Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:04, 27 September 2008

IMatthew

Voice your opinion (talk page) (17/0/0); Scheduled to end 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept the nomination. iMatthew (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: My best contributions to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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:

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:

General comments

• See IMatthew's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for IMatthew: IMatthew (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

• Comment Let me just let everyone know, that I will be available all weekend during the day. I am not home on weekdays though from about 6:30-3:00. iMatthew (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Is this UTC time, or is this your local time? bibliomaniac15 01:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My local time. iMatthew (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Just wanted to suggest that you set the thing in preferences that makes you give an edit summary. I'm sure there's a technical word for that... –Juliancolton 01:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)\

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

Support

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 00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
3. Support per nom and experience. bibliomaniac15 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
5. Support Yes, please. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
6. iSupport - iI iSupport iMatthew iFor iAdmin. iXclamation point 03:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
7. 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 / )} 04:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Support per nom. Synergy 05:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support per nom and Q1. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support per just about all the above. D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
11. 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)
12. 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)
13. Great editor. You don't need luck, you have perfect timing. —Sunday • (Testify!) 11:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Caulde 11:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - no problems. Btw I love your userpage —— RyanLupin • (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - for your hard work on bringing multiple articles to GA and FA status. Aesthetically pleasing user page too :) --Flewis 12:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Support, definitely. Wizardman 12:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
18. 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)
19. Support - The epitome of "nothing wrong here".  Asenine  13:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral