The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

IMatthew[edit]

Final (75/32/4); Ended 10:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Rfa Withdrawn By Candidate

IMatthew (talk · contribs) - I would like to draw you guys' attentions to IMatthew. IMatthew is a very dedicated user, helping primarily with the realm of professional wrestling, whose WikiProject he is quite active in. As far as article writing goes, he has an FA, an FL, 9 GAs, and 3 DYKs, so he is definitely experienced in that regard. I think the best thing about IMatthew is that he is always eager to learn and to ask questions, which has helped him to develop as a Wikipedian. With that said, I submit him to the community's consideration, and hope that they will review him in an impartial light. bibliomaniac15 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept the nomination. iMatthew (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC) I'd like to withdraw. iMatthew (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My main area of interest is in professional wrestling related articles. I have had one article promoted to FA status, one to FL status, ten to GA status, and three that appeared on the main page in the DYK? column, all of which are professional wrestling related articles. Along with my work with the professional wrestling project, I plan on working in other areas of Wikipedia such as WP:RFPP. I have experience with RFPP, requesting pages there that I believe need protection to prevent IP and new user vandalism. As an admin, I will start to work at RFPP, protecting articles that need to be protected from IP’s and/or new users because of an edit war, conflict of opinions, or plain vandalism. I try to check WP:AN and WP:ANI every day, and whenever I feel it’s needed, I post my opinion on a certain topic. If a topic has a clear consensus, I will not participate in the discussion to avoid WP:PILEON. The final area of Wikipedia I will work in is WP:XFD discussions, mainly AfD and MfD. I will close AfD discussions and occasionally MfD’s, if and only if there is a clear consensus on whether to keep, delete, redirect, or merge the article. Lastly, I will also look for pages marked with the “admin backlog” template to assist there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are definitely my article writing as a part of the professional wrestling project. As I said above, I’ve raised many articles to good and/or feature quality articles. I wrote the entire The Great American Bash (2005) article, which is a Featured article. I’ve written and/or expanded another handful of articles as a part of the professional wrestling project’s pay-per-view expansion sub-project. I’ve also had about four of them raised to GA status. Some of my other good contributions are at WT:PW, the talk page for the pro-wrestling project where you can always find me helping other users, offering assistance when needed, participating in discussions, and helping reach consensuses when necessary.
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 try my best to avoid ever getting into conflicts over editing. I can’t remember any conflict over editing that has caused me stress. Whenever a user/IP starts edit-warring, I try to settle the issue with the user either on their talk page, or the article’s talk page. If the user refuses to cooperate, I ask another editor’s input on the situation. Only one issue that comes to mind involves banned user User:ChristianMan16 (formerly Hornetman16).. It has happened before that a sockpuppet of his has turned up, in which case I’ve contacted administrators that are familiar with him, which would result in the sock being blocked.

Additional Question from User:RyanGerbil10

4. I was looking over your previous votes in adminship discussions in an attempt to ascertain your views on adminship. Consider the following hypothetical RfA candidacies, including how you would vote and why:
First, suppose candidate User:X is nominated for adminship. User:X has a wonderful record of consensus-building, article edits, vandal-fighting, and so on, and is generally an exemplary candidate. However, User:X has stated in his answers to the standard questions that being an admin does not really interest him, and that he would use the tools only "rarely." User:X goes on to state that he is only running becuase User:Prominent, User:Respected, and User:ImportantPersonnage insisted that he do so becuase of his excellent non-admin work.
Second, consider User:Multilingual, who is an admin on two other Wikipedias, say, Turkish and German, both of which have different policies and are of reasonably large size. User:Multilingual has a near-native command of English and is widely respected on both tr.wp and de.wp. User:Multilingual has a substantial number of edits, but far less than normal candidates here at en.wp, say, 1900 well-balanced edits. How would you vote if this was a self-nomination? How would you vote if User:Multilingual was nominated by en.wp admin User:RespectedPersonnage?
A: First off, for the first user running, I would probably support. The user would obviously not mis-use the tools, and although he says that he would use the tools "rarely," he would still use them, "correctly." If the user really had no interest in being an admin, I would suggest that he'd not submit the RfA in the first place, but otherwise, he'd be a great admin whenever he used the tools. Not all admins are active 24/7. For the second user, if he came onto the English Wikipedia and has already demonstrated an outstanding knowledge of our policies and guidelines which can be proved, then I would support. But, if he had only 1900 edits, I might oppose based on a lack of experience on the en.wp. These two factors basically even the other out, so I might vote neutral.


Optional questions from  Asenine 

5. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: This is a tough question, as a consensus can be made to be more powerful, or to change a policy. Verifiability is important as well though. I think it would depend on the exact case, and most likely a consensus would be slightly more important. Honestly, I feel they balance each other out, but consensus would win in a race, if you know what I'm trying to say.
To tell you the honest truth, this was my original answer: Verifiability is more important to me. If the newbie has a reliable source and can verify his information, I’d say that should go in place of consensus. However, the consensus should not be ignored, I would find a way to work with the users that established the consensus to work out a way that the consensus can be verified. and then, this comment made by User:Coffee made me re-think the answer. Which I should not have done. I hope you all can forgive me for my bad answer but as I've said, all I want to do is assist the community with the extra tools, and I'd like you all to understand that I messed up with this answer, and not hold it against me in the future. Thanks. iMatthew (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that some time has passed since you answered this question, perhaps you might want to try again to express yourself in different words? Your rhetorical tactic is evasive in this context. As I see it, Asenine crisply summarized the focus: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" If you don't construe this question as deserving a more thoughtful and revealing response, my question becomes "Why not?" --Tenmei (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is more important than consensus. Lets say that an IP address posts a comment on Tom Cruise's talk page that read, "I went to school with Tom, and I know for a fact that he has a scar on his left leg from falling off his bike in fourth grade." Over the following day, many additional IP's comment the talk page and concur that it should be included because they believe the first IP is telling the truth. A consensus is then formed between the IP's that it should be included in the article because the IP claims that he is telling the truth. Then, an established editor comes along and removed the information from the page, and comments on the talk page, saying "The information presented is not notable and can not be verified by reliable third party sources." The registered user would be correct, and the information cannot be added. Verifiability is more important than consensus. iMatthew (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A: Sure, back in June. User:The SRS has been editing in userspace more than he was told he should be. When confronted about it, he lied and said his account was hacked. On the discussion in the link, myself and User:The Hybrid tried to help him, as it was proven he lied. (Mine and Hybrid’s replies here). Since then, SRS has become a productive editor, and has learned to edit constructively in the mainspace. SRS has also learned to come to me for advice now. I recently offered to re-design his userpage, so that he wouldn’t have to worry about it’s appearance (as he constantly tried to make it look better). The result is his current user page.
7. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: My current activities will continue, as I will help perform administrative tasks for the professional wrestling project. The project only has about two active admins, so I will be available to help out there, like always. I will not drop anything that I currently do, but instead be equally as active in other areas of Wikipedia.
Additional questions from Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :)
8. You've made an administrative action and another administrator has rolled it back without notice. How do you respond?
A: Well, if my action should have been rolled back, then I wouldn't have any right to get mad, but if it was say a controversial block, or something like that, then I would try to discuss it with them before further action took place.
9. Say you see an administrator block a user for a completely unfair reason. Would you take action? If so, how would you react?
A:Well again, I'd discuss it with the admin; unless it was a block for disagreeing with the admin (or something similar) - then I would probably unblock. iMatthew (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from PXK T /C

10. If a friend of yours began to vandalise articles on wikipedia, what action would you take? PXK T /C 03:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would discuss it with them and try to be reasonable. If they for some reason didn't listen and continued to vandalize, I would of course block them for the appropriate time period.
Optional question from Everyme
11. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Guidelines. I am interested in your views on those guidelines, especially in light of your answer to Q5.
A: Please see Q5 - It was a mistake, and I'd like everyone to see that.
I'd still appreciate it if you took the time and examined Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Guidelines and detailed which aspect(s) of them (if any) are not conforming to our policies and their spirit. Everyme 14:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that the guidelines listed there successfully adhere to all Wikipedia policies. Nothing looks bad there. Am I answering the wrong question? I'm slightly puzzled. iMatthew (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11.a Simplified variant: Do you think a WikiProject should be allowed to set up arbitrary standards for the inclusion of verifiable material, like WikiProject Firearms are doing with their "guideline" on "Criminal use"?
A: Only if those standards meet Wikipedia's guidelines.
Well, in your own words, are they meeting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or not, and inhowfar or inhowfar not? Everyme 19:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my own words, those policies do seem to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. The project's guideline says that it has to be a notable event to be included in the article, and per Wikipedia's notability guideline, the example events are notable. iMatthew (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Sandstein
12. You want to close an AfD of an article of a part-time wrestler who has something of a following on (at least) the Internet, but whose article does not cite any reliable sources. 5 opinions say that because no-one has been able to find substantial coverage by reliable third party sources, the article fails WP:BIO and should be deleted. 3 other "delete" opinions say that, in addition, he has not competed in a competition of equivalent standing to a fully professional league and fails WP:ATHLETE. 4 opinions oppose deletion because they believe that his some 2,000 Google hits to forums, blogs and enthusiast-run websites, as well as coverage about him on the website of his wrestling association, indicate sufficient notability. 3 "keep" opinions say that (according to the wrestling association's website) the wrestler did twice participate in a contest transmitted on Pay-TV, which makes him also notable. Some 5 other "keep" opinions are by single purpose accounts or IPs; they make WP:ATA arguments to the tone of "Save! because hes a great fighter and wiki has information on everything!" How do you close the AfD, and why?
A: It seems like "delete" votes have a better reasoning that those who wish to keep. We should not keep articles because fan like him. If he fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE and has no reliable third party sources, I'd probably delete the article. Forums, blogs, and other websites like those can talk about anybody they choose to, but they are not reliable sources whatsoever.
13. Could you please tell us whether you have reached the age of majority in the country in which you live?
A: From what I've seen, all that this question brings in pointless drama and long discussion at WT:RFA. I'm choosing not to answer this question, sorry.
Optional question from User:SandyGeorgia
14. Per this RfA Support, can you clarify why you don't think translating an article from an unreliable source with an online translator, without consulting or being able to read the original sources, is not an "alarming" breach of our core WP:V policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: In that case, I know how EOTW feels. He made a mistake in that situation, and he must be feeling just what I am feeling, which is regret for what I/he did/said. I believe that he has learned from his mistakes, as have I and I don't see that as alarming anymore.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Done. iMatthew (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that I've re-answered question 5. Please guys, It was a mistake. iMatthew (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously ... opposing for this is just dumb. It's a bad question to begin with (the change described is not "trivial"). And if there is "consensus" for the version not supported by the newbie, it at least is helpful to ask the question of "why" rather than just automatically pigeonhole the problem into a prefab solution. If the fence has been put there, ask yourself why it is there before tearing it down. Maybe the newbie is right and this is just new information that was not available before. Maybe the newbie is wrong and the "source" is a widely discredited attack piece from a biased "news" source. But coming up with an automatic rule to a philosophical question (as this question asked) is not possible. Rather, it's best to keep an open mind and consider each side on the merits before rendering a decision. Yes, verifiability is one of our key principles but sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming verifiability without first asking why the article says what it says is a bad idea. IMatthew, you have nothing to be ashamed of - in either answer. --B (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, if only other people would see it like that. iMatthew (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm a bit confused by the attention given to the question inviting IMatthew to rank verifiability and consensus. Neither of these would be an adequate answer. Verifiability is not a property that a piece of information either obviously has or obviously does not have. We often disagree about what counts as verifiable and what does not (we see this problem in the ongoing arguments over what counts as a reliable source). This means that we determine what is verifiable by finding consensus. I guess if you wanted to be really finicky you could say that consensus, as embodied in our discussion-based model for making decisions, is logically prior to verifiability -- we can't begin deciding what's verifiable and what's not without first establishing a method of making decisions. But verifiability and consensus are so closely intertwined in all actual situations, and so fundamental to Wikipedia, that it would be an altogether different project without either of them. Consequently it makes no sense at all to insist on abstractly ranking them by importance. This question is so misconceived that I doubt we can learn anything about IMatthew from his being unsure about how to answer it. I echo B's remarks, and encourage voters to ignore the question and IMatthew's answers. — Dan | talk 00:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question was specific enough that verifiability trumps consensus was reasonably clear as an answer. That said, I agree that there is no sense in going overboard on the response. Better to examine his record than focus on a single answer! --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 01:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to add to my Oppose, but it appears the candidate has took some of the Opposes from his Wiki-Friends personally:

D.M.N. (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of doing this quietly was to avoid drama, but here goes.

iMatthew (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  1. Support My interactions with iMatthew have been positive and good. Clearly a trustworthy editor, with a couple pieces of featured content as a bonus. I have full confidence iMatthew will make a terrific admin. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I know him to be civil and trustworthy. Does good mainspace work. Seems knowledgeable in the areas in which he desires to work. I believe he'll do fine as an administrator. Useight (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom and experience. bibliomaniac15 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - I don't think I've ever talked to him, but he seems to know what he is doing.   jj137 (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Yes, please. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. iSupport - iI iSupport iMatthew iFor iAdmin. iXclamation point 03:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I don't see anything alarming or contentious. User has experience in the areas they wish to employ the mop. Nice article work. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Abstaining. Something alarming has come up. The answers to many of the questions are simply unacceptable. Not comfortable supporting any longer. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom. Synergy 05:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom and Q1. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per just about all the above. D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Moving to Oppose (see below). D.M.N. (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — We need more content-writing admins. This support pends no serious opposes in future. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Gadji beri bimba clandridi / Lauli lonni cadori gadjam / A bim beri... – oh, this is iMatthew, not I Zimbra? Sorry, wrong queue. But while I am here, Support, of course, for a worthy candidate (even if he's not part of Talking Heads). Ecoleetage (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Great editor. You don't need luck, you have perfect timing. —Sunday • (Testify!) 11:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Caulde 11:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - no problems. Btw I love your userpage —— RyanLupin • (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - for your hard work on bringing multiple articles to GA and FA status. Aesthetically pleasing user page too :) --Flewis(talk) 12:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, definitely. Wizardman 12:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Why not, i've seen this editor around, and think he would do a great job with the mop!! Good luck!! America69 (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - The epitome of "nothing wrong here".  Asenine  13:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to do this, but I am switching to oppose because of what I have seen on your AC page. Again, sorry! :(  Asenine  22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support—Looks good. Maxim(talk) 13:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Sure. :) GlassCobra 14:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - my interactions with iMatthew have been positive, he just needs to edit more out of professional wrestling, but he tries his best. I've known him since he got here to learn Wiki's ways as User:Hardyboyz27, since then he has evolved into a great editor.--SRX 14:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes – a good, reasonable user that will be a net positive. No reason to consider not supporting here; I've looked through his conversations with others and he appears to maintain good civility. An experienced user, and most of all, I trust that he'd make decent decisions. :-) Cheers, Jamie☆S93 14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Sound candidate, good clue level, good humor, communicative. iMatthew? i like it. Keeper ǀ 76 15:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC) moving to neutral, many concerns raised after my initial support that I hadn't noticed. Not enough to oppose though.[reply]
  20. Support - Very detailed questions, don't see any problems here. Let him have the tools. SchfiftyThree 15:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support this is the user that inspired me to stop being so WP:FORUM PXK T /C 15:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. east718 // talk // email // 16:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. The answer to my question shows the user has a good understanding of the nature of adminship. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 16:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I've had good interactions with iMatthew, and he isn't afraid to ask questions when unsure of something, which is good. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per excellent article work, good experience and positive attitude. -- how do you turn this on 18:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - good contributions, will use the tools well. sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Adminship is not a big deal. I've had nothing but positive interactions with this user. I'm sure he will be a net positive to the community. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support trustfully user abf /talk to me/ 18:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Would use the tools wisely --Dreamspy (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Looks good, no reason to suspect they will abuse the mop, uses talk pages and edit summaries, and good interaction a month or so back. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Definally a trustful user. Will use the tools wisely. RockManQ (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I trust the nominator, and I've seen IMatthew around. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support despite your hideous signature. RMHED (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Thought you were an admin already... —La Pianista (T•C•S•R) 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Me too. LittleMountain5 review! 21:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support – He may not be Good Olfactory, but as far as I'm concerned, this candidate smells like he'd make a fine admin. (See here and here for the original joke. ) —Animum (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. iSup-- oh, it's been done.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Of course. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 22:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak support. I'd like to see more evidence of speedy tagging but I think the positives outweigh the negatives. Stifle (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I'm satisfied the candidate is aware that unverifiable content cannot be added to articles even where consensus exists, and similarly, that verifiable content cannot be added to some articles where no consensus exists for its inclusion. Nick (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support My interactions with iMatthew have been positive and good. We are good friends and I support Matt all the way, plus he is my co-adopter. I'm sure he will be a net positive to the community. Save Us.Y2J 10:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support rootology (C)(T) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Experienced + long history of dedication + answer to Q5. Húsönd 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Good editor. --Carioca (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. iSupport – I've known iMatthew for a while now, and have had nothing but good interactions with him. Very civil, helpful, acts like an administrator already, and giving him the tools would only benefit Wikipedia and our community. If he wants to help the community of the extra assistance with the tools, and if he knows how and when to properly use them (which he has proven to me), then I have no problem with Matthew becoming an administrator. Respectively yours, RyRy (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - In regards to the opposes due to his answer to question 5, I think that iMatt simply worded what he was trying to say incorrectly. I edited with him for months, and I've seen him defend policy in the face of local consensus, saying bluntly that policy trumps consensus due to policies actually being large consensuses. He understands what a policy is, and that local consensus has no bearing on whether or not it should be enforced. Anyways, I support sysopping iMatt because, to a large degree, he has already filled the role for some time. He's deserved the mop far longer than he realizes. His humility is what attracted me to him when he arrived on Wikipedia, and I watched him develop into a fantastic editor more quickly than almost any other editor who has arrived during my Wiki career. iMatthew will make a fantastic administrator; he will not only fill his role well, but bring honor to the title. Between his humility, knowledge, willingness to question himself, and deep-seated respect for Wikipedia's policies and community, he is everything that an administrator should be. No, wait, he is everything that an administrator should aspire to be. The Hybrid 03:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support a civil, pleasant and committed editor. X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, no reason to believe this editor would abuse the tools. And the nominator's judgement is usually fairly sound on these things =). Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  49. Support The interactions I've had with Matthew in the past have been very positive. Matthew will make an excellent admin. His dedication and hard work on professional wrestling related articles, combined with the fact that he seems to be a good guy, leaves me feeling confident that he can do the job. Caden S (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support The original answer to Q5 was poor, but don't see any other problems (and other answers were fine - particularly impressed with answer to Q13). The support of those who have worked with him persuades me that this was just a blip and he is aware of the importance of verifiability. I can't see him misusing the tools. Davewild (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I like what I see. As for the Q5 issue, he quickly learned from it and that's what's important. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Good user, more or less trustworthy.--KojiDude (C) 15:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I see no reason for concern. Solid content builder, solid grasp of policy and other mechanisms that allow the project to grow. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Will do good. — Jojo • Talk • 16:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Matthew is a dedicated user who has made few mistakes. I'm confident he would do well with the tools. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Weak support. I don't like that fact that you changed your answer to question five, but overall, seems like iMatthew will benefit with the tools. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 20:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support In my experiences with IMatthew, I have found him to be a helpful user. SpencerT♦C 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Partly per wholly positive previous interaction. OK, he cocked up a rather tricky question (Q5). He learnt from it and held his hands up. The ability to learn and be honest about a mistake is a key thing. We can undo errors. We can't enforce honesty or a learning mentality. For sure we don't need admins making endless errors but I feel IMatthew is very unlikely to provide additional workoad through mistakes and a lack of WP:CLUE and more likely to benefit WP with +sysop. A Net Positive. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Yup. Sam Blab 00:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. While the opposers' concerns below have more merit than do the opposes in many RfA's, I believe this candidate has a good level of experience and understanding of policy in the areas where he has indicated he intends primarily to use the tools. His answers suggest that he would ease relatively slowly into more complex areas as to which he has acknowledged his familiarity with policy is less complete. As with all new (and experienced) administrators, I would urge the candidate, if successful, to consult with colleagues rather than to act unilaterally in any situation where he is unsure of the correct way to handle the issue. If this RfA is unsuccessful, I urge the candidate to continue his work on Wikipedia and try here again in due course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - per past interactions, and per his willingness to admit he was wrong. J.delanoygabsadds 03:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Very helpful user 1362talk 06:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Excellent contributions. Tripped up on the trick questions. However iMatthew will use the tools sensibly. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support My experiences with this editor have been positive and fairhanded. Additionally, I feel that NewYorkBrad's statement above reflexts the remainder of my opinion on this candidate. Many thanks, Gazimoff 09:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support if the only reason to oppose is question #5. I'm having a difficult time imagining this. The edit is "reasonably trivial" yet it replaces some amount of text and adds a source? This is not relatively trivial. It's a bad question and I don't fault IMatthew at all for not coming up with a perfect answer that pleases everyone. --B (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that "reasonably trivial" doesn't match the remainder of the context describing the edit (one which ought not be marked as "minor"), but this is just a hypothetical example to add context to the primary question ("In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?") which is as straightforward as they come. The question does not become more difficult to understand just because the candidate answered it poorly, and without any indication that "reasonably trivial" was a source of confusion I'll add. Consensus does not override policy unless it is specifically a consensus to change the policy (as a hypothetical this would be entirely kosher as some polices do suck, but policy change cannot and does not happen on the talk page of one article). Of course rules can be ignored if there's a good enough reason, but the example above does not provide enough information to determine whether IAR is appropriate (so we have to assume it isn't). Personally if this was the only question on the RFA I'd give him half-credit (for acknowledging that policy can change), but keep the other half (pitying the fool who thinks WP:Verifiability should or is likely to be changed for the sake of one article), then oppose on a tie-breaker (for believing that consensus "would win in a race" against a policy that nobody is actually trying to change). — CharlotteWebb 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I'm going to go out on a limb that if Matthew has an FA and the other article credits that he does, he will be able to assess such policies as verifiability and consensus. MBisanz talk 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Swing and a miss on Q5; if he reacts to all mistakes in this manner, he will make a fine admin. Tan | 39 17:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support I've known iMatthew for ever now, he's allway's been one of my best friends on here and I can definatly say he will not abbuse the tools and will do a great job. To sum it all up IMatthew is a great user and will help Wikipedia in great way's. SteelersFan94 17:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Didie (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support from the evidence of the candidates contributions and this RfA I do not think that they will abuse the tools and find it unlikely they will accidentally misuse them. I think the user has the relevant knowledge of policy and the demeanour that if the tools were ever misused once informed they would act in the way I would hope an administrator too act. Guest9999 (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Everything looks good to me. i see no reason to oppose. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 23:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strongly support very good editor, knows what to do and what not nto, and seems to know when a user is doing something right or wrong and will take action if necessary. SAVIOR_SELF.777 03:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support because an ability and willingness to think through a issue or problem in a process which moves towards a constructive outcome benefits everyone and ensures prospects for growth over time --Tenmei (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - Great editor, fully trust him. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - Looks fine to me. Clearly meets my standards - fantabulous user page, rollback rights, longtime editor, no concerns. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Reluctant oppose; I don't have any a priori objections to administrator that plan on using the tools rarely, but I admit I'm a little worried when you plan on using them in the areas where you edit; this is the place where you should not be using your tools because of your involvement. Given that you have little experience in other areas, I'm not comfortable giving you the tools. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to use the tool in all areas of Wikipedia, but what I meant was that I will be using the tools where I am involved, performing tasks like at WP:PW/ANC - moving articles that have a consensus, and some other areas. iMatthew (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are opposing because he doesn't have any experience in areas where he doesn't edit? You want him to have tons of experience in areas where he doesn't edit? Isn't that a paradox? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your oppose makes absolutely no sense. Whilst I will badger no further, saying "you should only use the tools where you don't spend your time" is an utterly ridiculous oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asenine (talk • contribs)
    Opposing for this reason is not 'utterly ridiculous'. An admin who intends using the tools in the areas where he/she edits is more likely, ceteris paribus, to misuse the tools than an uninvolved admin. It is a legitimate cause for concern (though not necessarily a basis for an oppose - one should probably examine the editor's past behavior for that).--Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 02:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I'd need to see clear understanding that using your tools anywhere near articles where you are significantly involved as an editor, or regarding editors with whom you interact significantly while editing those articles, is a big no-no. — Coren (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are circumstances where administrative actions can be take "near" articles you are significantly involved in - e.g. granting a clearly uncontroversial ((editprotected)) request, blocking someone who has been blanking a WP:GA, etc. The idea, rather, is that one shouldn't make "close calls" or even "almost close calls" on articles in which they are significantly involved. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opposed per handwaving answer to 5, which demonstrates a lack of policy knowledge, and for his off-base and contradictory comments at a recent RfA. Badgering RfA candidates for their humor is quite WP:BITEy. Do we really want someone who doesn't know enough about fundamental policies to answer a question that routinely gets asked in RfAs, someone who makes contradictory statements, and someone who attacks people for harmless humor to decide page protection? He stated that RFPP is his first choice for use of admin tools. As the recent Sarah Palin ArbCom case demonstrated, this is one of the most sensitive areas of adminship. Based on the applicant's previous actions, I cannot trust his judgment in such as sensitive area. Good article writing does not require adminship. VG ☎ 15:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    VG, I know you really want WSC to become an admin, but please do not let that interfere with your judgement in this RfA. Your rhetorical questions are not helpful either. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assertion about my reason is simply false. I'm not jeering in wresting match here (pun intended). I have not yet !voted for WSC either way, and I'm the one that added this negative, but objective, comment on WSC's RfA. I need more information on WSC's RfA before I make a decision on that issue; I've asked a question quite a while back there, which has yet to receive a reply. Also, I've edited exactly zero articles in common with WSC, so I know little if anything about him/her. Please do not jump to baseless conclusions about my motives. VG ☎ 18:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opposed based on question 5 also. Local article consensus can not trump one of the pillars of wikipedia. I am also concerned about the contradictory statement given in the WSC RfA and wonder how that looks when he is explaining his decisions and policies to a newbie. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but a consensus can change a policy. iMatthew (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but local article consensus can not trump the consensus that established policy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Core/foundation policies can't be overridden on any article by even the strongest consensus. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Consensus is a core policy, if not the mother policy. It has the power and legitimacy to overrun or create exceptions to all other policies, which in turn were also fruits of consensus. Húsönd 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. The greater community decided to apply our core policies to all articles. Said greater community consensus cannot be overruled on a local level by a niche consensus. Daniel (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree, Daniel. Local consensus is seen as representing the entire community in a proportional ratio. Consensus formed by the editors of one particular article is no different than, let's say, consensus formed by the participants of an AfD. All users may participate, and those who do participate are seen as representing the rest of the community. In this highly hypothetical scenario of a local consensus stipulating that WP:V should be overrun, then one has to assume that there must be a good reason for that. If doubts exist, as e.g. bias shared by an unusually high number of participants, then we have mechanisms for bringing the issue to the attention of the greater community. RFC, for instance. Or, simply contact an admin or experienced, uninvolved user. But going against consensus is, under no circumstance, the right attitude. Húsönd 03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (@Daniel) Incorrect, see WP:IAR. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there happen to be say ... 25 of us who are somewhat intent on being weenies, and we "gang up" on a rarely-edited article, and we all come to the "consensus" that a team of Australian Cattle Dogs once beat the Florida Marlins in an exhibition baseball game, and only 3 people "oppose", does the lack of verifiability get trumped by our gross misuse of consensus? I use a rather silly hypothetical situation because there are numerous situations (especially related to politics or military history for examples) where this type of mass-but-false consensus occurs. BMW(drive) 12:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That kind of situation simply does not go unnoticed long enough for anything even close to a consensus to be formed. But even if it did, a user can't go against consensus just because everyone else seems determined to go against WP:V. If there is consensus for something so clearly wrong, the user who detects the wrongdoing must bring it to the attention of other users. If the wrongdoing is evident, then the biased consensus will swiftly collapse. This highly hypothetical situation shouldn't really have been used in the question, as the answer can hardly avoid sounding rather ambiguous. Should he have answered "oh no I would immediately enforce WP:V against all" then he would have been opposed by a horde of users concerned about his haste and lack of will to find out why on Earth was there a consensus for that in the first place. Húsönd 17:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, Daniel is correct, at least with respect to his general factual representation. m:Foundation issues does set out broad principles that ought to guide the operations of all of the Foundation’s projects (and a few associated operative policies), the amending of which is, one supposes, the province only of the Board of Trustees (it is sometimes argued that those principles themselves are subject to IAR, which is understood by some as flowing naturally from the third principle—”the ‘wiki process’ as the decision mechanism on content—but it is not at all clear that that principle would extend to the ignoring of other of the Foundation issues, to the determining of community-wide policies [as against to the determining of content], or to the ignoring by a small segment of a given community of principles supported by that community in the context of one single article; it is not contemplated, in any case, at the very least, that a given project should be permitted to adopt a practice inconsistent with NPOV, the one true Foundation content policy), although it is imagined that the Board should prove willing to respond to the meta community were a broad, cross-project consensus to develop at meta for the altering of a given principle, and, ultimately, for the altering of any of the Foundation’s bylaws, vision, and values, although the restructured, more insulated (to the disappointment of many of us) Board may be more willing to situate itself opposite the community of users (editors and readers) than would have a Board constituted under the old format. I have across my time here been a grand advocate for the preservation of the partial sovereignty that each project’s community enjoys, widely and often noted that there is very little (or even less) here that is immutable, and criticized stridently the idea that a single editor or admin properly substitutes his or her interpretation of policy for that of a broader group of editors where he/she thinks the latter editors to have erred in some fashion inasmuch as certain things are beyond debate and as “a consensus cannot override policy”, which is plainly true but rarely useful (or, at least, rarely usefully used), and so I am not, I should say, in sympathy with whatever broader assertion Daniel might mean to make (for one, to the extent that he suggests that WP:V is immutable or follows necessarily from m:Foundation issues, he is wrong, although he is right to say that a poorly-visited, insular, and narrow discussion can not bear out a consensus for community-wide change and that even as policy means to be descriptive, such that changes in policy should follow changes in practice, we would not do well to begin ignoring WP:V in the absence of a clear community directive toward that end, and that where a policy has guided the project since its infancy and has been (at least tacitly) embraced by millions of users (readers and editors) [as, even if implicitly, has each of the five pillars] should not be changed but after a widely-visited, month-plus-long discussion, for reasons that need not be recited here); I mean only to offer (an exceedingly long) statement of fact, one that is sometimes lost on both those who sit firmly in the "nothing is immutable" camp (amongst which number I count myself) and those who assert categorically (especially, one finds, when occurs a discussion in which the community understands and applies policy in a fashion they disfavor) that “a consensus cannot override policy”. Joe 19:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Q5 Everyme 02:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you're opposing based on the answer to question 5, but could you please indicate that is the case. RockManQ (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What? No, I'm talking about the Audi Q5 of course. Boy do I hate that car, but I bet that's the general consensus anyway, so it's probably ok if I just insert that into the article, no? Everyme 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to strong oppose per updated answer to Q5. If there is one thing we need less than an admin who doesn't really understand the relation of WP:V and WP:CON, it's an admin who would opprtunistically answer the way he deems most "electable" and doesn't have or stand by his own attitude. Also per his attempt to get out of answering my own Q11 by pointing to his updated answer to Q5. Absolutely not. Everyme 14:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even stronger now that he said those guidelines are completely ok (Q11) and, by extension, that he deems arbitrary standards for inclusion of criminal uses as conforming to policy and the spirit of the project. No way. Everyme 16:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opposed due to question 5 answer. CMJMEM (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't believe iMattthew is ready for adminship. Looking at his admin coaching page, I'm not exactly filled with confidence. There's a lot of general lack of knowledge shown in most of the page, such as not knowing AOR is not binding, not knowing vandalism removal is excepted from 3RR, not knowing why a wheel-war is bad, not knowing IPs cannot create new pages, not knowing userpages are almost always protected upon request, not understanding that dicussing with the owner of a vandalbot is not likely to be productive, not knowing bans only apply to en.wiki, switching the definition of the word neutral with its opposite (in this example, he also shows lack of thoroughness, saying he didn't even fully read the line he was being tested on), not knowing G4 doesn't apply to speedies, not knowing unverifiability is a reason for deletion. Granted, these answers are two to five months old, and he should probably be more knowledgeable by now. However, the page is so positively rife with examples of his lack of clue that I am very concerned. I also just get a general vibe of being too eager for adminship from the page. Looking further, I see he has both a signature shop and a guestbook page. While those aren't neccesarily bad things, they don't seem like particularly mature things to have. And finally, on question five. Consensus is always determined with respect to policy. Therefore, consensus on a local article cannot override verifiability. seresin ( ¡? )  06:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I don't wish to vote (or even to "!vote"), but I do have to agree with the above point regarding question 5. It is not a question of policy versus consensus. Policy is based on consensus: that of a large number of users, reached by discussion in a centralised and highly visible place, and applicable to the project as a whole. Just because views which oppose policy happen to dominate on a particular one of the 2+ million article talk pages doesn't mean that those views represent consensus. — Alan✉ 08:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like you all to take in that during my admin coaching, I was learning. That was well over a month ago, and I was learning. I went into my admin coaching ready to learn what I needed to learn. All of which you listed above, I have learned with bibliomaniac15. iMatthew (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not something I want to do, but Q5 does raise a few concerns. I agree with Seresin on many points, and having looked at the admin page of iMatthew, I would expect a candidate to know that IP's cannot create pages and most of that stuff. Also, consensus on local articles almost certainly does not override Wikipedia-wide consensus, same with the MOS I guess - a particular project cannot have a MoS that is 100% against Wikipedia MoS. As a suggestion to the Candidate, I would suggest exploring new areas on Wiki, "Widening the Wings" I'd call it to gain more experience. I'm almost certain, should this fail, that you'll learn from past errors/mistakes and pass the next RFA with flying colours. D.M.N. (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, as I said above, I was learning during my admin coaching process. I've come out with all of the knowledge I needed. I've also struck out and re-answered question 5. iMatthew (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I also have the same concerns as those expressed above, and I think the only way to resolve that concern is by gaining more experience and trying again at another time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Audi Q5. Giggy (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Question 5 again. iMatthew (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good of you to reword it, but a bit concerning that you originally answered based on Coffee's (obviously incorrect) comment. Giggy (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was not incorrect at all, it was misinterpreted by iMatthew (and you). What I was saying was that a consensus of idiots does not mean that it should overwrite policy, therefore verifiability can't be changed or determined by a bad consensus, however a good consensus can leave policy behind to create new policy or to just improve the article. Please tell me how that is wrong. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Q5 (even though the original remark is struck)--Caspian blue (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whats wrong with it now? iMatthew (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per q5. It's not really the answer (any of them) that's bugging me. It is the way you answered. According to yourself, you thought of the answer, read an rfa opinion, and then decided to answer differently. Then, following negative responses here, you changed your answer. To me it seems that you, in both answers, just answered based on what you perceived as popular opinion. This of course is just my perception on things, and may not be the case. But at this time, I don't feel that I can trust you with the tools. Rami R 16:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with your opinion. That is exactly my impression on the candidate.--Caspian blue (talk)
  13. Oppose per Rami R. This comment springs to mind, and could be applied here. I can't trust him to make (as he plans to in Q8) controversial blocks. An admin should not so impressionable, and should think for themselves. EJF (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Coren and Rami R. Neither would have driven an oppose alone, but together... --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Coren and Rami R. I've known Matt along time and talk to him quite frequently via IM. However, as Rami R said, you seem to have answered question 5, looked at another RfA, and changed your answer based of others comments and what you read. Like Rami R said, this may not be the case, but that it what I perceive. Sorry, but that is just how I feel. --LAX 18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose because of the candidate's answer to Q5. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding, not just a lack of knowledge on a technicality. Having changed the answer, the candidate seems surprised by Caspian Blue's oppose. He seems to feel that that as long as he got the answer right eventually there should not be any concerns regarding his policy knowledge. However, with a mistake this fundamental, the candidate needs more time to understand and demonstrate that understanding. TigerShark (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per most of the comments above on Q5, particularly perhaps LAX's. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Oppose - I went back and forth on this one, but I think you misinterpreted what I had said in my !vote on that RFA. I specifically said it depends on what and who the consensus is, in Q5 you were given a specific incident which should have been handled differently than you answered. I think likewise you might misinterpret policy wrongly, or consensus. Sorry but I have to oppose. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak oppose per Q5 (sorry) - being an admin isn't about going with the flow if it is against policy. There are other reasons why a minority source may be a problem. also noted and agree with seresin's issues. Maybe hanging out in an area where conflict resoloution is needed, like article merges or deletions is worthwhile. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I actually do like some of what I see in the contributions, but some of the rest worries me. Orderinchaos 07:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak oppose due primarily to the Q5 concern. An ability and willingness to consider new facts and opinions when taking a stance is a good trait, but the way it was handled here seems to be an overly eager desire to give the "right" answer and appease folks. Sometimes admins are called upon to take actions that are not immediately "popular" and may indeed raise the ire of many involved editors, rather than appease a crowd. Shereth 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per Q5, an admin should give what they believe is the correct answer, not what they think people want to hear. Mr.Z-man 20:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was not based on what people may have wanted to hear, it was based on how I felt. iMatthew (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what your comments suggest. From what I see, you came up with an answer, decided for whatever reason not to use it, then when people started opposing, you changed your answer to your "original answer," which was pretty much the opposite of the initial answer you posted, citing a comment by another user on another RFA as a reason for not using the planned answer initially. I really can't think of any other way to explain that chain of events that wouldn't also result in me having reason to oppose. Mr.Z-man 01:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - Moved from support because of worries over his ADCO answers.  Asenine  22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - I'm sorry about this, hope I don't get on your bad side, but I never paid attention to the answers to your questions, and then I ran across Q5, and it puzzled me as admin should know that consensus should never be ruled out of the situation, I also have to give a reluctant oppose because you mainly only work at Wikiproject Professional Wrestling, you need more exposure to other projects and other areas in Wikipedia, as well as increasing your Wikipedia exposure. Sorry.--SRX 23:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - I'm sorry I have to do this, but, I think its necessary. The fact of the matter is that the answer to Q5 is/was alarming. Matt, your a great editor and I respect that a whole lot, but I don't think your ready to receive the tools. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Extremely Reluctant NotNow Oppose- Sorry Matt, from my interactions you've always been polite, you always greet me when I log onto IRC, you're hardworking and honest, and I actually came here expecting to be squarely in the support column. But the fact remains that being an admin attracts trolls, vandals, and nutjobs extraordinaire and if you have never really experienced controversy, you can't really know how you're going to react. I don't see a huge problem with your answers, even question 5 wasn't really a deal-breaker for me. I just don't know if you're ready to be plunged headfirst into the swirling toilet of adminship. Unless something insane happens or this passes, I will support your next RfA for sure. Keep the faith, man! Shana tova!-- L'Aquatique[talk] 02:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I was rather concerned when I saw this RfA go up the other day. I have seen IMatthew around and while I believe wholeheartedly that he is a very well intended, good faith user, there's something about the comments I've seen from him that makes me very uneasy and I'm just not comfortable with giving him admin rights. The admin coaching page is quite troubling to me as it displays a surprising amount of lack of clue and while I don't really care about the Q5 above, I think the fact he gave an answer which wasn't what he really thought reflects a lack of maturity and a desire to blow with the wind of popular opinion. I am rather concerned how this might affect his decisions as an administrator, that he might do or say things according to what he thinks others want him to say or do, rather than what he really believes is right. I'm very glad to see he has contributed some excellent content in the form of FA and GAs, but I'm not impressed with the "My Spacey" aspects - his shops and his focus on user and user talk page (about half his total edit count is to user/user talk and he has double the number of user/user talk edits than mainspace contributions and I think this is unbalanced for a non-administrator). So unfortunately I can't support this RfA. Sarah 05:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Addit: And I'm afraid that this sort of biz [6] just confirms and reinforces my concerns about maturity. Sarah 15:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Seems like a nice enough guy... but I am not sure this candidate is ready to be an admin, per Seresin's concerns, which I share. Also, while I do not think age is a reason to oppose a candidate, unwillingness to even answer whether or not one is of the age of majority on the grounds of "likely to cause drama" seems evasive. It is a reasonable question and deserves an answer. Also "signature shops" and guestbooks are not part of our core mission. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Q5 stuck out to me, as did the main focus on Wikiproject wrestling. Perhaps a few more months of more varied experience. --Banime (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. While it is of course your right to decline to answer question 13, this causes me to proceed under the assumption (in view also of your focus on wrestling) that you may be a minor. I am of the opinion that, because of the real-world impact of admin decisions, minors should only be admins if they have displayed exceptional merit. This unfortunately does not seem to be the case here, as shown by your response to question 5, in the criticism of which by many here I join.  Sandstein  21:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Ok wait... you asked an "optional" question, and then you oppose because the person chose not to answer? You question is not really optional, and you are saying that if you don't give out information that you don't want to, about your private self, I will oppose. I find that to be a frankly horrible idea to have at RFA. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the question is optional in that the candidate is free to answer it or not. But, as with all questions here, we are free to oppose if we don't like the answer we get, including a refusal to answer. If you read my comment above again, you will find that I am not saying what you think I am saying.  Sandstein  07:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose per answers to some of the questions, particularly 5. Also, my working with this candidate on a previous sockpuppeteering case related to WP:PW left me feeling decidedly uneasy as you went after a particular editor who'd been socking and had been duly dealt with. For some time later, you brought them back to ANI on other issues and this left me with the impression that you had a streak of vengefulness with I definitely do not ever want to see in an admin. I'm sorry, but it's been to soon since that for me to feel comfortable supporting - Alison ❤ 04:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. per Q5. As someone pointed above, local article consensus can not trump one of the pillars of Wikipedia. It is important for an admin to have a very good understanding of the policies of Wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Nice article work etc. But it's all rather "safe", would have liked to see work on more controversial topics/BLP's, to see how you handle content disputes/draw consensus. Hopefully you won't victimize us article writers by dragging a content dispute over to AN (something I was just victim to lol). — Realist2 15:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but you want me to work on controversial topics, which cause drama? I'm not sure I understand your comment. iMatthew (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe this diff from a couple hours ago would give evidence on how I can handle a content dispute or draw consensus? iMatthew (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well as an admin you will have to deal with a lot of drama, and probably a lot worse. I don't feel your field of writing has brought those skills. Your opinion in a content dispute will be sought on numerous occasions. Then all the issues of recentism, BLP, undue etc etc come in. I just don't see you doing it. This isn't an oppose however, it really isn't. Also, I generally get a lot of slack for taking this line (I envision Wisdom breathing heavily over my shoulder right now :-)). Just my 2 pesetas. Good luck. — Realist2 15:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You don't have to deal with a lot of drama if you don't want to get involved with it ;)   jj137 (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Echoing – seriously, Realist, this is fuzzy reasoning. You see more drama than average because you work on BLPs for high-profile celebrities, but 99% of our articles are uncontroversial. The vast majority of my contributions are to railway stations, shopping malls and geographical articles, where the controversy never rises above the "is The Serpentine a lake or a reservoir?" and "does the level of detail on this map justify forcing the image width wider than usual?" level (yes, both of those were genuine – and surprisingly foul-tempered – conversations), and most other editors are in a similar situation. I'd imagine wrestling gets more argument than most other areas as it tends to attract some of our more excitable contributors. – iridescent 15:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Trust me, it creates drama. See the drama page...I meant suggestion page for WP:PW, here. iMatthew (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Rattled a few cages here. Firstly, I've commented voted neutral like this a few times, always causes an issue (nothing to the degree Kurt's opposes do...Although where is he these days?)... anyway, so like I was saying, this isn't an oppose and thus I don't think I'm being the "bad guy". I'm just saying that it wouldn't bother me in the slightest whether or not Matthew was an admin. We live in environment at the moment where cry babies can "win" editorial disputes by throwing their rattle out the pram (is pram the correct English spelling?) driving more experienced editors away, and frankly, I don't think admins know how to handle it. Screaming children should be given a chance, then clamped down aggressively. Likewise, content that breaches BLP, undue and recentism should be dealt with quickly and removed without mercy. Wikipedia is being-over run by the masses, the socks, the trolls, those with an agenda, while experienced editors are pushed aside. On that point I agree with a comment SandyGeorgia recently made. In the current environment, I'm not so sure the admin army being dominated by those who are passive is so good. However this might be a general issue that I have with what's going on. I will stew on this a little while. Meanwhile I have to go back to protecting the encyclopedia from the flies that wish to destroy it, it will be very difficult though, we are all treated exactly the same, we are no different to the flies, only there are fewer of us. Great. — Realist2 16:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • And my point has been proven with the answer to question 5. I'm sorry but Matthew should know better as an article writer. The screaming children shouting "we win, we win", when they have their "consensus" NEVER overrule the actual mission to build the article. Forget the background noise, silence it if you must. The goal is to make a good article, not please the masses. I'm most unconvinced that you could deal with an editorial dispute over article content. Wikipedia is not a democracy and we are not here to make people happy with "consensus". See this is what pushes serious article writers away. I won't switch to oppose, I know you mean well. But it's not an administrates job to make everyone happy and united. Administrates are there to make life easier for the article writer, to silence the racket in the background. I'm not sure you can do that. — Realist2 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per Coren's oppose. It's not enough of an issue to actively oppose over, but I'm also uncomfortable with people who explicitly plan to use admin tools on "their" articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridescent (talk • contribs)
    As opposed to people who use tools on other people's articles? If it's for the betterment of the project, what does it matter what article it is? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about this comment Iridescent, A: My current activities will continue, as I will help perform administrative tasks for the professional wrestling project. - iMatthew doesn't state he will use in on "professional wrestling articles" - I think he means like moving pages to new locations where only admins can only do it per consensus (see WP:PW/ANC where discussion takes place) and blocking clear sockpuppets. I strongly doubt he would use tools to wheel-war. D.M.N. (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at "Q. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?" "A: My main area of interest is in professional wrestling related articles". Note that I'm not opposing. – iridescent 16:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is usually something that causes me to become leery, but I've had enough contact (or at least seen Imatt around enough) with the candidate to get a feeling for his neutrality/rationality. In the past, this has always been a red flag because it creates a potential COI problem. I can understand the oppose and then neutral. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Iridiscent (sp?), was that you saying that because he posts mainly as a Professional Wresling fan, he doesnt get your vote? PXK T /C 23:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even going to waste electrons answering that except to say of course not. Read the comment. – iridescent 23:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral but leaning toward support. The initial response to Q5 is troubling and I don't know what to make of the rewrites. The SandyGeorgia question is troubling because the candidate is running on the quality of article content and any question by Sandy would then be troubling. The response to Q2 is a cause for concern but I don't have enough experience with the candidate to know if it will be an issue down the road. I liked the responses to most other questions (good job with q4 and 11 in particular) and you seem to be a great editor and the number of edits on user and article talk pages tells me that you probably like consensus over conflict (as also your initial response to Q5 :-)), all good qualities in an admin. I'll probably end up supporting but will sit on the fence and watch for a day or two first. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, moved from support. Keeper ǀ 76 02:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category