Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MatthewFenton 3


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

MatthewFenton
Final (5/24/5) ended 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

– I would like to nominate Matt to become an admin. He's been around for over a year now and I think he'd make great and sensible use of the admin buttons. His main area is TV shows, and he has created over 50 new articles in that subject. He's uploaded plenty of images, all correctly tagged (on commons as well.) For those who care he had two previous requests for adminship, both self-noms but the last one was almost 4 months ago. I'm sure he'll do a lot better this time ;) Majorly (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept, thanks! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing, what you see is what you get, I'm always honest with people and I've never hidden behind a thin veil showing a false image of who I am, thank you all for your comments. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I'm a contributor to Wikipedia at heart, and would not stop contributing to articles – I thoroughly enjoy contributing and making articles better – I also enjoy participating in XfDs and RfAs, my primary focuses should my RfA succeed will revolve around clearing the backlogs at CAT:CSD and WP:AIV, I already actively watch AIV and believe a British administrator would be beneficial to the project as I've noticed a tendency for backlogs to build when America “closes” for the night.


 * My secondary goal would involve working on XfDs (primarily, but not limited to: AfD) and helping out at the administrators notice board (which I already have watchlisted)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I've contributed to a wide range of articles at Wikipedia, mostly however I contribute to television related articles (for example: Battlestar Galactica, The 4400, Star Trek: Voyager and Earth 2) – I’ve created over 50 articles since joining Wikipedia, my most recent creation is List of Earth 2 episodes which I am presently working to bring to featured list.


 * I'm proud of the articles I create to benefit Wikipedia; it makes me happy to think that I am contributing to something like Wikipedia and that my contributions to our encyclopaedia will be made better and built upon by my peers.


 * 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've been in conflicts and I’ve regrettably been blocked before as well, I’ve made silly mistakes and choices in the past. I do believe I’ve improved my self and become a better Wikipedian, I had an RfC some time ago last year which I do believe was very helpful to me in improving my self.


 * I'm not perfect, I make my mistakes, I do believe I've always come out a better person however, I've learnt that the best solution when involved in a dispute is to walk away and take a break (enjoy a coffee..), and removing the disputed page from things such as watchlists until a time when you can return calmer and also more prepared for discussion after thinking things through. A Wikipedian recently told me: “That's what this place is about.. improvement through mutual co-operation :)” – and I agree with him or her.

Question from Samir धर्म (who usually feels bad for candidates who get a million questions on their RfA's):
 * 4. Matthew, can you comment on your block log please -- Samir धर्म  00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was hoping someone would ask, well sure, my first block by "A Man in Black" was in regard to a dispute me and him were having, he made an edit to which I opposed, I reverted this edit with my javascript, he blocked me because of this - the block was warranted however - I should have given an edit summary in a content dispute.
 * My second block was in regard to fictional character pages, one user/admin wished to merge several characters into one page, he did so under being bold - he was reverted by a user, Phil then redid his merge, the user reverted him again, Phil blocked the user at that time (at this time I was unaware of his actions) - I reverted Phil, he then redid his merge, I reverted him and then he blocked me, I was promptly unblocked by another admin however, by this time however a 3rd user had reverted Phil, he also blocked this user.
 * My 3rd block was for probably the silliest mistake I have ever made, nominating a featured article for deletion, while I did so in good faith I do see how it could be seen as disruptive. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Question from CanadianCaesar:
 * 5. Although I'm sure you learned from the Cynna Kydd incident not to speedy delete articles on the main page, can you say you understand the criteria for speedy deletion? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the incident I am much more knowledgeable in our CSDs (feel free to present a scenario) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide diffs for that incident for the viewers of this RfA? -- tennis man    sign here!  00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a long time ago, so I don't think opposes based on that incident alone would be productive, but FWIW it's here and  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Question from Teh tennisman:
 * 6. What does the policy WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how do you personally use them? -- tennis man    sign here!  00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules: My belief is that ignoring the "rules" is a last resort - we shouldn't ignore them because we can but because we must and only then so if it improves Wikipedia.
 * Snowball clause: I find it a bit overused in things such as AfDs however it does serve its purpose well in improving the encyclopaedia in a good way if exercised correctly. I'm of the belief snow should only be "called" if there is an actual clear cut consensus. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Question from WTFSuxor
 * 7. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?


 * A.When there is no vandalism on the article we shouldn't protect it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This is the only edit from User:WTFSuxor. Nevertheless, I think the question itself is good, and I would like to add a follow-up.
 * 7a. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article being actively vandalized? --Ginkgo 100 talk 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(Removed optional questions 8, 9, 10 &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs) 12:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

Optional Question from  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11. How old are you? (Note, you are not obligated to answer this if you feel it is an invasion of privacy) Do you believe it is proper to ask a candidate for RFA their age? Would the age of an RFA candidate affect your decision to vote for them? Should age be at all taken into account when voting for a prospective admin or should the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia?
 * A:


 * General comments


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


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool
 * First RfA, second RfA

Discussion



Support
 *  Beat-the-Nom Support Changed to Neutral (see my neutral vote)-- tennis man    sign here!  00:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Support as per my nomination =) --Majorly (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Even though I disagree with him on a number of things, he's been a pleasure to work with on various articles and conflicts. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- Matthew would be make an excellent resource as an admin. He's always been there for me when I needed help.  He knows his wikilaw, and he spends hours a day on WP; exactly the kind of admin we need. - Peregrine Fisher 01:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support i'm sure the majority of his opposition is deletionists against TV cruft. Sure we all can see based on Matt's edits its primarily TV series... but this sorta material is what historians write numerous books on... this information will be of significant interest in 20-30 years... and if not documented now entirely gone in 50 or 60 years. I see no reason Matt shouldnt be given the mop, he writes well, and his answers to the questions have left me satisfied.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 01:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that we're (at least I'm) not opposing because he's keepign what everyone's saying delete on. Rather, notice how he gives NO policy rationale for why he's voting keep on them, instead just saying "no reason for deletion" when there is a reason. -- Wizardman 01:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support - I supported last time and will support again, my comment from the last RfA still holds, a trustworthy user, with pleanty of experience with a large and decent (recently flawless) upload log --T-rex 05:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Strong Oppose. Looking through a nice chunk of your AfD's actually scares me. (Not even counting the indicents in preious noms). I'll look over your edits very strenuously in hopes that they can change my mind. Plus WP:DGFA worries me in your hands. Not only that, but I went through all your recent AfD edits, and you really don't seem to understand policy. And this is AFTER I've forgiven your blocks and the FA incident. -- Wizardman 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I have not seen any evidence that the issues brought up at Requests for adminship/MatthewFenton 2 and Requests for comment/MatthewFenton have seen substantial improvement.  I'm not at all sure that this user is clear about how to contribute well to discussion; , , and, especially Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Evidence.  Jkelly 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Seems to have a unique idea of what's encyclopedic (example) and the incidents referred to by Jkelly also concern me. SuperMachine 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) No way can I support a user for adminship who utterly misunderstands Wikipedia's fair use policy. We are here to write  freely redistributable encyclopedia; this is non-negotiable.  I fear what would happen if MatthewFenton were given the tools to put his views into action.  -- Cyde Weys  01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose. You haven't improved from your previous two RfA's. I can't support someone who still doesn't fully understand Wikipedia yet. Sorry.  Nish kid 64  01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose You've got pleanty of edits but that doesnt necessarily equal experience. At this point your contact with other users (as well as your edits) seem to opinionated and negative to earn you an admin. status, sorry. Gan  fon  01:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - I only ran into this user for the first time a few months ago, and since then, his actions have led me to believe he can't be trusted with admin tools. For a start, he seems to feel very strongly about articles he edits, to the point of implying authority on them and violating WP:OWN . He accuses other editors of bad faith and guideline violations, and yet refuses to acknowledge his own mistakes when they're pointed out to him (e.g. blocking return moves). This isn't the kind of attitude someone with adminstration responsibilities should have. His behaviour in the recent Naming Conventions dispute (the one which is currently at the ArbCom) makes me believe that had he been an administrator, he would have very likely used his administrator tools to his unfair advantage (e.g. during the move-wars he was involved in). In general, he is a very tedious and painful editor to deal with. His talk page for example, gets selectively archieved, often as fast as a single day (see this conversation). -- `/aksha 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose mostly per uncontructive behavior documented at Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence. I also have concerns about his understanding of policy.  Eluchil404 01:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong oppose. Even after forgiving the blocks (I don't care that they got overturned, you still did something to cause them), we have things like this. You can not just dismiss arguments by saying "you have no argument". -Amarkov blahedits 02:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Jkelly, SuperMachine, Yaksha and Amarkov. I do commend the nominee on his effort and patience in working on improving and waiting a respectable amount of time between RfAs, but I am not yet convinced on the issue of whether or not this candidate will use the tools as intended. Agent 86 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, not to overdo it here, but I echo the other users who find this editor to be rather opinionated and unhelpful on AfDs and elsewhere in project space. Not to say he isn't a valuable contributor, and everyone is welcome to their opinions, but I dunno that I'd support him as an admin (a group I feel must avoid controversy and incivility rather than court it.)-- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 04:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Ultra-Strong Oppose per everyone here, but especially Nishkid. Although many of your contributions here are impressive, your lack of Wikipedia policy is downright horrifying. I'd ask you to come back in a few months, but sadly I think that's out of the picture. This is your third nomination. Why the rush? I feel that your intentions are not as good as they seem if you keep coming here for nomination without sufficient growth as a Wikipedia user. So, not only are you not ready and not suited for this job, you also seem to be in some way politically motivated (not sure if that's the proper term) into getting the job of Administrator.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  04:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Other Comments I didn't want to do this (but WP:BOLD compelled me), but I think that this calls for my first time (possibly the first time in an RFA) that I'm going to have call WP:ABF into play. Yes, I know it (Assume Bad Faith) was meant as a joke (in order to contrast WP:AGF). But in this case with this user..... I can't see it not applying.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per AfD diffs provided above, comments on the "Don't Destroy" essay, and prior RfA involvement. I don't trust him with tools. Pete.Hurd 05:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose, especially per Nishkid64. It's too soon since your last RFA,considering you have done almost nothing to address the issues raised then. – Chacor 05:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. In addition to the less than sensible AfD participations I've also been witness to, the other issues such as the blocks and the RfCs raise too many red flags, sorry. Sandstein 05:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose based upon the diffs provided in the above contributions. You have a lot to learn about policy and interaction with the community before you can be trusted with the admin tools.  I recommend withdrawal at this time. (aeropagitica) 05:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No, no, no. I agree with comments by Nishkid, Chacor, Jkelly, Amarkov and just about everyone above. I just don't trust you anywhere near enough to hand over the mop cupboard keys and let you loose with the tools. I also support aeropagitica's recommendation of withdrawal. Sarah 06:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose and please fix your signature while you are at it. Not everyone has fantastic eyesight and I find it hard to read it. See WP:SIG --Spartaz 07:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with his sig? --T-rex 07:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's really small. You may not notice it (depending on our browser settings). But if you edit this page and scroll up to look at his sig, you'll notice there are and tags around his signiture. That makes his signiture text about half the size of normal text. So unless you like to read wikipedia on large font, his signiture is an eyesore to look at. -- `/aksha 09:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongest Possible Oppose - I would leave WP instantly if this person was made an administrator. No comprehension of or support for fair use policy. Totally unacceptable activities in RfC, AfD, and in his interactions with various users. Comes across as condescending, arrogant, and WP:OWNing articles and even edits. Image and even article contributions totally irrelevant when it comes to being suited for the tools. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 09:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely not.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per all the above. --Deskana (For Great Justice!)  10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Switched from Neutral because I read the RfC for this user. I cannot trust this user with admin tools, no matter how well he does in other areas.  Insane  phantom   (please comment on my Editor Review!)  10:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, absolutely not. Matthew's lack of understanding of core policies makes him unsuitable at this time to be trusted with the sysop tools.  Proto ::  ►  11:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong oppose per above. Matthew is an idiosyncratic user who with an idiosyncratic interpretation of policy. He has the unique knack of taking uncontroversial topics and making them controversial. For instance, a (protracted) discussion about adding colour to a TV infobox turned into an edit war. His attempt to get around consensus was exposed here. Performances at xFD (such as WP:TFD) are rather careless and imply a willingless to conveniently misinterpret to his own advantage. Exchanges like this are worrying: MF's characteristic response was to suggest RfC (eagerness to make mountains out of molehills, conflict and take things to a personal level were expressed at his own RfC). Finally, his oppose comment at Feydey's RFA show a severe lack of understanding of fair use policy, and contempt for those working to it. I can not trust him with the tools, which I am wholly confident that he will mis-use. The JPS talk to me  13:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) You're a good guy, you enjoy being here, and you work hard on the project; however, the comments made by the oppose !voters are hard to ignore. I suggest you withdraw for now without prejudice for another RfA after addressing the issues in the oppose section. -- Samir धर्म  01:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Samir, you have some positives, but also some a bit of inexperience, therefore, I am Neutral. м info 02:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) It looks like you have some positives, but almost an equal amount of negatives, but I still don't think you warrant an oppose vote as you do have those positives. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 02:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, changed from Support As I looked through your logs and edits a little more closely, as well as reading your answers to the questions posed, I realized that while you are certainly an excellent editor, your skills are still a bit rough and your knowledge a bit short for me to fully support you. Your block log leads me to believe that, while your blocks were overturned, you are fairly untrustworthy. Furthermore, your dismissal of arguments in AfD discussions makes me realise that you may not understand being civil as well as being reasonable. I still think that you would make a fine admin, but the day on which you become one is the day that you understand a little more about Wikipedia, tools, and policies. Then, I will fully support you. -- tennis man    sign here!  03:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning towards oppose - meets most of my criteria, but concerns raised by other users worry me about supporting. I don't tend to put too much weight on blocks, but it has happened a number of times. (I do not consider blocks made more than about 6-9 months ago, or are done in error, or was unfairly put. You can still try again if you show good behaviour for the next few months though.) Insane  phantom   (please comment on my Editor Review!)  09:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I've had at least one minor, rather lame dispute with Matthew which we can all laugh about now, so I recuse myself from voting and asking questions. I do however see much promise in this editor and hope to see him resolve his issues with the community and try again some day. &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs) 12:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)