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

MatthewUND[edit]

(43/0/1); final Andre (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MatthewUND (talk · contribs) - He has significantly contributed to many North Dakota related articles, and should deserve to be an administrator.--milk the cows (Talk) 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and thank milkthecows for nominating me. --MatthewUND(talk) 06:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an active member of WikiProject North Dakota, the comment has repeatedly been made that it would be very helpful to have an administrator within the WikiProject. For instance, articles within the scope of WPND have had their share of vandalism and I think it could be very helpful to have someone who can attempt to resolve such issues effectively and in a timely manner. As an admin, I would be happy to use the tools granted to me to help out not only this particular WikiProject, but I would also be very happy to work on any other issue throughout Wikipedia that requires assistance. I can also tell you one thing that I would try not to do — lord my adminship over other users. I believe the role of an admin is to help out users who need assistance and, in some small way, to try to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia project itself. For the most part, I imagine that I would mainly continue much in the same manner that I currently do on here. However, I would have a few new tools that I could use to further help people and maintain Wikipedia's integrity if the need arises.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The article that I'm the most proud of is Grand Forks, North Dakota. This is the article that first sparked my interest in editing on Wikipedia and I've worked on this particular article for quite some time now. Just a few days ago, this article was successfully promoted to FA status. I'm also proud of the work that I've done with other North Dakota articles and for my contributions to WikiProject North Dakota. I'm currently one of the most active editors of the diverse set of articles that fall under the scope of WPND. I've also recently started a monthly WPND newsletter in an attempt to foster more discussion within the project. I truly enjoy working with fellow members of WPND and other Wikipedia editors. Becoming heavily involved in this WikiProject has not only educated me on many Wikipedia rules and guidelines, but it has also changed me from someone who used to undertake editing projects mainly on their own to someone who now likes to debate and discuss issues and ideas. I may have quite a few edits to my name, but I often think that an even more important number is the number of articles on a user's watchlist (2,688 in my case) because that can show a user's longterm interest in improving articles and keeping them free of vandalism.
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 really haven't had very many conflicts with other users. As someone who has many business and university articles on their watchlist, one thing that pops up from time to time is a new user making pov, copy-and-paste edits to their employer's article. I've seen that a few times and have tried to calmly explain that articles should not read as ads nor should their text be taken verbatim from external websites. I guess that probably wouldn't constitute a real "conflict", but I can't really think of any times when I have had ongoing conflicts with other editors. As far as "wikistress", sure...we all experience a little of that from time to time. When something stressful pops up, I try to remain calm and remember that I really shouldn't do or say anything on Wikipedia that I wouldn't do or say in real life. I hope people think of me as a reasonable and helpful editor. Whether or not this RfA passes, I will try to remain what I consider a reasonable and helpful editor.

Optional Questions from Nat.tang (talk · contribs)
All of the following questions are optional and you are not required to answer them

4. In my opinion, your answer to Q1 was a bit single tracked and vague, so here we go: Are there any specific admin tasks you intend to take part in?
A: I'm sorry, I should have tried to elaborate a bit more in that first answer. For one thing, I would likely move to protect/unprotect pages from time to time. Like I said, I have a rather large watchlist so I come across quite a bit of vandalism. I think being able to protect a page, though I would use this tool sparingly, would be a way for me to better combat vandalism. Being able to block a user/IP that is doing vandalism would also be a very beneficial tool for me although I would once again do such an act very sparingly and after thought. Quickly reverting vandalism would also be a helpful tool. I also routinely scan new articles and often come across obvious candidates for speedy deletion. It would be nice if I could remove them myself without having to tag them and wait around for an admin to delete them. I should note that I wouldn't block a user or protect a page simply over a content dispute...I'm talking about dealing with clear vandalism.


5. If you were to run into an extreme POV pusher, and there is no evidence of simple vandalism, what specific steps will you take to deal with him/her?
A: I do run into extreme POV pushers quite often. Currently, when I come across someone like that, I likely first revert their changes, leave them a polite message on their talk page letting them know that their POV edits are against Wikipedia policy, and monitor the article to see whether or not they try to continue their POV ways. I've been pleasantly surprised to see how many extreme POV pushers see the light after even just one polite, informative message on their talk page. Hopefully a POV pusher stops after I take those actions, but of course that often isn't the case. I realize that even as an administrator, I should contact another administrator when I'm actively involved in a debate over content. POV can be in the eye of the beholder and it is very important to see what an uninvolved admin thinks of the situation.


6. Do you think that the number of edits are crucial in determining the result of one's RfA?
A: No, not crucial. I think that a high edit count can show a committment to Wikipedia, but we would be naive to think that "high edit count = good editor = good administrator". An edit count, either high or low, should probably be used as one of many factors when deciding whether or not to support or oppose an RfA, but I don't think that an edit count should be the deciding factor and I don't think that it usually is. So no, as long as the edit count isn't indicative of a brand new user who clearly doesn't know policy or need the tools, it is not the most important factor and it is certainly not crucial.


7 What do you think about the recent nomination of multiple shopping mall articles for deletion? Is this problematic or helpful? If you were an administrator now, what would you do when you noticed this? Tim Vickers 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Interesting question. Actually, I'm not opposed to articles for major shopping centers if notability is established. A couple of shopping mall articles upon which I have worked have been nominated for deletion before, but the proposed deletion did not pass. In those cases, I supported keeping the articles because I thought that the malls all had notable reasons for keeping and because, since they were located in my part of the country, I had specific knowledge of these malls. Certainly, there are many malls which don't deserve articles on here. If I wasn't aware and hadn't been made aware of just exactly why a mall is notable (if notability was not established), I would not at all be opposed to voting to delete the article. If, on the other hand, the article was sourced and clearly demonstrated notability of some sort, I would most likely be in favor of keeping. If I was currently an administrator, I doubt that I would take any additional steps from what I would currently do. I will point out that I often think it is more helpful to nominate one article at a time for deletion instead of lumping many into the same deletion proposal, but that is just my personal preference.
Thanks for the answer, I'm sorry if the question was a bit vague. To be a bit more specific, (but still hypothetical) what options might you consider if all the articles had been nominated for deletion by one editor, or, alternatively, if all the articles had been created by one editor? Tim Vickers 20:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure that it would really be so important who had created the articles or who had nominated them for deletion. I think the most important thing would be to weigh each and every proposed deletion individually and judge each article on its own. I would be slightly curious what would make one editor nominate so many similar articles for deletion...there could be some underlying reason why one editor would want so many similar articles gone. I think it would be reasonable to look into the recent contributions of the user and their talk page to see if there has been some sort of ongoing conflict that the proposed deletions are coming out of. Still, again, I don't think it is really of the utmost importance who nominates for deletion...I'm more interested in why they want the article(s) deleted. Also, like I said, I have been involved with AfDs for shopping center articles in the past and because of that involvement, I would likely leave it up to another administrator to make the call about whether the proposed deletions are kosher and when the AfDs should or shouldn't be closed. Does that answer your question? I hope so! --MatthewUND(talk) 23:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand you to have said that you judged articles as notable or not on the basis of your personal knowledge of the subject? could you expand on that a little?DGG (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I meant to say and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I wouldn't call something notable just because I thought it was notable. I should have been clearer, but what I meant to say was that, because of my familiarity with the subjects of these articles, I was able to help add sources which in turn helped to establish notability and prevented the articles from being deleted. I don't believe that mere personal knowledge of a subject should ever be used to claim notability; on the other hand, knowledge of a subject can aid in sourcing an article which may ultimately help to establish notability. --MatthewUND(talk) 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by User:Vodak

8. Would you please provide your most recent curriculum vitae?
Good question! I'm happy to tell you that I am a recent graduate of the University of North Dakota having obtained a Bachelor's Degree (Cum Laude). I appeared many times on the honor roll and I am a part of two honor societies. Breaking down my degree, my major was Computer Science and my minor was English. I'm currently seeking employment in which I can use my Computer Science background. During my time at UND, I also took two years of Spanish courses and many history, math, and sociology courses. I feel that my educational background covers a fairly diverse range of fields. In my opinion, this background can be very helpful to draw upon in the environment of Wikipedia. Thanks for asking that very interesting question. I'm proud of my educational background and I'm happy to share this brief summary with you. --MatthewUND(talk) 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Luna Santin
9. I noticed you don't seem to have email enabled for the Special:Emailuser function. Often, blocked or confused users will have no other way to contact administrators, or users may wish to keep certain communication private for a wide variety of reasons. In my experience, it is considered customary for an admin to have email enabled; do you have an opinion on the matter? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I'm not sure why I have never bothered to enable email. I just took care of it now though, so anybody can email me as the wish. After thinking about what you said, I think it is really a very good idea for any and all admins to have email enabled. After all...I'm sure none of us get enough email as it is, right? ;) --MatthewUND(talk) 06:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from NDState
10. With your background as being a UND alumnus do you believe that you will be able to remain neutral in regards to your interaction with other ND articles etc.? Especially in regards to NDSU, given the long time bitter rivalries?
It doesn't matter to me that UND and NDSU are rivals. Wikipedia is about coming together for the greater good, not dividing along institutional rivalries. It would be petty of me to let my alma mater enter into the editing of other university articles. In fact, I have contributed quite a bit to articles for other universities and colleges in the state — particularly the NDSU article. That article still has a ways to go, but I think it would probably have farther to go if I hadn't been working on it now and then for quite some time. Apart from NDSU, I'm not sure how my alma mater would even remotely enter into the editing of most other articles. So the answer is yes, I have always tried to be — and will continue to remain — neutral when it comes to my editing of and interaction with other articles. --MatthewUND(talk) 00:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Jusjih
11. How would you think of images considered copyrighted in the USA even if now in the public domain in their source countries due to American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term?
Well, I have to admit that this is a very detailed subject with which I have not had a great deal of experience with or knowledge of. In other words, I'm not afraid to admit when I don't know something. I will say that, after skimming the material you linked to, the American non-acceptance of the shorter term rule appears to be troublesome and seems to place a burden on Wikimedia projects. However, without delving into this topic more, I'm not sure I should be actually saying if I support or oppose the petition mentioned in the link. It wouldn't make sense for me to support or oppose something without understanding it better. Thanks for mentioning this though — this is certainly something that I should try to learn about. --MatthewUND(talk) 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MatthewUND before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support. No reason not to give them the tools. Adminship is about trust, which this user clearly shows. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Per anwsers to question and per Matt/TheFearow. Nat Tang ta | co | em 09:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support 1) Candidate has learnt the lesson bought up in his last RFA re: violating WP:CANVASS as shown here. 2) Oustanding contributions 3) Civility 4) Extensive talk page use to build consensus. With the greatest respect to Spebi below, I think we've done the debate about whether a user needs admin tools. General consensus (IMHO) was that the tools cost nothing, they can't "rust" and even if he uses them once a month positively that's good enough reason to have them. At the end of the day, I trust this excellent editor. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  09:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I feel that this user would unlikely abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Mature and considered answers to questions (particularly the supplementaries), civil user who favours consensus building through talk contribs, never been blocked, 14,000 edits (over half in mainspace), nearly 2 years on Wikipedia and clearly his home project is happy to support him. As an admin who spends a fair amount of time doing admin and housekeeping on unrelated wikiprojects with which I am connected (believe me, it is needed), I'm happy to support Matthew. Orderinchaos 13:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Long-term contributor who seems to be familiar with what this project is and how we do it. Unlikely to abuse tools, and likely to find them useful. Give him the buttons, already. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - seems ok to me. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. No reason to believe he'll misuse the tools. J-stan Talk 14:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. All around good experience in main- and projectspace. No reason to expect anything but the best from him. Trusilver 14:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Lots of talk space edits, lots of adminish work already, uses edit summaries; no reason not to trust him with the tools. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Established user with the clear trust of a number of users with whom he has worked constructively over a long period of time. Diverse areas of contributions. Clearly in a position to use the tools well. Hiberniantears 15:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Has my complete support! Politics rule 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support User has made excellent contributions in the mainspace and elsewhere. T Rex | talk 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per above; also North Dakota needs an admin for its project. Bearian 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - as per Orderinchaos..--Cometstyles 18:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. He's totally responsible enough for being a sysop. LOZ: OOT 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per Orderinchaos --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I likes what I sees, and I votes how I sees it. Jmlk17 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support, recognises when it is best not to do anything, a very valuable attribute. Tim Vickers 00:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. This is a weak support, because I haven't seen that much project space work from you, but your answers to 1 and 4 indicate that it's unlikely you'll go around closing XfDs and the like; you'll limit the use of the tools to your project (mostly). Am I correct? Giggy Talk | Review 01:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, I would say that is a pretty good example of how I would use the tools if I'm granted access to them. I would mainly like the ability to use the tools so I can better maintain WikiProject North Dakota's articles, but of course I would be willing and happy to help out with other issues outside of that particular WikiProject if the need presents itself. --MatthewUND(talk) 01:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further Comment The honesty and clarity of this reponse demonstrates the candidates excellent attitude and trustworthiness. I have moved to Strong Support (for what that's worth!) Pedro |  Chat  07:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, you have my full support (for what it's worth)! But please, before you (if you ever) start closing XfDs, deleting Speedies, clearing out AIV, and other such tasks, PLEASE get some non-admin experience in those areas first. I'm supporting on the basis you'll work in areas where you're experienced; the project, and I can only hope you won't try new things with the tools without practicing without them first. Good luck! Giggy Talk | Review 02:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll make you proud, Giggy. --MatthewUND(talk) 06:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 05:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I see you've addressed your neglect of edit summary usage in 2005 and you're a long-term contributor. Perfect admin candidate. Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)You already supported in #7. Miranda 17:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support trustworthy. —Anas talk? 23:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I have, extremely long ago, interacted with this editor and believe him to be a suitable candidate for adminship. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 06:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per good contributions and thoughtful answers to the questions. PeaceNT 10:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I foresee no problems. JodyB yak, yak, yak 12:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Per above. Lara♥Love 04:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --Duk 05:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support We need more people like him around here! --Imhungry 20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support- He has seemed to learn from his last RfA, and he can be trusted with the tools and will serve Wikipedia well. Good luck, Neranei T/C 00:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I have come across his edits and comments many times, and have always found him to be level-headed and fair-minded. A good bloke. Unschool 04:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose I view users who are nominated for adminship fail to be bold. ~ Wikihermit 14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you joking or being serious? Atropos 07:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikihermit added his comment under "support" with the edit summary "support" but someone later moved it to oppose [1]. I think this is just a case of trying to be too cute. --W.marsh 20:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm supporting :-). ~ Wikihermit 00:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who was confused by that... --MatthewUND(talk) 06:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - my interaction with him, though mostly limited to ND-related stuff, has always been good. I feel he can be trusted with the mop and bucket. - NDCompuGeek 09:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support — umdrums 17:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Would make a great admin. I don't think many truly need the tools, but adminship "isn't a big deal", so why not give them to someone who has proven trustworthy?  hmwith  talk 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support fine user. Acalamari 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, no reason to oppose, fine user. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support No problems. ~ Infrangible 02:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support About time.... 09:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfrg.msc (talk • contribs)
  41. Support About one year overdue. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support He has my support. Ryan4314 02:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support It's all been said above. Good luck! --JayHenry 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. (It's in my nature.) William Plumer 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Having been revealed for the cad I am, I feel it obligatory to withdraw my objection to MonroeUND's nomination. Good day to you all. William Plumer 00:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— William Plumer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Acalamari 21:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also couldn't help but notice that this is a new user (registered today) who seems to have created an account just to cast this vote. --MatthewUND(talk) 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. An understandable conclusion. But I am disappointed in you, Matthew. With all of the wonderful things that people have said about you, I hoped you might be a clever enough person to have determined why I'm voting against you, and why I might vote against other individuals in your position in the future. As I said before, it's in my nature. William Plumer 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I understand the reference. 1820 was long ago, but I appreciate the sentiment (and have mentioned about Mr. Plumer at RfA before.) Xoloz 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
William Plumer should be the patron saint of RfA. youngamerican (wtf?) 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I admire your countless amount of contributions to the North Dakota WikiProject and all North Dakota related articles, however, at the moment I have a neutral stance – I completely trust you with the tools, but in your answer to Question 1, you do not demonstrate a need for admin buttons. You don't have any edits to any administrative areas in the Wikipedia: namespace (apart from some XFDs here and there). I very much appreciate your mainspace contributions, and I hope that my neutral stance does not take away too much from the amount of effort you put into this encyclopedia. Kind regards, Sebi [talk] 07:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you 'completely trust' Matthew with the tools, what is wrong with giving them to him? Any positive contribution he makes will be a benefit to the project, even if he won't necessarily be the most active admin. If you believe he will use the tools well, why not allow him to? Raven4x4x 10:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see adminship as a janitorial job, and Matthew hasn't demonstrated that he will use the tools for janitorial jobs. I have no doubt that he will use the tools for good causes, but I'd prefer to see admins doing the stuff that admins were introduced for. Don't get me wrong, article writing is just as important as any admin duty or job. I see no point of giving someone tools if they're going to use them for article writing – you don't need tools for article writing or vandalism fighting, the tools are given out to people who wish to help out in admin duties and jobs. –sebi 22:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But someone who doesn't use the tools a lot, but uses them positively, is still good for the project. It's not like we have a finite number of adminships we can give out... the more reliable people we have, the better. There's nothing negative to an admin who makes just 5 good admin actions a month. --W.marsh 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are good for the project, I can see no harm that could be possibly caused by Matthew's actions if he receives the tools, however, I do not wish to change my stance on this. I'd prefer to see tools being given out to users who are keen to help out with backlogs, etc. –sebi 23:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, leaning towards support pending answers to Q4, 5, and 6.(Move to Support) Nat Tang ta | co | em 08:31, 2 August 2007 (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