Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matthewedwards

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

Matthewedwards

Final (66/8/4); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 03:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) - Matthew Edwards is a user who I came across while looking at FLC. The first thing I saw on his userpage was a Wikipedia:Featured topic (Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation) and instantly wanted to learn more. His article work on the Degrassi series is, quite simply, amazing. He's done a nice amount of work at the Help Desk (seems like every candidate I find does that), and his work at FLC has also been great. He also helps with policy discussion, such as at WP:MOS and WP:NFCC, and does what he can at different areas of wikipedia. If you look at his body of work and how much he puts in to this encyclopedia, you'd think he would have 3x the edit count he does. Lastly, he's a very well-spoken user, something which is always very useful for an administrator. I have no doubts he would make a good one. Wizardman 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 8 July 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Should I become an admin the biggest advantage to me would be that I would be able to edit the syntax of protected templates which fall under WP:DOC, CAT:SHORTFIX and User:Matthewedwards/Nowrap problems / WP:NOWRAP, instead of having to leave a note on the templates' talk pages. I kind of enjoy doing this sort of "secret background" stuff that most people don't notice, and the tool to edit permanently protected templates would be a big help. Leaving requests on talk pages is time consuming, and also pulls other admins away from stuff they could be doing. I've recently begun participating in WP:RAA and WP:UAA, so I would continue to do that, too. Something else I'd be happy to participate in would be CAT:CSD—esp WP:CSD#U1 as I'm a bit of an abuser of that, and always feel a little guilty when I'm distracting an admin away from something that is probably more important! I also keep my eyes on places such as CAT:COMMONS and CAT:NCT, so after getting comfortable with the tools I'd probably involve myself there.
Perhaps I should also say what I won't be doing as an admin. I'll freely admit that besides recently nominating some Degrassi stuff and a few other articles which I created a few months ago, I haven't participated in any Deletion discussions. I know this alone may garner a few opposes, and that is fine, but I'll also be open enough to say that because I don't participate, I won't be going around closing any XfD discussions either. That said, I do consider myself fairly intelligent and if there was an AfD with nothing but keep or delete !votes, I'm confident I wouldn't mess anything up if I did close it. Anyway, there is a great team of people who do that kind of work extremely well, and I don't need to go poking my nose in where I'm admittedly not comfortable.
Another thing I don't really do is much vandal fighting except for when something blatant pops up on my watchlist. To be honest, I find the tools too annoying to bother with. Because of this, I don't see myself blocking many users. Again, there are many admins who do this so well that it probably won't be something I do often. I do watch pages such as WP:ANB, WP:AIV, WP:ANI and WP:RFP, so I know the "rules" and acceptable lengths of a block. I assume I would have to do it at some point, so until that time comes around I'll just keep watching other admins.
So that's it. If I get the tools, the advantage for me would be to edit protected templates and stop bugging other admins. Anything else I do would be an additional bonus to the project.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think everyone likes it when they get an article or list to Featured status, and on a personal level I'm really pleased to have gotten eight Degrassi: The Next Generation related pages to FA or FL. I also have another two unrelated lists at WP:FL, and one currently nominated at WP:FLC. Besides that, I would hope that all my article edits have improved Wikipedia in some way. I participate at WP:FLC and try to review every nomination. I usually look for MOS-type things, and general spelling, grammar and punctuation. And I have recently become a director at WP:FLRC, which basically means that I close nominations after two weeks although I usually leave them open a bit longer than that.

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 have had a few run-ins with Robinepowell. [1] was the first (WP:DATE#Full date formatting is the section referred to as it was at the time). This brought on a bit of upset with IrishLass0128 here. I think I was pretty calm about it all. Since then, I've dealt with Robin again, [2] but in the end she was blocked for her edits. More recently I requested a WP:3O over "double-episodes" of Degrassi at the talk page.

Optional questions from User:Filll

4. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?

A. Yeah, I support its sentiment. It's basically the same as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, which we're all supposed to follow anyway. RfA is another area I haven't participated in much, and I'm only vaguely aware of some of the things that people find "stressful"(?). I don't know if simply adding a sig will change anything. Just because someone promises to do something, doesn't mean they will. Perhaps the Wikipedia:RfA Review will help.

5. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A.User:Matthewedwards/AGF Challenge 2 Exercise Answers

Optional question from User:NuclearWarfare

6. Define notability in your own words

A.If something has been discussed in a reliable secondary source, it is likely that it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. If something has been written about in published books, magazines or newspapers, it can probably have an article on WP. That said, I was going to create an article about Stefan Eriksson's car crash but as interesting as it is, and as widely covered as it was, I decided against it because of WP:NOT#NEWS.
I think the AfDs I made of articles I contributed and even created, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and the articles I've had Featured show that I have an understanding of notability far better than I could express it here in words. :(
I will attempt to ellaborate on this if you want me to, though.

Anti-fence-sitting question from Kmweber

7. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?

A.If we are to go by the policy, then no, they are never acceptable because "they inevitably serve to inflame the situation". That said, I do think that cool-down blocks probably are used sometimes, albeit disguised as being for different reason. If someone is angry enough to start attacking, threatening, harrassing, or edit warring, they alone are reasons to block.
If admins went around blocking people saying "you seem angry. You need to cool down so I've blocked you for 24 hours. Go take a walk in the park to calm down and come back tomorrow", there'd be problems. If admins block for the right reasons following WP:BP#When blocking may be used, even if cooling down is one of the purposes behind it, the stated reason behind the block is more likely to be accepted as fair by the blocked user, and less likely to inflame.
If you want to know if I would issue a cool-down block, the answer's no, I probably won't. I don't know if I can accurately enough judge someone's anger by the words they type, but I can judge how they have acted by their actions. But I don't see myself blocking anyone for anything for quite some time as I've already stated. That isn't why I want the extra buttons, rather I'd find them useful in my editing, and my contribs should show that.
I think you were a little hasty in opposing because I hadn't answered your question. I'd only made ten edits to WP between the time you asked and the time you opposed, and nine of those were in the first hour after you'd asked.

Questions from Ncmvocalist

Per invitation by candidate in response to neutral vote.

8. Given that blocks can be (and often are) undone, would you say that it doesn't matter too much if a mistake is made (in making a block)? Discuss.

A. Absolutely not. It is important we attempt not to make mistakes in anything here, as this reflects how Wikipedia is viewed, especially by non-Wikipedians. I'd like to answer this further, but I'm unsure whether by "mistake", you mean the blocking process got messed up, or that the wrong person was blocked, or that the duration of the block was considered wrong. Let me know and I'll answer futher.

9. What is your opinion regarding a policy requiring all edits by banned users to be reverted?

A. Ridiculous. I'd rather take the time to check and revert "bad" edits, and leave the "good" edits standing. What a waste of time to go re-reverting good edits. I'm sure people won't like it but I don't know what else to say here.

10. What effect does incivility among contributors have on Wikipedia achieving its purpose (and what is that purpose)? Is incivility treated more seriously than other policy violations? Why do you think so?

A. I'll begin by using my own experience as an example. I've only come across incivility one time (see Q3, and here the diff again). I was actually kind of shocked because everyone I'd dealt with until then had been great. At worst, only pleasant. I think I acted kind of petulantly, because I went away and started working on the page in question, and took it to WP:FLC, although it actually didn't get promoted. So from my POV, the incivility I experienced actually improved Wikipedia, because I worked to improve an article.
However, I can see how incivility can hamper WP's purpose, that is to create a factually correct encyclopaedia that everyone is able to use, and contribute to, without being made to feel bad. Looking at the list of uncivil things to do, one example could be if a new editor to WP begins to edit a page and add things that (for want of better words) are not allowed. A more experienced user may come along and start calling the new user names, "idiot", "n00b", "useless", or calling out his edits, "blatant rubbish", "crock of ****. Where did you come up with this?" Even if the new user wasn't doing things the "right way", he may choose to give up on WP because he sees it as an unfriendly environment, full of people who don't like things being tampered with. We may have lost someone who could have gone on be a great contributor, if only the time had been taken to explain the WP way. Then he goes on to mention in his Blog how abusive WP is against it editors.
I honestly don't know if incivility is treated more seriously or not than other policies. I don't think it should be though. Any occurrences of incivility should be treated as equally as any other policy infractions. Each policy is supposed to be adhered to improve WP.
To randomly pick two other policies to contrast; if WP:V were allowed to fall at the wayside to make sure everybody is super sweet to each other, WP would be full of false statements and about as much use as a chocolate teapot, so what would it matter if we were giving each other a bunch of xoxoxoxoxo's? WP would be known as being 100% untrue. If WP:NAME was seen as being more important, then we'd have a lot of pages using n or m dashes instead of hyphens and without redirects, or having articles such as charger being used to combine battery charger, Dodge Charger, San Diego Chargers and a bunch of others, instead of being the DAB page that it is. It's no good being easy on incivility, but strict on being precise and using parentheses where necessary in titles, and it's no good being strict on being civil and letting verifiability go to pot. They're all as important as each other, and none should outweight another.

11. Other than through protection and/or deletion, how else can administrators enforce BLP policy (or prevent BLP violations in Wikipedia)?

A.I would probably post something on the talk page of the problematic article, bearing in mind that BLP extends to talk pages as well as article pages, and asking the regular contributors about whatever it is being said. I'd also do some research myself. I also don't think I've fully understood your question though. According to Wikipedia:BLP#Preventing_BLP_violations, you already said what admins can do about it.

Question from User:davidwr

12. There is some concern over how you handled usernames that are arguably blockable. All policies have "borderline cases," where some administrators will take action and some administrators think no action should be taken, including the username policy. The edit linked in your first "oppose" appears to be a set of such borderline ccases. Please address the specifics of that edit below. Some questions for here: In general, how do you treat "borderline" usernames? Where do you draw the lines between "username okay," "username is probably not okay but an immediate block is not necessary/contact the user and ask him to change it," and "username must be blocked immediately?" As a result of feedback from this RfA, would you be willing to set aside your personal philosophy and only block usernames that were universally accepted as being blockable? Before you answer that last question, you will probably tick off some editors either way: If you say yes, it's an indication that you will put policy before your personal will, which some editors insist on. If you say no, it's an indication of administrator independence, which some editors insist on. Since you can't please all the people all the time, I really hope, correction, insist, that you answer this from the heart. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A.I'm glad I've been asked about this to be honest. I'll explain why I reported each name first. I saw "User:AlShartonIsRacist" and "User:AlSharptonIsRacist" as blockable for being personal attacks. I don't know who Al is, if he's a WP user, or someone away from WP. Either way, to call someone racist is unacceptable. User:InvestBrisbane and User:DryPodsOnline. I am aware that simply using a company name isn't explicitly prohibited, however, there is no doubt in my mind that if someone sees "DryPodsOnline" in a page history, it is BEANS enough to add a .com to it in the address bar. Same with InvestBrisbane. It just sounded too much of an advertisement to me. User:Wikipedus and User:James Whales because for a new user to WP, they seem too closely affiliated with Wikipedia. User:Upyoursbiotch because its disruptive and offensive, and User:Woolliscroftpaulanus created by User:Woolliscroftpaul with the extra word "anus" minutes after creating "Woolliscroftpaul", and who also began his WP career by vandalising. With User:Bill Romanawsky and User:Joshuajjackson, I assumed they were names of "celebrities" and reported them because real names can be blocked as a precaution until their real identities can be confirmed. However, I was wrong, because they were spelled differently than the famous people.
Also, this was the first time I'd reported any usernames here, not that I'm searching for excuses. I still stand by them, except those last two. I didn't know about WP:RFCN at the time, WP:UAA doesn't say to report "borderline" names there, only "possible violations when the user has already been notified and had a chance to discuss.". If borderline names should be reported there (as suggested by Wisdom below), UAA should be updated to say that. Any "borderline" names I come across in future will get reported to RFCN, or I'll leave a note on their talk page explaining our username policy and asking if they would be willing to change their username to something more appropriate/acceptable.
As for blocking, I've already said that I don't plan on doing any blocking for some time. I may do in the future, and I've had UAA on my watchlist since that day I made the reports, so that I could learn what is accepted and what isn't, but blocking people isn't why the tools would be an advantage for me. I understand what you're saying about towing the line and having the confidence to use my own philosophy. As with anything, it'll probably end up being a balance between the two. It's impossible to say where I would draw the line but you can list some fake usernames here to test me if you want to.

Additional question from BigHairRef

13. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, when required to judge consensus, what weight do you give to a "Support/Oppose per X" or a similar !vote (X being another user who has !voted) without further explanation; assuming that the reason that X gave was not obviously applicable and the only likely reasoning?

A:

General comments

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

• Links for Matthewedwards: Matthewedwards (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/Matthewedwards before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom. Wizardman 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Support He has been helpful, especially when I was first starting out on Wikipedia :) Gary King (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Support per nom, and per his excellent, always constructive work in the FLC area. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Biggest possible support I am actually unhappy that I didn't get to nominate Matthew. His work is a huge net positive for the project. That is what matters here. If we give Matthew administrative tools, it will do nothing but make Wikipedia better. I have the up-most confidence and respect for Matthew, not only when it comes to administrative work, but more importantly to expanding the encyclopedia. Matthew gets it, we are here to make an excellent encyclopedia, and he has contributed his own time and effort to not only creating excellent work himself, but also reviewing and correcting others' pages. He is well-spoken, mature, honest, hard-working, and knowledgeable. This is not even a question of whether or not I trust he will not abuse the tools, because that is an easy answer. I trust Matthew will be a great admin and the project will greatly benefit from his work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Support: Candidate looks well rounded. Has an excellent amount of experience in multiple areas and edit summary looks good too. I think this user would make an excellent admin and would do nothing but help the project with the addition of the tools. I don't see anything alarming in the contributions either.  Orfen  ^T • _C 05:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. This user appears responsible, personable, and doesn't display any tendencies that would seem to indicate he would misuse the tools. He would also be a "writing admin" which I think our project needs. S. Dean Jameson 05:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Definitely. I even awarded him a barnstar back in May. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Why the hell not. SQL^{Query me!} 05:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - knows his strengths, his limitations, and the right use of admin tools. — Athaenara ✉ 05:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. I know this user from FLC and he's done some excellent work there. If the only thing he's done wrong is UAA then I'm definitely supporting. Good luck, Matt. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 05:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Support, can trust him to use the tools effectively. Bencherlite^Talk 06:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - dammit, if I had known about this earlier, I would have offered to co-nom :p. In any case, Matthew is definitely a very knowledgeable and dedicated editor, with superb content contributions and excellent work at WP:FLC. I trust he will use the tools well. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support, I've "met" Matthew at FLC and am impressed by him.-gadfium 06:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Lower on the edit count than I'd prefer, but he does do good Fx work and shows an interest in helping users, things I think are good. MBisanz ^talk 08:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Support -- user has done a lot of great work. I agree that a few of the UN reports were questionable but consider it no big deal (they were pretty borderline, after all). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 12:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. The missteps at UAA give me a little bit of pause, and he did just get through with picking my FL candidate into tiny little pieces (I kid on the second item there, just in case the humor doesn't translate well), but it's certainly not enough of an issue to cause me to withhold support. Shereth 13:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Support -- demonstrably keeps a cool head during disagreements, and seems to have enough common sense not to use the tools in areas where he doesn't have experience. Scog (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Support No reason to oppose. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Weak Support Wisdom89 makes a good point with that link, but not enough to oppose for me. America69 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Well-rounded, trustworthy editor. LittleMountain5 15:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Certainly. Nousernamesleft (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Strong Support - a glowing candidate! Article building is fantastic, as is Wikipedia-space participation. As Wizardman says, an extremely well-spoken user, which is an asset to any admin. Thoughtful answers to the questions too. Lradrama 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Both his prose skills and his work on style guidelines pages are very much appreciated. Answers to questions are good, and the slight muffing at WP:UAA is not too much of a concern, given that he's committed to do the things he has experience with and be careful with the things he doesn't. It's quite difficult to operate on pages that largely concern conflict (such as style guidelines talk pages) and always come off as pleasant and open-minded; impressive. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Support—Since he ended up being right on most of the UAA reports (most were later blocked) I don't see that as a concern. Most refreshingly, the candidate states that he wont work in areas he has no experience in. I believe he will limit his use of the tools to the areas he feels comfortable with. Livitup (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Constructive manner at FLC would seem to suggest a user who is appreciative, civil, well-focused and optimistic. Other work like at the help desk is excellent. Rudget (logs) 17:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Support as candidate appears dedicated to improving the project. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Support - Matthew or as I know him as, "Featured List Guy", has been really helpful to me where ever I have come across him. His work at Featured Lists is good, as I see him either reviewing or nomminating FLC's, I can see him becoming a great a admin. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
28. Support I think those UAA reports were good calls.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 20:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
29. Per KojiDude (omg!) - also, he's clearly here for the right reasons looking at answer #2. Al Tally ^talk 21:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Any positive use of the tools is a net gain; I don't have any problems with the candidate's answers to the questions. Best of luck to you. GlassCobra 21:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
31. Support - The guys a wiki genious. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Very impressed with user's contribs. No indication they will misuse the tools. Thingg^⊕⊗ 23:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Support - I believe that Matthewedwards would make an excellent admin. Wisdom's diff's are somewhat concerning, but I believe that he will learn from his mistakes, now that they've been pointed out, and not act inappropriately. Fraud ^{talk to me} 23:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
34. Support. Meets my criteria, has made a few UAA mistakes (who hasn't?), seems capable and willing to learn. No hesitation on my part. Excellent contribs, good article work, good civil talkpage communication. All ideal for an admin candidate. Go easy on username blocks when just starting out - I trust you to use the tools properly with minimal drama. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Speaking from personal experience, when one is blocked, they are allowed the option to challenge the block and another admin can review it. When I made my blocks, they usually were upheld, but with a second pair of eyes you garner better judgment. There is a reason for an unblock button. Pass go, collect adminship. Yanksox (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Interacted with him multiple times, have nothing but good things to say. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
37. Support. Dedicated, trustworthy editor. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 07:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
38. Support  Channel ®   10:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
39. SupportCheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Others said it best...and earlier. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
41. Support per the diff cited as a reason to oppose. Aggressive reporting of questionable usernames can help us catch accounts vandals are trying to age before they even reach the four-day limit. Problems that admittedly exist with UAA should be solved at UAA, not at an active editor's RFA. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
42. Support - as meeting my standards, and being bold and proactive in reporting concerns. Looks OK to me, except he's a bit limited in types of articles edited. 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) [3]
43. Support Nice FLC reviews. Maxim_(talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
44. Support Dedicated, helpful user. Per the nominator. --Cameron* 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Rfa's ideally should be about trust. Those who we trust should be given the tools, and people we don't trust shouldn't be given the tools. I trust this user will at least use the tools sometimes, I trust this user won't delete the main page(misuse the tools), and I trust he'll act in an appropriate manner, thus I must support him. Good luck!--SJP _Chat 19:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
46. Support per a number of pleasant interactions. He's a good article and list writer, and a good editor. Although the diffs in the oppose section are valid grounds for concern, I believe that Matthew will be more cautious in the future. He'd make a fine admin. Good luck! PeterSymonds (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
47. Support Very strong editor who's not afraid to get his hands dirty. Should make an excellent, hands-on admin. Drewcifer (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
48. Support, with an urging to take it easy on the borderline usernames. –xenocidic (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
49. Support - He's reviewed nearly every list of mine at FLC, and would make a great admin. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
50. Support - Excellent answers to questions and excellent article edits. NuclearWarfare (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
51. Support - He knows right from wrong and has great morals. He will probably make a great editor. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
52. Support - Looks good! Tiggerjay (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
53. Support - never interacted with this editor so I have no horse in this race. Edit history looks good. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
54. Support. He's a fine contributor. Axl (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
55. Support, because he's willing to do stuff himself, rather than go crying to someone else. His FLC reviews help, too. Those UAA reports don't worry me, and I am extremely disappointed that, considering all the work Mattewedwards has done and the lack of active admins, one possibly questionable report prompts an oppose. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    More like 9 or 10 that I saw, which more than convinces me of questionable judgment. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 10:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

56. Weak Support. You just be careful ;). Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
57. Support Matthew does stirling work around WP:FLC and so a lot of his edits are naturally outside the mainspace. However, he's completely commensurate with what constitutes the building of a fantastic on-line encyclopaedia and is generous with his time. What people here need to consider is "Would making Matthew an admin result in a net gain for Wikipedia?". The answer is unequivocally yes. I believe he will never abuse the tools and if he (like many of us) makes a mistake, he will apologise, correct it, learn from it and become an even better Wikipedian. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
58. Weak Support Because, while you contributions are great, most of your GAs and FAs are on one subject.--LAAFan 18:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
59. Qualified support per general competence and not evading hard questions. Issues dealing with how he will apply blocks or deal with other contentious issues aren't as important since he will be focusing his admin work in other areas. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
60. Support Excellent contributor to Wikipedia and never steps aside when asked for help. His work at WP:FLC is outstanding and having him as an admin will only benefit Wikipedia and its users. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
61. Support Net positive. I doubt any/many admin edits will be with usernames. Rationale for questioning the names was reasonable even if some might be borderline. No one is perfect or knows everything. Royalbroil 00:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
62. Support Well rounded contributor Five Years 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
63. Support an intelligent and independent contributor and will probably make a good admin as well. DGG (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
64. Support good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
65. This appears to be another great candidate brought to us by Wizardman. Acalamari 02:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
66. Support Excellent contributer to Wikipedia. A few WP:UAA reports won't hurt and I believe he's learned his lesson. Besides that, great candidate. -- RyRy (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose - Per [4]. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   What's wrong with any of those UAA (other perhaps than wikipedus, 'cause I really don't see how that would give the impression that he's working for wikipedia)??? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe he doesn't like the fact that 10 were added at once? I dunno. Most of those at first glance seem blockable, so it's possible. Wizardman 04:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   So... Matthew has to spread his edits out a bit more? :) Gary King (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   Most of those were not blockable IMUAAO. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   Additionally, this does not require UAA reporting and the use of the term "potential" speaks volumes, this user didn't even edit. It's reports like these that really irk me. No offense to the candidate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   Bringing to attention does not mean "Ban this guy right away". It means "Hey, there might be a problem with this one, let's talk about it in greater details". The fact that a username is inactive is not a reason to not block it. If someone makes an account with the name User:GENERALMOTORS, chances are that a) user won't be active, b) account was made solely to advertise c) user is up to no good. In the case that neither of them applies, then user can register a better username. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, that's precisely what UAA is for: Immediate blocking. We have talking templates and WP:RFC/N for potentially problematic usernames. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough. I went by the name of the page, not by content. My bad. Still, with the possible exception of Wikipedus, I really don't see the problem blocking any of those. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   The problem with blocking some of those is that some aren't blatantly bad and could be good faith user names. Blocking does not just mean blocking the account, it means blocking the person, and one block can turn off one good editor, which is of course bad. That said, I think history has shown that users are a lot more liberal with reporting, and a lot more conservative when they get the tools and are actually technically able to block an account. The question here is, do we trust the candidate and feel that any negatives they may have will be outweighed by positives they bring to the table? This goes with the whole "net positive" argument, that no one is perfect, so long as there mistakes are small and corrected, and that they are a "net positive" to the community. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   You would have no problem blocking someone for being named "Bill Romanawsky"? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   I want to make this clear, you are addressing Headbomb, correct Rspeer? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   Yes. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   FWIW, how else would someone learn what is appropriate or not other than posting to things like UAA? Even if some of them got smacked down, I'm betting that was a learning experience. Reading the policy is all well and good, but how do you learn to apply it practically without trying? I get the impression he won't use admin tools on areas he's unfamiliar with, choosing instead to particapte as a non-admin in those areas first, if they interest him. Livitup (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   I too am not particularly upset--most of them were probably blockable, though some a little dubious. It's the way to learn. DGG (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose. From the UAA diff that Wisdom has already cited, I fear that Matthewedwards would be too loose with the block button. I talked to him about those reports, and although he was nice enough in his response, I'm not impressed by his explanation that he wanted to block User:Joshuajjackson for fear that he would impersonate Joshua C. Jackson (who? Also note the different middle initial.) and User:Bill Romanawsky for impersonating Bill Romanowski (again, who?)
   It's not like the minor differences in the names are the deal-breaker, either -- if I met a Wikipedian saying his name was Joshua C. Jackson, I wouldn't be reaching for the block button. An admin has to be willing to consider multiple explanations. Is this person impersonating a minor TV actor? Or is he just editing Wikipedia under his own name? I'd think it would take an unfortunate level of distrust of newbies to even consider the first in the absence of any evidence, but that's what Matthewedwards did. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   Just for the record, Matthew has stated explicitly in his answers to the questions that he will be using the block button very sparingly, if at all. S. Dean Jameson 11:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Weakish Oppose per diff by Wisdom. Having recently had an issue taken with my username, despite having an explanation of it on my userpage, I am now wary of folks who dont... (how do I put this without coming off like a douche, because I dont want to seem like I am) assume better faith. Its now a knee jerk reaction. Sorry, dude. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose Wont take the risk of a trigger happy admins per wisdom's diff.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose for refusing to get off the fence and answer a simple question. It's not a trick question at all. We don't need people who are afraid to take a stand publicly because they know they won't be able to please everyone. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

   For other folks, see here to follow the substance of the oppose. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Weak Oppose Despite Kurt's bad faith intentions, I don't like the avoidance of his question. Also, if cool-down blocks are bad, why have I seen so many admins engage in this practice? Maybe they dodged that question in their RFA, as well. Combined with the UAA problems, I don't trust the user's judgment at this time. SashaNein (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   I see his answer as a realistic recognition that although we are not supposed to call them that, what we actually do has that effect.DGG (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

   Weak oppose per Wisdom89 and Rspeer. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose - Too inexperienced, not enough article edits, too many WP edits. Are we building an encyclopedia or a model community of the future? What's the rush? Are we in some kind of dire state of admin-drought I wasn't aware of? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

   He has a featured topic, aka a group of featured content. How is that not enough article edits? Wizardman 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I'm assuming you mean a lack of quantity or variety, rather. Took me a lil whiel to figure it out. Wizardman 18:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

8. Weak oppose - Wisdom has made me a little nervous about voting to give this user a block button... hm.  Asenine  19:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral likely to support, but considering Wisdom89's diffs. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 17:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral confirmed - still not convinced either way. A bit more time, experience and involvement in admin areas would be ideal in any event. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Not convinced - more Q&A needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   By all means, ask me something. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral: Looks good overall in many respects, but my enthusiasm over this candidate was significantly curbed by concerns voiced by Wisdom89 and Rspeer. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral (likely to support): per Wisdom89's diffs, low edit counts and less edits other than the comfort zones. I havent decided completely yet -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 18:50, 12 July 2008 (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.