Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/IMatthew 3


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

iMatthew
(28/19/5); Scheduled to end 11:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)  Withdrawn by candidate. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 23:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– It may surprise many people that I am nominating someone for the position of administrator. Sure, I will admit that I am somewhat surprised myself. But sometimes you just have to do something when you feel that there is a chance some good can come of it. In looking at many of the previous RfAs, individuals count their activities here and there and put forth various numbers as if this is an algebra class. They show so many edits in whatever area they work in or however many awards they have gained. I remember when barnstars were a factor at RfA. What do I look for in an admin? Trust. Do I trust the user to understand content? Do I trust the user to be able to appropriately deal with BLPs? Do I trust the user to be calm or patient when needed? Do I trust the user's judgment when it comes to policies? Would I want them on my side of a dispute? And if they are on the other side, would I respect them for it? When it comes to iMatthew, I can answer yes for all of these. I believe that he has served this community with honor, dignity, and integrity. I trust iMatthew, and that is why I am nominating him for adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm very, very honored by this nomination. Thank you, Ottava, for your kind words. I accept! :)  iMatthew  talk   at 03:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Close this, please. Bye, ;)  iMatthew  talk   at 21:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please close this ASAP. I'll make a statement later.  iMatthew  talk   at 21:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: There are various areas of Wikipedia that I would love to volunteer to work in, those including, but not limited too (alphabet soup: WP:RFPP, WP:UAA, and WP:DYK). I have a good amount of experience in each of these areas. Though not in the past month or so, I've made tons of requests at RFPP, most of which were granted. I've spend a lot of time patrolling the new user accounts log and reporting offensive, promotional, or otherwise disruptive usernames to UAA, which have all been correct reports, IIRC. In regards to DYK, while I've never been an active clerk there, I've nominated 14 new articles there successfully, and know my way around the place. I'd like to be available to fix reported errors on the Main Page in sections such as DYK, ITN or OTD. Like I said, I will not only use the tools in these three areas, but I'll stick to them for the time being, until I feel comfortable moving onto new areas. I do, however, wish to make clear that I will not use my tools to speedy-delete articles. The exception being any requests to delete articles in a users' userspace, from that user themselves.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are my article contributions, if I have to chose. Over the two years I've been around here, I've written articles about professional wrestling, ice hockey, television, and baseball (mainly). (I'm a big sports guy, if you couldn't tell!) I've written 14 new articles that have been featured on the main page, via DYK (as I mentioned above). I've also written or expanded 11 articles to the point of them becoming good articles, one which eventually became a featured article, and 11 lists to the point of them becoming a featured list. Besides my work on Wikipedia's articles and lists, I've uploaded about two-dozen pictures, New York Islanders related, and created a few templates and redirects. Another thing worth mentioning is that I'm one of the featured list removal candidates delegates, meaning that I close featured list removal candidates once a firm consensus is reached to delist, the article has been improved enough to be kept, or nobody has bothered working on it after about two weeks.


 * 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 can't say that I haven't. To be honest, I've gotten involved in some tense conversations with a few editors at the professional wrestling project before, which I do regret. There have been a few times that I've re-entered the PW projects' talk page since I've left (due to my desire to move on and find new areas of Wikipedia to help out in), to try and improve different parts of PW articles, without much success unfortunately. Conversations over there can get a little heated at times, and I've been involved in a few of those. The majority of the time, it was with the same editors, most of whom I now get along with, the rest whom I avoid, to avoid any more drama being created. All of the editors there are great people, but it's not the easiest place to gain a consensus, to say the least. My experiences there have taught me two things. One being that if there's an editor you don't get along with, just stay away from them whenever possible. It's a hell of a lot easier. Two being that turning the computer off and walking away until I calm down is very helpful whenever something starts to bother me on Wikipedia, or I become a bit over-stressed. I can't tell you how many times this has worked for me, and I absolutely plan to continue doing it in the future, whenever any situation becomes stressful to me.


 * 4. How is this RfA different from your previous two?
 * A: My first RfA failed (withdrawn) mainly due to a lack of experience, and concerns about my maturity. My second RfA failed (withdrawn, again) mainly due to an issue a few days prior to it, where I made the terrible mistake of accusing somebody of being a sockpuppet with no solid evidence to back it up, as well as some maturity issues. I feel that since my first RfA, which was almost a year ago, I've gained a lot more experience on Wikipedia in a large variety of areas. In regards to my maturity, I believe I've shown in the past six months since my last RfA, that I'm perfectly capable of maintaining a high level of maturity, while still having a sense of humor and making a joke once in a while. The issue of accusing the user of being a sockpuppet was resolved before the RfA even started last time, but since then, I've never so much as considered following those same steps again, or making any kind of accusation without evidence to back my statements up.


 * Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash
 * 5. While working at UAA, you see the following reports. What, if any, administrative actions do you take?
 * User:Goddoesnotexist
 * User:JohnArmstrong1997
 * User:AAAAAAAMMMMMMYYYYYY
 * User:คนพอใจ
 * A: First off, I would absolutely discuss all of these with other administrators before making any decisions. The first one seems to be promoting his point of view, which could be blatantly contradictory and offensive, though it is possible that he won't mean any harm by it. The second appears to be the real name of a minor, which could be a problem. While the name doesn't violate our username policy, it allows the user to be harassed easily in real life. The third account seems to be more of a spam/vandalism account. However, it could also be perfectly legit, in which case no admin action is necessary. The fourth, being that it's in another language, is not a request I would reply to. Upon seeing that, I would look for an admin who speaks that language and ask them for their input. In any case, until I get used to the tools, I'll be discussing reports like these with other administrators. This is not because I'm not confident with my judgment, but because I want to be correct. At UAA, the only accounts that are immediately blocked are those with attack names or other blatant problems such as pretending to be another user, or impersonating an admin. The examples above, however, can all be both nothing to worry about, and possibly, a lot to worry about.


 * Optional question from JamieS93
 * 6. As I recall, in past times you had a distinct lack of knowledge in the area of fair-use and image licensing. Now, I understand that you do not wish to work with speedy deletion, and this is probably one of those areas that you simply aren't into, but could you give a summary/overview of fair-use, and how one can upload a non-free image? This doesn't have to be perfect, but I'd like to see that you possess a rudimentary knowledge of this topic.
 * A: You're correct that CSD is an area I'm simply not into. A summary of my knowledge of fair-use images is as follows: Fair use is the [limited] use of non-free content on Wikipedia when an adequate free substitute is not available. Pictures of living individuals, locations, or anything else that can be photographed today should not be included on Wikipedia unless they're under a free-license. There are also items such as title pages of works, book covers, certain types of art work, DVD/CD covers, etc. that have no available substitute, in which case a non-free image can be uploaded with an appropriate strong rationale explaining why the image is needed, how it helps the encyclopedia, and that there is no free substitute.


 * Additional optional questions from ArcAngel
 * 7. Why did you decided to "un-retire" and accept OR's nomination?
 * A:

General comments
RfAs for this user: 
 * Links for IMatthew:
 * Edit summary usage for IMatthew can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Editing stats posted at the talk page. Pmlineditor  Talk 14:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) iMatthew has been very friendly towards me and I believe he would make a good administrator. Good luck!  The left orium  12:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom, very trustworthy user and I have no doubts he'll do a great job with the mop.-- Giants 27 ( c  |  s ) 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)  Switched to oppose.-- Giants  27 ( c  |  s ) 19:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) He has improved, maturity wise, since the last RfA, and is a net positive.  ceran  thor 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, no significant concerns. iMatthew is a sensible and dedicated user who I trust to operate admin tools sensibly. While maturity concerns do exist, I have noted nothing since his previous RfA that I find particularly egregious. ~ mazca  talk 13:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - iMatthew has been involved in many disputes between content editors and served as a neutral decision maker that was able to calm conflicting egos. Being one such ego, I can say that he was able to do a good job in getting people focused on writing content instead of attacking each other. This is very important, and I wish that there were many more people like him out there, as such could possibly solve one of the worse problems at Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support - Hard working, mature user. The oppose below does not convince me, especially seeing how Ottava summarised his participation in that RfB. I don't think questioning opposer rationales is a good enough reason to excuse all the hard work he's done around here. Ultimately, we should ask if he'd abuse the tools, and I find that highly, highly unlikely. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 13:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Has my support. He's been here long enough, probably won't abuse the tools.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) x10 Arghh! Yes, matey! Opposes not good enough for me, I'm going to support per my interactions. Pmlineditor  Talk 14:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - I've seen the user here and there, and he will be a net positive as an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I trust him to not abuse the tools.  hmwith  ☮ 14:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Willing to work with the community.  MBisanz  talk 15:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Per my support on the previous RfA, and my observation that I don't see any major complaints about iMatthew as an editor, and so I have no reason to expect he would be problematic as an administrator. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support; yes, he can be immature at times. Yes, he can be a bit... err, stern at times. But there's no doubt in my mind that iMatthew isn't acting with only the best of intentions. Per Ottava's well-written nomination, I trust the candidate to handle the tools responsibly. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support -- I opposed/was neutral in his past RfAs due to his behavior and confrontations he had with me, however, since his last RfA, I believe he has improved. He has worked his way into becoming a respected user, just as he is at WP:FLRC as the delegate. People are bringing up some actions which are very old, which should be put in the past. He is a new user. Like Julian said, yes he can have a temper or be immature at times, but I see it less now and see him having admin tools useful. I trust him with the responsibility.-- T ru  c o   503 15:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support' as iMatthew has been extremely helpful across a wide range of areas, and I see nothing which leads me to believe that the tools would be abused. I think this is far more than a simple net-positive for the project. I expect great things to happen. :) ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Looks fine although he does appear to be human. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) What hmwith said. --Deskana (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Looks like a great candidate. warrior  4321  16:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Although I understand some of the opposes, I'm basically agreed with Julian and Nihonjoe. Plus, I just like him, I think he's gone through some tough times and handled it well. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed by the link's in Acalamari's oppose, so changing to "weak support" I suppose, but there are so many different factors that go into adminship, I'm okay with a few negatives as long as there are lots of positives. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support trustworthy candidate.  P'i'k'i'w'y'n    17:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, pretty much per Nom. I really don't see any “immaturity”. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Hadn't noticed said retirement, but in all the time I've known Matt he's proven to be a friendly and helpful user how is easy to get on with.  GARDEN  18:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Excellent usre (:P) with great attitude. I've interacted with him in the past, and I'm convinced that he will make a great admin. Acalamari makes some valid, and somewhat worrying, points, but I'm prepared to overlook those few instances in favour of all the great work (not necessarily article work) he's done for this wiki and the fact that he can change. Cheers,  I mperator 19:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Support. Recent retirement does cause some concern, but this is a trustworthy and knowledgeable user who could benefit from the tools.-- LAA Fan sign review 19:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. You seem to be a great person with good attributes and I would readily trust you.  I also have a great deal of respect for editors who realize areas they may not be qualified to moderate, such as you have expressed about copyrighted images. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Icewedge (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I watched you grow as an editor, and you are definitely someone who I think should have been an admin a year ago. Jordan Payne    T  /C  20:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Support. A very sensible person, in my opinion. --Aitias (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong support - Excellent candidate. Very dedicated to the project -- what happened at my RfA happened a good six months ago, and no doubt was probably deserved. Do I trust this user to have the bit? Yes. Definitely. — neuro  (talk)  21:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. His recent systematic badgering of opposers on this RfB makes it clear the immature, confrontational behaviour mentioned in his previous two RfAs hasn't changed at all. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For those interested, IMatthew's actions can be broken down as follows: 3 asked about why AfD's have relevance for RfB. 1 was a response to a blank oppose asking for a rationale. 1 was asking for diffs. 2 asked for an explanation of specifics. 1 was a response to a newly created name that claimed Julian was immature. 8 responses out of 67 opposes. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your deleted reply, IMatthew. However, participants on this RfA will have to decide whether comments such as this are really "curiosity" or just plain old bullying. I'm sure you regret your behaviour on that RfB, but sadly it was not an isolated case. You engaged in similar tactics on this RfA and others. Also, I'd kindly request that you do not remove your comments from this discussion as you've just done. If you change your mind, the common practice is to use strikeout . Owen&times; &#9742;  13:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds precisely like curiosity to me. How anyone can twist that, and turn it around to make it look like bullying is beyond my comprehension. If you oppose with a baseless remark, it's natural someone will question it. I see nothing to suggest any "bullying", and I know bullying when I see it.  Majorly  talk  13:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, "systematic badgering" is a grossly inaccurate remark, and I'd suggest to others to evaluate this so-called "badgering" (a word used far too much, without actually considering its meaning) for themselves before casting judgement. My comments here will probably be tossed aside as badgering too, even though I'm simply engaging in discussion which is what RfA is supposed to involve.  Majorly  talk  13:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether you call it "badgering", "hounding", or "interjecting inquisitive remarks" makes no difference. IMatthew made comments on 8 of the first 28 opposes on that RfB, using increasingly poignant language, after which he thankfully gave up. I'm always happy to engage in constructive discussion, but his comments to opposers on that RfB and on other RfAs where he did the same seemed to have served no useful purpose beyond aggravating the general mood of the discussion. Owen&times; &#9742;  14:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "...increasingly poignant"? The only one I see is the one where he then left the discussion, and even the language used there was just exclamatory, nothing expletive or offensive. I don't see your concern, but I respect your right to have it. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 15:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) No.. I have had many experiences with iMatthew, and during all of the stuff he has done for me, I have to oppose sadly. What it seems to me is that even though he is competent in what he does, I echo JamieS93, and believe that maturity should be important, and a lot of the behavior outside of Wikipedia especially, have really made me think this out. Sorry man. Mitch 32(The Password is... See here!) 13:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regretfully. I have a lot of respect for you, Matt, but I'm uneasy with the fact that you retired on August 30, and here you are seeking adminship only 3 weeks later. I'm sorry, Matt, but I don't think you have the prerequisite maturity for adminship. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 13:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to hear what Julian (your coach) has to say. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 14:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving to neutral. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 17:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a curiosity for the future (as IMatthew should learn from the opposes) - how many weeks/months would you suggest someone wait after wanting to retire, temporarily retiring, and being convinced by a large group of people that he is absolutely necessary to stay so he undid the retirement and returned to his normal duties that he only left for a few hours? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, a few weeks to calm down doesn't hurt before running for RFA. Why are we arguing this? Mitch 32(The Password is... See here!) 14:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2x I would prefer at least 2 or 3 months between returning from retirement and seeking adminship. Seeking adminship only a couple weeks after retirement shows an unhealthy swing in dedication to Wikipedia, as evidenced by an old RfA nomination I did back in April (you can find it by looking through my project-space contribs for April 2009). -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 14:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As iMatthew's admin coach (admittedly for a fairly brief time) I can say that his answers to the series of questions I assigned him regarding deletions, blocks, unblocks, and protections were almost always accurate and indeed befitting of a sysop. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Opposed. Does not appear to have changed his behavior substantially since the previous RfA(s). Pcap ping  14:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I am sorry to oppose, but I truly don't see much improvement since the last RFA. Sorry. America69 (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I share many of the concerns of the opposes and neutrals, but particularly all the points of JamieS93. --JayHenry (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) My vote and impression still remain the same as his last RFA.--Caspian blue 16:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How dare you! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - mainly per the "retirement" thing. If you need a break, just stop editing; "retirement" mostly just draws attention and causes drama. And in reply to Juliancolton's support, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Mr.Z-man 17:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Spartaz wrt Q5. While discussion between admins is typically a good thing, username blocks should be about as non-controversial and as easy as admin tasks get. If you can't handle that on your own, you really aren't ready to be an admin. Mr.Z-man 21:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) One of the things I base a candidate on is how they act in the RfAs of other people. For example, in Requests for adminship/IMatthew 2, IMatthew was opposed quite a bit for immaturity and IRC issues, and recently he opposed another candidate for similar issues to what he was opposed for, and I don't like seeing things such as that (granted, he ultimately supported, but the fact he was originally opposing on that rationale is concerning and comes across as hypocritical). I wasn't impressed with his conduct on Neurolysis' last RfA (shows IMatthew is willing to bring off-Wiki battles onto Wikipedia and into RfAs). I have smaller concerns too, such as this totally unhelpful oppose and opposing an RfB transcluded by an unrelated user while the candidate hadn't even accepted the nomination (IMatthew should have noticed that). I'm not bothered about his responding to people in RfAs, and actually consider that to be a plus (I dislike the term "badgering" or "harassment" being thrown around), but not enough to overcome my concerns. There's also this thread, where IMatthew again appears to be bringing off-Wiki battles into Wikipedia, and he was criticized by one person in that thread for generating drama (and he also removed the thread, acknowledging that it was creating drama). Lastly, I noticed below that GaryColemanFan mentioned that IMatthew retired nearly three weeks ago: I came across this oppose from roughly a month ago, where he opposed someone and mentioned their semi-retirement, yet a little over a week later, IMatthew retires, comes back immediately, and is now running for RfA. As he asked that candidate, how do we know you're not going to retire again? I'm not convinced that IMatthew has addressed all concerns from his past RfAs and have to agree that there are still maturity/immaturity issues. If I have misinterpreted anything I have listed above, feel free to discuss it and correct me. Acalamari 17:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hardly hypocrisy if you've learnt from it and starting changing your ways. iMatthew became aware of his civility issues and there have been many noticeable improvements since his last RfA. I don't think I'll sway you on this one, but I felt that your first statement isn't entirely fair with regards to this candidate. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 17:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How is something hypocritical when you disagree with their evaluation? That is like saying that no one has the right to make any complaints if there ever was a similar complaint made against you regardless of the legitimacy. That would make for an odd system. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there Cyclonenim and Ottava Rima, I'll explain: I wouldn't have a problem with IMatthew opposing people for similar reasons he was opposed for in his RfAs if I believed he had addressed all/nearly all of his past issues and was willing to guide others to avoid making similar mistakes. To me, IMatthew hasn't addressed all the concerns from his past RfA: it's not that I disagree with his votes...it's that I don't feel it's appropriate (at this time) for him to oppose others for behavior that he is continuing. However, this concern is only a small part of my oppose (and as I said, he changed his vote on Dendodge's RfA), and I'm only mentioning in conjunction with my other (more important) concerns. I'm opposing on what appears to be a pattern of behavior, not a one-off event (which, depending on the circumstances, I normally look past if there's plenty of good reasons to support). Acalamari 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Acalamari sums it up for me.  Majorly  talk  17:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Brett Favre Oppose I can't get beyond the very recent retirement thing. Believe me, we all have our moments, and there are days when this seems pointless, but Wikipedia is confined to your computer, whereas you are merely confined to the planet. There is always room to walk away and do something else for a few days. Example; I flew into a tizzy earlier this week over ArbCom decisions. I'm on the losing end of an argument I started, big time. I could have made better arguments, but I did not, so I take my licks and move on. What I don't do is retire in a dramatic moment, and then return and seek an elite position within the project. You might still get the position, and indeed there will always be people who want you back, but you undermine the respect people have for your judgement. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is a temporary retirement really so different from a wikibreak? Maybe there is comfort in "retiring" and it's helpful in finding greater peace during the break? Isn't stepping away a good sign? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, agreeing completely with Acalamari's points. I've seen him bring off-wiki disputes on-wiki, and continue off-wiki disputes far past the point they become relevant. I don't want someone nursing grudges to be given the "block" button, thanks - it doesn't lend itself to nonpartisan actions. Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is concerning. Is he a left or right leaning partisan? If he's on the side of the good guys I might be willing to let it slide. :) Only kidding! But seriously, which side is he with? No, kidding! I would like to see iMathew address this concern (not the partisan part but the off-wiki dispute brough on-wiki part).ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Those UAA answers make me really uncomfortable in their non-committal-ness. "Well, maaaaaybe we should block them, but I'd be sure to discuss exactly why we might want to block them first". To me the answers are pretty straightforward:
 * Don't fight religious battles on UAA. Ever.
 * Take it quickly off of UAA instead of drawing unnecessary attention to the identity of someone under 13. Talk to the user privately, with the goal of getting the username changed.
 * A vandal? There is no reason to assume bad faith because someone repeats letters in their name. IMatthew is recommending the awful practice of username-blocking people who don't violate the username policy because they might be vandals... instead of simply vandalism-blocking people who vandalize.
 * Wikimedia is a global project with global usernames. Putting someone's name on UAA just because it's in Thai is unkind and unhelpful. Take that report off unless the reporter has believably said that the name is offensive/disruptive in Thai.
 * I know UAA is one thing that I'm more opinionated about than some people, but these answers show a lack of common sense and tolerance toward newbies that we can't have in an admin. rspεεr (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to UAA, user names in foreign characters are recommended to be changed as they would not appear in many people's screens. So, you are definitely wrong on your statement for that one. Also, there is nothing to suggest that he would block -any- of them. Administrative action is not simply blocking people. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the thing you are most clearly wrong about. Usernames are global. This is meta-policy, and it has basically no room for controversy unless you like the idea of turning the English WP into some sort of belligerent island. If you edit the Thai wikipedia with a Thai username, then when you go to the English Wikipedia you'll still be logged in with your Thai username and should not be put on UAA for this supposed crime. As the username policy says, you're allowed to ask nicely that people sign things in Latin characters, if you want. rspεεr (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You assume things that are basically absurd. 1. There was no statement that this was a global account. 2. No statement that other wikis approved of it. and 3. En wiki has clear standards that recommend non Latin text should probably be turned to Latin text because of people reading it and other problems. That is rather blatant in -our- policies. I recomend you follow -our- policies if you are going to work in the field. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC the foundation made us change our username policy to allow names in foreign characters years ago in preparation for SUL and it is no longer acceptable to block a username simply because its in Latin characters. You are being waaay to dogmatic here Ottava and the badgering really needs to be wound down a bit please. Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this is still going on. Ottava Rima, not only are you being dogmatic, you are being dogmatic about the opposite of our policy. Please go back and read that section again. You might find yourself enlightened by things you might have overlooked, such as the difference between a username and a signature, and the entire sentence "There is no requirement that usernames be in English". Also, you might want to stop and consider my contributions before you go on telling me on my talk page that I don't know anything about the username policy. Hint: what area of policy have I been chiefly concerned with for the last two years? rspεεr (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See here for an explanation on why Rspeer and not IMatthew is wrong about UAA and our standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I disagree with RSpeer, but he's generally very clueful at UAA so this makes me doubt my opinions. I see Ottava is giving him hell on his talk page.  I'll come back here after I know what I'm talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, my position is that IMatthew and RSpeer are both right, they're just answering different questions. This is why I really liked IMatthew's answers.  IMatthew answered the question that was asked ... What admin actions would be appropriate? ... and that includes appropriate responses to, for instance, vandals ... and yes, repeated characters in a username are a pretty good clue that you may want to look for vandalism in the edits.  RSpeer is answering two questions: Should this have been reported to UAA? (No, they should have been reported somewhere else, or discussed with the user ... but IMatthew takes the position that a conscientious admin deals with the problem he's handed, regardless of where it was reported).  Also, RSpeer is concerned about bias and incorrect results at UAA. (So, he doesn't approve of reporting a non-Latin name just because it's not Latin, a block is not supported by WP:U. OTOH, IMatthew is correct that you can't make the call if you don't know what it says). - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the immature attitude I've seen from the candidate on RFAs and RFBs. We need admins know how to handle and reduce conflict in a calm and mature manner and I don't see that coming from this editor. Auntie E.  18:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Per wishy washy ambivalent UAA attitude. Rspeer says it perfectly.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per Rspeer and Wisdom.-- Giants 27 ( c  |  s ) 19:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have explained how Rspeer's claims contradict our current standards and policies here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, by now you've stated on my talk page that I should not work in username policy and should not be an admin. Oddly enough, I'm not going to say the same about you; I'm sure you're angry and will go back to being reasonable eventually, but I would appreciate if you would admit your error and back off. If one good thing comes out of this conflict, it'll be to put to rest some lingering misconceptions about the username policy. rspεεr (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rspeer, your comments and responses make me unable to assume that any of your comments in regard to UAA or to this RfA have been done in good faith. It also brings questions to your understanding and your actions at UAA. Your soapbox promotion of patently false interpretations of our policies and processes is extremely problematic. I have consulted others in UAA and I do not come to this declaration lightly. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The answer to the UAA question is enough for me to oppose. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you opposing because you disagree with his answer or because it's the wrong answer? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * yes to both. I'd expect anyone answering the question to explicitly comment on the edit first rule for all but the most unacceptable name and the candidate skated round it. Secondly, I'd expect an admin candidate to be able to take a decision without needing to consult someone else. Either you trust yourself to make the call or your don't; but if you don't it begs the question whether you have the confidence to use the tools at all. Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement above flies in the face of administrator tradition. Admin are not an "army of one" and an admin discussing -any- administrator action should -never- be looked down upon. That you would hold it against someone following this belief is really disrespectful to how things operate on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you say on my talk page. I'm sure that its OK that we have a different opinion about this point. I simply don't accept that admins need to discuss every admin action in advance. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not okay. Your opinion is absolutely destructive. You are blatantly attacking someone who wishes to consult other admin. That sets an extremely damaging precedent and goes against most of our core traditions. He never said he would discuss every issue. He only said he would discuss the user names in order to handle it most appropriately and gave reasons -why-. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't misconstrue what I said. I'm not attacking anyone for wanting to consult someone but IMatthew states quite clearly that they would consult another admin for each and every one of these names when clearly there is no need for this. If they think they are ready to be an admin they need to be willing to make a decision based on their own opinion and interpretation of the rules and guidelines round here. If they can't trust themselves to do this why should we and your badgering and aggressive responses to reasoned opposition is supposed to do what exactly? Please tone it down you are not doing Imatthew any favours here. Spartaz Humbug! 21:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification Spartaz. iMathew seems like a good admin candidate to me and I think cautious answers are to be expected, but I understand that there are concerns, and if you think they are serious enough to oppose over then I appreciate your doing so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "when clearly there is no need for this" If these names were as easy as you claim then they wouldn't have been listed. You have failed the question by assuming that they are easy. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Acalamari, specifically the oppose vote for someone having retired and then come back and gone up for an RfA. And then you did exactly the same thing. Hypocrisy amongst the bad parts of the current admin corps is bad enough, we don't need to add to it. → ROUX   ₪  20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Acalamari, and Roux. I'm sorry, but hypocrisy, and instability are certainly not among the best admin attributes...  Until It Sleeps  Wake me   20:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose based on a few things. 1) Immaturity or lack of general judgement and knowing when/how to keep calm, 2) the unfortunate hypocrisy diffs per Acalamari and Roux (that's kind of a big point to me now), and 3) the UAA answer, particularly because Matt intends to work there. The answer was noncommittal, and I'm agreeing with Rspeer to a degree. Something that I value highly is WP:CLUE, and I'm not seeing that here. However, I feel the need to point out that, first, your answer to the fair use question was fine although that's not my concern anymore, and second, Ottava is not an influence on my decision either way, and never was much. I just don't think Matt has the administrative maturity and reason within him at this point, and there's some solid evidence of that within this oppose section. Sorry. Jamie  S93  21:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral for now. (moved to oppose) From the various things I've seen of him, iMatthew does not instill confidence in me that he has the proper calm and judgement of an administrator. In several cases, he has participated in situations and–for lack of a better description–only made them worse (adding drama, unnecessary contention, etc.) This is not what I want to see in an admin, and the current (#1) oppose is an example of this. I understand that Matt has made improvements in maturity, so I will have to give this one some thought. I hate to add this as part of my "rationale" (it's not an important part), but a nomination from Ottava Rima does nothing to increase my confidence in the candidate. I'd have to bring up some diffs and evidence before opposing, although I am certainly leaning in that direction. Sorry. Best wishes with this RfA, hope it won't be too stressing on you.  Jamie  S93  13:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely, a nomination from someone whose standards for admins are particularly high, would be a good thing?  Majorly  talk  13:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Majorly, please strike your comment. I have no problem with people judging myself as a nominator and I would rather it not be drawn out into a dispute. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @ Majorly In theory, yes. Thing is, I can't label OR's admin standards as "high", but instead "different". ;) I don't have anything against him personally, but OR often opposes candidates who the community supports, and sometimes supports editors who may be good WikiDragons but not have the demeanor of an admin. Since we differ in views at RfA, simply, I'm not extra-impressed by an endorsement from Ottava. But it's a thought rather than a part of my reasoning, really, because it's truly about the candidate. Jamie  S93  14:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral. Not the correct temperament for an admin. Good guy, but I'm not sure if he's ready.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 14:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Jamie, except for the concerns about Ottava. I have to agree with Majorly re: admin standards. May change my mind one way or the other. → ROUX   ₪  14:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)  Moved to oppose, sorry. →  ROUX   ₪  20:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral for now. Edit summaries like this don't give me a lot of confidence in iMatthew's ability to stay calm under pressure. After leaving the professional wrestling project, he returned every few weeks with sniping comments, including a statement that the project as a whole should be taken to MfD. He seems to be making some efforts to rebuild bridges, but I would want a guarantee that he would not use administrative powers in a dispute with WP:PW members. I am also concerned by this user's numerous one-day retirements, including two this year, one of which was only 19 days ago. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have my word that I would never use the tools in a dispute with PW editors. That summary is from March, where I did have some problems maintaining a cool head over there (I do believe I'm able to keep a cool head anywhere now, as explained in Q3). The retirement, without getting into details, was due to an issue where I believed I was spending too much time on Wikipedia and not pulling the weight I felt I should have been pulling. Discussion with some wiki-friends helped me through that, and it's not going to occur again.  iMatthew  talk   at 14:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) @harej 15:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) * Deskana (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) **User:Bugs Bunney was here...ok it's just me Protonk (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I love the smell of signatures in the morning. — neuro  (talk)  21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Somewhat per Jamie, though I tend to think that OR has pretty good judgment in admins. Will revisit later. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I originally opposed, but the fact that Matthew's coach has supported this RfA strikes me as a good sign. Neutral for now. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 17:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.