Wikipedia to record the best record of human knowledge. PastorMatt (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to take an active part in WikiProject Radio Stations, WikiProject Television Stations, WikiProject North Carolina and any similar projects that may be created in the future. I will also be available to offer general assistance, as my skills and abilities allow, to editors who request assistance with writing their articles and clarifying the thoughts they put into online text. I have many years of experience in writing for the ear and for the eye, and hope to have a part in coaching the next generation of online writers.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My "pride and joy" contribution is the article on Odell School, North Carolina. This article was originally written by another editor with leanings in support of the community's recent annexation bid. My challenge with the article was to put forth factual, neutral information about the community without turning the article into a recounting of the "oral traditions" passed down in my family. I was fortunate to find written material to support those traditions, and was able to not only give the article substantive references but also to assemble sub-articles to give more specific material on various institutions within that community. It is a work that is far from finished, but substantially more useful than when I discovered it. The article on WGSR-LP is also one of my best contributions. It was my first article, and the tips given me by more experienced Wikipedians helped me to refine my writing skills and to face critical review of my written work. It taught me the value of attribution, and the necessity of asking administrators for help when others tried to add bias to the article.
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: The aforementioned WGSR-LP article was edited by someone with a grudge against the station, and then by someone who harbors a grudge against the person with the grudge against the station. In both cases, clearly biased opinions were placed into the article. My initial reaction was to revert their contributions and to "call them out" in the talk page for the article. I realized later that this was not the way to do this in Wikipedia. I sought administrative assistance to "block" further edits while the combatants moved their attacks away from Wikipedia, and also requested a "third-eye" to monitor the situation and give advice for dealing with such situations in the future. I realized that I initially dealt with the situation badly, but learned from my mistakes to ensure that such things are effectively dealt with in the future.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Moral Support. There's a lot of work you are going to need to do before you submit a new RfA. I suggest you begin familiarizing yourself with administrative tasks and participate in other people's RfA's to get an idea about how this entire process works. I looked at some of your writing, and it's pretty good...but just as the housekeeping side of the project can't survive without the writers, vice versa is true as well. More than anything else, I suggest you find an admin coach to help teach you what you need to know to make your next RfA successful. Trusilver (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Moral Support - I can see your intentions are good, but I feel that you aren't ready for it yet. I'm also not convinced you fully understand what adminship is, but I offer my best wishes to the next RfA, as I can't see this one pass :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 08:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Moral support - candidates who are selected to become admins typically have experience editing thousands of pages. I look forward to your return. The Transhumanist 13:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - per the oppose by SorryGuy. Your edits are fantastic, and I encourage you to list yourself at admin coaching requests, try to get more involved in wikipedia areas, and as a definite try and answer questions at the Help Desk, because it is there that I believe I gained the necessary understanding, improving both my understanding of policy and user interaction. Happy editing, Rudget. 14:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Regretful Oppose - I am sorry, but I do not think you are ready yet. You only have about 100-200 edits, and noticably no experience of policy. It also seems that you do not even intend to use the administrator tools. Good luck in the future. :) Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - malformed RFA (you added a comment about yourself in the neutral section), 183 edits is not sufficient experience. --B (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    His comment about himself in the neutral section shows modesty. He doesn't want to support himself but wants to make comments. I agree that there's a better spot for it. Try the comments section above. The user may want to ask administrator Pastordavid for guidance.Congolese fufu (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comments moved to the appropriate place. Avruchtalk 04:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per both of the above.   jj137 ♠ 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Firstly, I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and for your proactive actions in seeking to help the community further with administrative tools. However, at this time, I do not feel as though you are ready for them. Firstly, as said above, you have not listed your request in the customary manner. You may want to read the guide to making requests at the guide for making requests. Also, as said above, you may want to review what the tools actually are, as the intentions as you state can all be done without the tools. Review other requests on this page to see why the tools are generally requested. If you still want them and are committed, you may want to find an admin coach at admin coaching. Regardless, good luck and happy editing, SorryGuy  Talk  03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Malformed RFA, very low editing experience... Jmlk17 03:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Per all above. Tiptoety talk 04:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Your enthusiasm and willingness to serve as an administrator is commendable but 183 edits really isn't enough experience. Harland1 (t/c) 09:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, your intentions are doubtlessly good, and I commend you for putting your hand up, but you don't have enough history here for us to judge whether you'd make a good admin. Try your hand at WP:AFD, recent changes patrol, or new pages patrol, and see how you like that, and if you do, come back in a few months. Lankiveil (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
  9. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral. Get some more experience editing, and try again in 5 months or so. Try a bit of WP:AFD, for a little admin-like task. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, but wish I could support. You simply need more experience. Perhaps work on establishing a schedule where you make 10-20 edits per day, nearly every day if possible, for maybe four months. This type of schedule would put you up around 1,000 edits, which is often considered a "bare minimum" of edits. If you did this, and included some Wikipedia-space editing, for say 6-7 months, and got closer to 2,000 edits, I think you would be a shoo-in. As it is, I say keep up the good work you've been doing. I look forward to supporting a future RfA for you. Bellwether BC 15:29, 7 January 2008 (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.