Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MatthewUND


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

MatthewUND
Final (21/9/10) ending 09:08 8 February 2006 (UTC)

– Significant contributor with 3290 edits so far. Opes 22:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See his edit count here


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I gratefully accept the nomination and hope to serve the Wikipedia community further in the future. --MatthewUND(talk) 08:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Strong support. - Major contributor.  Along with Alexwcovington,  they both have contributed to the majority of articles in ND, and western MN. (Opes 22:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC))
 * 2) Support, looks OK to me. J I P  | Talk 09:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support All in 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, the distribution of a user's edits should not be a bar to adminship. Let's address the liklihood of the user abusing the trust of the community. Hiding  talk 14:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Edivorce 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. This person will not abuse the admin tools. — Wackymacs 18:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I looked through MatthewUND's contributions and I found them to be very good. He is always nice, especially to newbies, calmly explaining policy to them, on user talk pages. He has participated in AfD, albeit, not very much, and I think he has the necessary understanding of Wikipedia to be a good admin. And he's actually been here longer than me :-).--Alhutch 20:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I checked his edits and it seems like he uses talk pages when appropriate.  The vast bulk of his topics and edits are non-controversial.  There is no need for chatting just for the sake of chatting. -- DS1953 talk  22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Very high percentage of trivial cleanup type changes which do not require discussion.  Not everybody needs to be an all-rounder.  Regards, Ben Aveling 02:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong Support. MatthewUND's cooperation and dedication to articles on North Dakota is invaluable.  He has done an absolutely stellar job from the moment I saw him on the scene.  I can't name another user I'd support more for adminship.  -- A l e x W C ov i n g t o n  (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support With this much experience this user should have been given the job a long time ago Mjal 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]
 * 12) For all his good work on articles relating to NoDak, Oz, and other fantastic places, strong friend of Dorothy support. Jonathunder 23:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. No big deal. Proto t c 11:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. He does what Wikipedia editors should do: writes good articles. David | Talk 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, no compelling basis for opposition, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) SuperBowl Sunday Support [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Level-headed editor. H e rmione1980 00:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) support: Certainly dedicated to building an encyclopedia.  Ombudsman 05:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Would be a good admin. Siva1979 13:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support: seems like a nice person. Thumbelina 02:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support: Would make a great admin, has helped me really get started. He has been very friendly and welcomed me into Wikipedia as a fellow North Dakotan. --Driken 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose based on lack of talk, user talk and Wikipedia edits - not enough interaction with others. Consensus and other policies may not be fully understood. NSL E (T+C) 09:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per NSLE. -- Nacon Kantari  e |t||c|m 13:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per NSLE, but good answers to questions. Try again in two months. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 14:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per NSLE. I agree editor will make a fine admin in a few months. Xoloz 16:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per NSLE. Generally looks good, but interaction and policy are obviously important areas for an admin, --pgk( talk ) 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per NSLE, maybe later --Jaranda wat's sup 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per NSLE, looks like a great contributor; get some experience in other areas of Wikipedia and you'll have my support 100% next time. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose only 44 edits to project space. Difficult to believe he has sufficient familiarity with administrative processes, though I'm sure Matthew is a good writer. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  14:59, Feb. 4, 2006
 * 9) Oppose. Low talk, user-talk, project and project-talk namespace edits, indicating lack of community participation, and infamilarity with Wikipedia processes.-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  16:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. I may change my vote later on. Sadly, I can't support you as per NSLE. You have many article edits which is good. Try again when you have more project, project talk, talk and user talk edits. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral until more project/process experience. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 15:33Z 
 * 3) Neutral; good editor, but very few Project edits, low edit summaries on minor edits. smurray inch e ster (User), (Talk) 17:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral; good, well rounded user with an attitude I really admire. I just can't get over the fact that he has very few Wikipedia namespace edits. (Scratches burning editcountitis itch) -- §  Hurricane  ERIC  § archive 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. More experiences with project pages like this one will be better.--Jusjih 03:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. Would like to see more edits in Project space, hard to get a feeling for how you would deal with these areas. xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  05:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral, per NLSE. Getting more involved with the community always acquaints you with many different policies, et al.. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Not sure yet. --M e rovingian { T C @ } 08:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral, perhaps later. :) - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) NeutralPschemp | Talk 01:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 91% for major edits and 30% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 09:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See MatthewUND's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
 * I just thought I should address a few things that have come up. As far as my not having participated on too many talk pages, I realize that I should be a little more outgoing perhaps, but I don't really think that this is a major problem in my case.  As of late, I have been trying to  use talk pages more and more.  In the past, I have had a habit of using the edit summary to discuss changes that I, or others, have made to an article instead of using the talk pages as much as I should.  If you look through my contributions, you will notice that my edit summararies are often much longer than a usual edit summary so I have had a lot of communication with other users through the summaries.  I realize that it would probably be better for me to use talk pages more and I will be happy to do so.  I also have recently been welcoming newbies on a pretty frequent basis.  It might be helpful for me to mention the fact that I probably haven't spent as much time interacting with others on talk pages because I have spent most of my free time working on articles.  Also, it could be argued that, the fact that I haven't had a great deal of comments on my user talk page shows that few Wikipedians have had a problem with me or my edits.  As far as WP policy goes, I disagree with the arguement that I am unfamiliar with the process.  I have been a member for over a year and I feel that I know the policies of Wikipedia quite well.  A new administrator should always take a "refresher course" in policy anyways.  I assure you that I have, and will continue to, study WP policy.  --MatthewUND(talk) 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)



Questions for the candidate

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:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. I would be willing to help with any chores in which the community sees a need.  I can see myself certainly working with the backlog.  I check out what's going on with my own personal watchlist and the community as a whole many times throughout the day so I would be likely to help out in the area of routine monitoring of the community - maybe checking new pages, speedy deletions, or watching for vandalism.  Above and beyond any sysop chores that I would participate in, I would hope to keep up my level of working on individual articles - either creating new ones or revising/expanding existing ones.  I feel that if I became an administrator, I would not really have "special powers" or "control" over other Wikipedians, but instead I would consider my new role to be as someone who has always wanted to help Wikipedia grow and prosper and now has some new capabilities and a renewed desire to do just that.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Of all of the articles that I have worked on, I am most pleased with what has been done to the main article about my hometown: Grand Forks, North Dakota.  When I first started about a year ago, this article was very short and certainly not a comprehensive description of the community.  Now, although certainly not perfect or 100% complete, I feel the depth and quality of information presented has been improved many times over.  I have also worked extensively on numerous articles relating to both Grand Forks, North Dakota, and other communities and institutions in the region.  I would hope to make Wikipedia the preeminent online source of information about the state of North Dakota because, in my opinion, Wikipedia should (and is fast becoming) the preeminent online source of information on countless topics.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have 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 remember being intimately involved in any major conflicts during my time here.  I'm sure we have all come across minor disagreements and we have probably all once or twice hit the "Save page" button a little too fast.  If I ever realize that I have made a mistake, I try to apologize in the appropriate manner.  If I were to encounter stress in the future from another user, I would take a few deep breaths and try to see the disagreement from their perspective.  I know that being an administrator would give me an even greater desire to be respectful of other users and a willingness to try to peacefully end any conflicts that I come across.  I really do respect the role that administrators have in being good examples of sportsmanship.  I wouldn't take the responsibility lightly.
 * Just my two cents: I really like that attitude. -- §  Hurricane  ERIC  § archive 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 4, Is MathewUND (completely) human?
 * I assure you that I, MatthewUND, am fully human! (oops...forgot to sign this earlier...it's by me...--MatthewUND(talk))
 * No bot assisted edits? If not, you type very quickly.  Regards, Ben Aveling 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I assure you, no bot assisted edits. For the longest time I wasn't even sure what a "bot" was so I certainly wasn't using anything like that.  I do type very quickly.  However, I'm guessing I know why it looks like some of the edits come so close together.  I use Firefox which enables me to simply use the middle button on the mouse to open a link in a new tab.  I often have a couple dozen tabs going at the same time!  I have a dial-up connection, so if I'm doing something minor to a group of articles (like adding a category to all of the articles) I sometimes find it faster to open up all of the articles at the same time, and then make the changes I want to all the articles, and then go back and save all of the articles.  Maybe it is an odd way to do edits but I find it works for someone like me with a slow connection who doesn't want to have to wait to load a page, make the changes, save it, wait to load the next page...and so on and so on.  It can be faster to just go ahead and open all of the pages, make the changes (usually the same minor edit to all of the articles), and then go back and save all the pages at the same time.  Anyways, no "bot" here.  I wouldn't know how to find, construct, or use one. --MatthewUND(talk) 22:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks!


 * 5. When would you use &#123;{test1}} to &#123;{test4}}, and when would you use &#123;{bv}}?
 * Well, I would use &#123;{test1}} to &#123;{test4}} to increasingly warn a confused (or sinister) new user who kept using Wikipedia as their own personal sandbox. The first warning is gentle...the fourth warning is (and should be) much harsher.  If a user was blatantly vandalizing a page (in a manner that was "extreme or obscene"), I would consider using &#123;{bv}}.  Everyone should realize that blatant vandalism is never welcome in such a project.  &#123;{bv}} and &#123;{test4}} are actually quite similar. --Matth e wUND</b>(talk) 05:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
 * I guess it depends on just how much beyond 24 hours the fourth revert happens. As with many things on Wikipedia, it would be important to use an ounce of your own personal judgement.  However, I would probably feel that I wouldn't really have the right to block someone if the fourth edit happens even just slightly beyond the 24 hour period.  If the same user repeatedly abused the system by making a fouth revert just outside of the 24 hour limit, he/she should be subject to the Arbitration Committee. --Matth e w<b style="color:green;">UND</b>(talk) 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 7. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?


 * 8. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?


 * 9. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.