Daniel Case (talk | contribs) →Support: per reason cited in opposition |
→Support: support, reasons |
||
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
#'''Support''' Others said it best...and earlier. [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' Others said it best...and earlier. [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' per the diff cited as a reason to oppose. Aggressive reporting of questionable usernames can help us catch accounts vandals are trying to age before they even reach the four-day limit. Problems that admittedly exist with UAA should be solved at UAA, not at an active editor's RFA. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 16:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' per the diff cited as a reason to oppose. Aggressive reporting of questionable usernames can help us catch accounts vandals are trying to age before they even reach the four-day limit. Problems that admittedly exist with UAA should be solved at UAA, not at an active editor's RFA. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 16:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' - as meeting my standards, and being bold and proactive in reporting concerns. Looks OK to me, except he's a bit limited in types of articles edited. 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=====Oppose===== |
=====Oppose===== |
Revision as of 18:02, 9 July 2008
Matthewedwards
(talk page) (37/4/1); Scheduled to end 03:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) - Matthew Edwards is a user who I came across while looking at FLC. The first thing I saw on his userpage was a Wikipedia:Featured topic (Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation) and instantly wanted to learn more. His article work on the Degrassi series is, quite simply, amazing. He's done a nice amount of work at the Help Desk (seems like every candidate I find does that), and his work at FLC has also been great. He also helps with policy discussion, such as at WP:MOS and WP:NFCC, and does what he can at different areas of wikipedia. If you look at his body of work and how much he puts in to this encyclopedia, you'd think he would have 3x the edit count he does. Lastly, he's a very well-spoken user, something which is always very useful for an administrator. I have no doubts he would make a good one. Wizardman 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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: Should I become an admin the biggest advantage to me would be that I would be able to edit the syntax of protected templates which fall under WP:DOC, CAT:SHORTFIX and User:Matthewedwards/Nowrap problems / WP:NOWRAP, instead of having to leave a note on the templates' talk pages. I kind of enjoy doing this sort of "secret background" stuff that most people don't notice, and the tool to edit permanently protected templates would be a big help. Leaving requests on talk pages is time consuming, and also pulls other admins away from stuff they could be doing. I've recently begun participating in WP:RAA and WP:UAA, so I would continue to do that, too. Something else I'd be happy to participate in would be CAT:CSD—esp WP:CSD#U1 as I'm a bit of an abuser of that, and always feel a little guilty when I'm distracting an admin away from something that is probably more important! I also keep my eyes on places such as CAT:COMMONS and CAT:NCT, so after getting comfortable with the tools I'd probably involve myself there.
Perhaps I should also say what I won't be doing as an admin. I'll freely admit that besides recently nominating some Degrassi stuff and a few other articles which I created a few months ago, I haven't participated in any Deletion discussions. I know this alone may garner a few opposes, and that is fine, but I'll also be open enough to say that because I don't participate, I won't be going around closing any XfD discussions either. That said, I do consider myself fairly intelligent and if there was an AfD with nothing but keep or delete !votes, I'm confident I wouldn't mess anything up if I did close it. Anyway, there is a great team of people who do that kind of work extremely well, and I don't need to go poking my nose in where I'm admittedly not comfortable.
Another thing I don't really do is much vandal fighting except for when something blatant pops up on my watchlist. To be honest, I find the tools too annoying to bother with. Because of this, I don't see myself blocking many users. Again, there are many admins who do this so well that it probably won't be something I do often. I do watch pages such as WP:ANB, WP:AIV, WP:ANI and WP:RFP, so I know the "rules" and acceptable lengths of a block. I assume I would have to do it at some point, so until that time comes around I'll just keep watching other admins.
So that's it. If I get the tools, the advantage for me would be to edit protected templates and stop bugging other admins. Anything else I do would be an additional bonus to the project.
- A: Should I become an admin the biggest advantage to me would be that I would be able to edit the syntax of protected templates which fall under WP:DOC, CAT:SHORTFIX and User:Matthewedwards/Nowrap problems / WP:NOWRAP, instead of having to leave a note on the templates' talk pages. I kind of enjoy doing this sort of "secret background" stuff that most people don't notice, and the tool to edit permanently protected templates would be a big help. Leaving requests on talk pages is time consuming, and also pulls other admins away from stuff they could be doing. I've recently begun participating in WP:RAA and WP:UAA, so I would continue to do that, too. Something else I'd be happy to participate in would be CAT:CSD—esp WP:CSD#U1 as I'm a bit of an abuser of that, and always feel a little guilty when I'm distracting an admin away from something that is probably more important! I also keep my eyes on places such as CAT:COMMONS and CAT:NCT, so after getting comfortable with the tools I'd probably involve myself there.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I think everyone likes it when they get an article or list to Featured status, and on a personal level I'm really pleased to have gotten eight Degrassi: The Next Generation related pages to FA or FL. I also have another two unrelated lists at WP:FL, and one currently nominated at WP:FLC. Besides that, I would hope that all my article edits have improved Wikipedia in some way. I participate at WP:FLC and try to review every nomination. I usually look for MOS-type things, and general spelling, grammar and punctuation. And I have recently become a director at WP:FLRC, which basically means that I close nominations after two weeks although I usually leave them open a bit longer than that.
- 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: I have had a few run-ins with Robinepowell. [1] was the first (WP:DATE#Full date formatting is the section referred to as it was at the time). This brought on a bit of upset with IrishLass0128 here. I think I was pretty calm about it all. Since then, I've dealt with Robin again, [2] but in the end she was blocked for her edits. More recently I requested a WP:3O over "double-episodes" of Degrassi at the talk page.
- Optional questions from User:Filll
- 4. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?
- A. Yeah, I support its sentiment. It's basically the same as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, which we're all supposed to follow anyway. RfA is another area I haven't participated in much, and I'm only vaguely aware of some of the things that people find "stressful"(?). I don't know if simply adding a sig will change anything. Just because someone promises to do something, doesn't mean they will. Perhaps the Wikipedia:RfA Review will help.
- 5. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.
- Optional question from User:NuclearWarfare
- 6. Define notability in your own words
- A.If something has been discussed in a reliable secondary source, it is likely that it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. If something has been written about in published books, magazines or newspapers, it can probably have an article on WP. That said, I was going to create an article about Stefan Eriksson's car crash but as interesting as it is, and as widely covered as it was, I decided against it because of WP:NOT#NEWS.
I think the AfDs I made of articles I contributed and even created, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and the articles I've had Featured show that I have an understanding of notability far better than I could express it here in words. :(
I will attempt to ellaborate on this if you want me to, though.
- A.If something has been discussed in a reliable secondary source, it is likely that it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. If something has been written about in published books, magazines or newspapers, it can probably have an article on WP. That said, I was going to create an article about Stefan Eriksson's car crash but as interesting as it is, and as widely covered as it was, I decided against it because of WP:NOT#NEWS.
- Anti-fence-sitting question from Kmweber
- 7. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?
- A.
General comments
- See Matthewedwards's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Matthewedwards: Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Matthewedwards before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support as nom. Wizardman 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support He has been helpful, especially when I was first starting out on Wikipedia :) Gary King (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom, and per his excellent, always constructive work in the FLC area. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Biggest possible support I am actually unhappy that I didn't get to nominate Matthew. His work is a huge net positive for the project. That is what matters here. If we give Matthew administrative tools, it will do nothing but make Wikipedia better. I have the up-most confidence and respect for Matthew, not only when it comes to administrative work, but more importantly to expanding the encyclopedia. Matthew gets it, we are here to make an excellent encyclopedia, and he has contributed his own time and effort to not only creating excellent work himself, but also reviewing and correcting others' pages. He is well-spoken, mature, honest, hard-working, and knowledgeable. This is not even a question of whether or not I trust he will not abuse the tools, because that is an easy answer. I trust Matthew will be a great admin and the project will greatly benefit from his work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Candidate looks well rounded. Has an excellent amount of experience in multiple areas and edit summary looks good too. I think this user would make an excellent admin and would do nothing but help the project with the addition of the tools. I don't see anything alarming in the contributions either. Orfen T • C 05:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. This user appears responsible, personable, and doesn't display any tendencies that would seem to indicate he would misuse the tools. He would also be a "writing admin" which I think our project needs. S. Dean Jameson 05:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely. I even awarded him a barnstar back in May. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why the hell not. SQLQuery me! 05:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - knows his strengths, his limitations, and the right use of admin tools. — Athaenara ✉ 05:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I know this user from FLC and he's done some excellent work there. If the only thing he's done wrong is UAA then I'm definitely supporting. Good luck, Matt. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 05:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support, can trust him to use the tools effectively. BencherliteTalk 06:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - dammit, if I had known about this earlier, I would have offered to co-nom :p. In any case, Matthew is definitely a very knowledgeable and dedicated editor, with superb content contributions and excellent work at WP:FLC. I trust he will use the tools well. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I've "met" Matthew at FLC and am impressed by him.-gadfium 06:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lower on the edit count than I'd prefer, but he does do good Fx work and shows an interest in helping users, things I think are good. MBisanz talk 08:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- user has done a lot of great work. I agree that a few of the UN reports were questionable but consider it no big deal (they were pretty borderline, after all). — xDanielx T/C\R 12:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. The missteps at UAA give me a little bit of pause, and he did just get through with picking my FL candidate into tiny little pieces (I kid on the second item there, just in case the humor doesn't translate well), but it's certainly not enough of an issue to cause me to withhold support. Shereth 13:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- demonstrably keeps a cool head during disagreements, and seems to have enough common sense not to use the tools in areas where he doesn't have experience. Scog (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support No reason to oppose. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support Wisdom89 makes a good point with that link, but not enough to oppose for me. America69 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Well-rounded, trustworthy editor. LittleMountain5 15:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly. Nousernamesleft (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support - a glowing candidate! Article building is fantastic, as is Wikipedia-space participation. As Wizardman says, an extremely well-spoken user, which is an asset to any admin. Thoughtful answers to the questions too. Lradrama 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Both his prose skills and his work on style guidelines pages are very much appreciated. Answers to questions are good, and the slight muffing at WP:UAA is not too much of a concern, given that he's committed to do the things he has experience with and be careful with the things he doesn't. It's quite difficult to operate on pages that largely concern conflict (such as style guidelines talk pages) and always come off as pleasant and open-minded; impressive. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support—Since he ended up being right on most of the UAA reports (most were later blocked) I don't see that as a concern. Most refreshingly, the candidate states that he wont work in areas he has no experience in. I believe he will limit his use of the tools to the areas he feels comfortable with. Livitup (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Constructive manner at FLC would seem to suggest a user who is appreciative, civil, well-focused and optimistic. Other work like at the help desk is excellent. Rudget (logs) 17:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support as candidate appears dedicated to improving the project. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Matthew or as I know him as, "Featured List Guy", has been really helpful to me where ever I have come across him. His work at Featured Lists is good, as I see him either reviewing or nomminating FLC's, I can see him becoming a great a admin. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support I think those UAA reports were good calls.--Koji†Dude (C) 20:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Per KojiDude (omg!) - also, he's clearly here for the right reasons looking at answer #2. Al Tally talk 21:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Any positive use of the tools is a net gain; I don't have any problems with the candidate's answers to the questions. Best of luck to you. GlassCobra 21:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - The guys a wiki genious. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very impressed with user's contribs. No indication they will misuse the tools. Thingg⊕⊗ 23:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I believe that Matthewedwards would make an excellent admin. Wisdom's diff's are somewhat concerning, but I believe that he will learn from his mistakes, now that they've been pointed out, and not act inappropriately. Fraud talk to me 23:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Meets my criteria, has made a few UAA mistakes (who hasn't?), seems capable and willing to learn. No hesitation on my part. Excellent contribs, good article work, good civil talkpage communication. All ideal for an admin candidate. Go easy on username blocks when just starting out - I trust you to use the tools properly with minimal drama. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Speaking from personal experience, when one is blocked, they are allowed the option to challenge the block and another admin can review it. When I made my blocks, they usually were upheld, but with a second pair of eyes you garner better judgment. There is a reason for an unblock button. Pass go, collect adminship. Yanksox (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interacted with him multiple times, have nothing but good things to say. Mastrchf (t/c) 02:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Dedicated, trustworthy editor. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 07:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Channel ® 10:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- SupportCheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Others said it best...and earlier. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support per the diff cited as a reason to oppose. Aggressive reporting of questionable usernames can help us catch accounts vandals are trying to age before they even reach the four-day limit. Problems that admittedly exist with UAA should be solved at UAA, not at an active editor's RFA. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - as meeting my standards, and being bold and proactive in reporting concerns. Looks OK to me, except he's a bit limited in types of articles edited. 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
- Weak oppose - Per [3]. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with any of those UAA (other perhaps than wikipedus, 'cause I really don't see how that would give the impression that he's working for wikipedia)??? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe he doesn't like the fact that 10 were added at once? I dunno. Most of those at first glance seem blockable, so it's possible. Wizardman 04:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- So... Matthew has to spread his edits out a bit more? :) Gary King (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Most of those were not blockable IMUAAO. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, this does not require UAA reporting and the use of the term "potential" speaks volumes, this user didn't even edit. It's reports like these that really irk me. No offense to the candidate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Bringing to attention does not mean "Ban this guy right away". It means "Hey, there might be a problem with this one, let's talk about it in greater details". The fact that a username is inactive is not a reason to not block it. If someone makes an account with the name User:GENERALMOTORS, chances are that a) user won't be active, b) account was made solely to advertise c) user is up to no good. In the case that neither of them applies, then user can register a better username. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, that's precisely what UAA is for: Immediate blocking. We have talking templates and WP:RFC/N for potentially problematic usernames. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I went by the name of the page, not by content. My bad. Still, with the possible exception of Wikipedus, I really don't see the problem blocking any of those. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with blocking some of those is that some aren't blatantly bad and could be good faith user names. Blocking does not just mean blocking the account, it means blocking the person, and one block can turn off one good editor, which is of course bad. That said, I think history has shown that users are a lot more liberal with reporting, and a lot more conservative when they get the tools and are actually technically able to block an account. The question here is, do we trust the candidate and feel that any negatives they may have will be outweighed by positives they bring to the table? This goes with the whole "net positive" argument, that no one is perfect, so long as there mistakes are small and corrected, and that they are a "net positive" to the community. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- You would have no problem blocking someone for being named "Bill Romanawsky"? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I want to make this clear, you are addressing Headbomb, correct Rspeer? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, how else would someone learn what is appropriate or not other than posting to things like UAA? Even if some of them got smacked down, I'm betting that was a learning experience. Reading the policy is all well and good, but how do you learn to apply it practically without trying? I get the impression he won't use admin tools on areas he's unfamiliar with, choosing instead to particapte as a non-admin in those areas first, if they interest him. Livitup (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I want to make this clear, you are addressing Headbomb, correct Rspeer? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Bringing to attention does not mean "Ban this guy right away". It means "Hey, there might be a problem with this one, let's talk about it in greater details". The fact that a username is inactive is not a reason to not block it. If someone makes an account with the name User:GENERALMOTORS, chances are that a) user won't be active, b) account was made solely to advertise c) user is up to no good. In the case that neither of them applies, then user can register a better username. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- So... Matthew has to spread his edits out a bit more? :) Gary King (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe he doesn't like the fact that 10 were added at once? I dunno. Most of those at first glance seem blockable, so it's possible. Wizardman 04:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with any of those UAA (other perhaps than wikipedus, 'cause I really don't see how that would give the impression that he's working for wikipedia)??? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. From the UAA diff that Wisdom has already cited, I fear that Matthewedwards would be too loose with the block button. I talked to him about those reports, and although he was nice enough in his response, I'm not impressed by his explanation that he wanted to block User:Joshuajjackson for fear that he would impersonate Joshua C. Jackson (who? Also note the different middle initial.) and User:Bill Romanawsky for impersonating Bill Romanowski (again, who?)
It's not like the minor differences in the names are the deal-breaker, either -- if I met a Wikipedian saying his name was Joshua C. Jackson, I wouldn't be reaching for the block button. An admin has to be willing to consider multiple explanations. Is this person impersonating a minor TV actor? Or is he just editing Wikipedia under his own name? I'd think it would take an unfortunate level of distrust of newbies to even consider the first in the absence of any evidence, but that's what Matthewedwards did. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC) - Weakish Oppose per diff by Wisdom. Having recently had an issue taken with my username, despite having an explanation of it on my userpage, I am now wary of folks who dont... (how do I put this without coming off like a douche, because I dont want to seem like I am) assume better faith. Its now a knee jerk reaction. Sorry, dude. Qb | your 2 cents 13:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Wont take the risk of a trigger happy admins per wisdom's diff. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for refusing to get off the fence and answer a simple question. It's not a trick question at all. We don't need people who are afraid to take a stand publicly because they know they won't be able to please everyone. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral likely to support, but considering Wisdom89's diffs. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 17:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)