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

Matt Yeager

Final (37/16/5) ending 22:21 February 5, 2006 (UTC)

Matt Yeager (talk · contribs) – I joined Wikipedia back in May after using it anonymously for a couple weeks. Since then, I've created a bunch of articles, along with a whole slew of redirects, as well as fixed countless grammar issues, bad links, and spacing problems. I've got over 2700 edits (Kate's tool), not counting edits on my own userpage. I'd like to become an administrator so that I could more easily stop vandalism, mostly. There are certain anonymous vandals who often are given seemingly free rein over high-profile, featured articles, and I'd like to be able to stop them. I don't mean simple test "vandalism", or inserting the word "poop" into a couple articles; I'm talking about repeatedly inserting an 800px picture of a penis into Columbine High School massacre. I've been in my fair share of disagreements on Wikipedia, winning some and losing some, but I've learned a lot from all of them, and I believe that I could handle administrator responsibilities without losing my head. Thanks for your time. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Oh, alright, if you insist... accept. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support - has my full confidence. Latinus 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In my one encounter, Matt showed a very great level of maturity. I expect him to fulfill this role very well. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I see this editor around, good work --Jaranda wat's sup 23:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. With only 79 edits to User talk space, I'm somewhat concerned about your low use of test templates to warn vandals. This issue, however, can be easily left as a suggestion for the future rather than a reason not to give you the tools now, in the light of all the good things you've done in your time here and your obvious Wiki-enthusiasm. Happy to support. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Lack of warning vandals is a problem, but can be easily fixed. Good luck. — Moe ε 00:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support with the minor concerns of Phaedriel and SWD316 in mind. Our encounter on Running up the score a while back was entirely pleasant. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Phaedriel. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I like what I see. Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Ugur Basak 01:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. strong Support though let me point out, there is no point in accepting a self-nomination. freestylefrappe 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Though I'd like to see more warnings for vandals on User Talk pages, my very positive experiences with this user outweighs those shortcomings. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Very good wikipedian; should be a very good admin. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. --TantalumTelluride 05:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I see no problem.--Jusjih 08:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Need more admins. - Haukur 17:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support this guy makes sense!  Grue  20:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. ok looks good. Derex 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - a good and competent user -- Francs2000 00:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support edits seem fine.--MONGO 03:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Merovingian {T C E} 06:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Supppppport.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support clean up wikipedia! good luck, you'll do well. User: Ncrown23334
  25. Support - Everyone has occasional lapses in judgment or understanding. I don't know that he'll be perfect, but I trust that he'll evolve with his duties. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 05:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Fear is ruining our society, lets not let it ruin Wikipedia. Croat Canuck 05:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. A user's belief on what Wikipedia policy should be does not necessarily infer he would be unable or unwilling to abide by it and assist in the enforcing of it. That's a fundamental lack of good faith, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Adminship is not a big deal. User is smart, polite and helpful. I saw no breach of civility on the Talk:e (mathematical constant)#Important_numbers, just an editorial dispute which came nowhere near to breachin any standard of etiquette or policies. To use a editorial dispute to oppose the user being granted an administrative position is misjudged, and unfair. Proto t c 13:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support good editor --rogerd 05:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per below. Discussion on e was a tad silly, but nonetheless thought-provoking. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:46, Feb. 2, 2006
  30. Strong support! as per this discussion. --M@thwiz2020 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. See why here, feel free to ask me for a more detailed reason. Would still like to see more talk page edits per other comments (e.g. warning vandals). Petros471 17:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support All in 05:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support, good editor. Extra points for having experience of conflict and showing maturity in dealing with it. I'm always dubious of supporting users who have spent all their wikitime peacefully contributing away in some uneventful corner (the way I had myself at my candidature, sad to say). And extra points for the selfnom of course! Bishonen | talk 18:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  35. Support I see no problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Adds colour and flavour to the encyclopedia and I'm a fan of self-noms as well. Leithp 11:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, quotes such as "it is not policy until it is voted on" imply a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia consensus. Radiant_>|< 11:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, his treatment of WP:ENC has been disappointing to say the least, showing an absolute insistence on holding outright votes to work out whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or not. In what manner would he close an AfD. Also, for a self-nom, the nomination is uncompelling, amounting to "I want to block the anons"; you can vandal fight without being an admin. -Splashtalk 16:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. While I am in favor of everything else the user has said, this seems to be Yet Another User "running" on the grounds of fighting vandalism. The other activities mentioned do not require administrative rights. Please see WP:ANOT. Avriette 01:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Per Talk:e (mathematical constant)#Important_numbers. —Ruud 06:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Splash, and -- more pressingly in this case -- per Ruud. If one doesn't have an understanding of what transcendental numbers are, one should probably have the good judgment to defer to others' judgments of e, or at least to phrase comments as tentative questions, rather than complaints. Strikingly poor judgment in that case and lack of humility, the two qualities I hold essential in an admin. Xoloz 14:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Splash. Also, probably should have deferred on the dispute over e.--Alhutch 16:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Reluctantly oppose, after reading the discussion on e. Jonathunder 19:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Too little time has elapsed since the lapse of judgement in the discussion of the importance of "e". Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I was about to vote in support, but after reading about e, I decided to change my vote. I do not see the truth in Matt's statement above, I've been in my fair share of disagreements on Wikipedia, winning some and losing some, but I've learned a lot from all of them, and I believe that I could handle administrator responsibilities without losing my head. From what I see in the e argument, he has not learned a lot and he cannot handle responsibilities without losing his head. Other than that, he is a good candidate. --M@thwiz2020 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (changed to support)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Splash and Radiant.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Practice WP:COOL for a couple months and you should be a "shew-win", as they say. ;) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Participation in debate on e was sufficiently silly to make me uncomfortable with adminship at the present time. Martinp 19:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I'm all for a low bar for admins, but you really do need to show the slightest modicum of a clue of how the place works first. Ambi 09:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Per Splash and Ruud. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. weak Oppose. I feel uncomfortable both with the discussion about "e", and with the discussion of Talk:Phoenix, see also the behavior at history of "phoenix". (Nothing wrong with regular users behaving like that, but not admins). Austrian 20:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Per Splash, Radiant, and Ruud. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per above, especially Splash and Ruud. Turnstep 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Not swayed either way particularly, good luck though. NSLE (T+C) 恭喜发财! 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Needs more user talk edits. But still does good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doesn't understand consensus or mathematics. I would suggest that someone claiming that e is not an important number in math/physics take a few math/physics courses before deciding to revert war on the article in question. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-1 03:23
  4. Neutral Agreem needs more talk edits. Pschemp | Talk 05:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I too am not swayed either way particularly. --kingboyk 06:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would appear that this discussion should have ended a few hours ago. Since I'm neutral I don't suppose it matters too much, but I've struck it out anyway. --kingboyk 06:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, it's not over until the fat beauracrat closes, I think the time is just a minimum. Leithp 11:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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. Mostly just simple rollbacks of vandalism and bans of malicious vandals. I might get involved in helping clear up stub-category deletion, as that's always clogged up. Helping with requested moves and protecting requested pages also would be things I'd be interested in doing.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, there's User:Matt_Yeager#Selected_contributions for the full list... but the ones I'm most proud of are running up the score, Washington State University, Issues in American football (more about that below), Tri-Cities, Washington, Microsoft Hearts, Diamond Rio, and the Rose Bowl Game.
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. Whew... let's see... e (number), Template:Exploding organisms, American football, and my current one, cohabitation. Ha, just TRY and find a common thread! Anyway, those are the biggies. On e, I objected to an unsourced sentence calling "e" one of the most important numbers in math. After a lengthy discussion (lasting over a week, as far as memory serves), a source was finally provided, and I dropped my objections. On Template:Exploding organisms, I wanted to put "human" on the list, with a link to spontaneous combustion... after a discussion, User:Lifeisunfair (now an admin) convinced me that I was wrong. On American football, an edit war (are steroids a big problem in football? How big of a problem is injury?) between two other editors was distabilizing the page. I moved the disputed section to a daughter article and facilitated the discussion. Talk:Issues in American football has most of the gory details. Currently, I'm in a very friendly disagreement with User:Aecis over cohabitation as it relates to the sourcing of articles. (Well, it's friendly now... =P)
I'd also like to add that I don't believe that I've ever crossed the line into personal attacks, nor have I ever violated 3RR (or the spirit thereof), except when reverting pure vandalism. If you think that my disagreements with fellow editors is reason enough to oppose me... I can respect that. If you have any other questions, fire away.

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! --Deathphoenix 23:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. When would you use ((test3))/((test4)), and when would you use ((bv))?
A. I wouldn't ever use ((test4)) unless I truly meant it (next violation means a ban). Otherwise, I'd use ((bv)). I don't know if ((test3)) would be something that I'd use any more than just plain ((test)) or ((test2)).
5. 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.)
A. I'd let it go the first time—you can't have admins blocking people without any real justification. I'd warn the user, too. If he danced around 3RR a second time, I'd post a very specific warning on his page. 3 strikes, he's out.
6. 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?
A. When I have even the slightest doubts about the article's unremarkable-ness, it would go to AFD.
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A. I'd seek input from other people. Otherwise, it's very, very difficult to achieve NPOV.
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A. The overapplication of WP:IAR; the fact that the closing admin of a VfD, RfA, FA, etc. discussion gets to decide what "consensus" is; the fact that most admins and other entrenched users seem to have a very low level of interest in improving the encyclopedia (try out Special:Random sometime and see how pathetic half of our articles are); the fact that certain rogue users often decide to insert ridiculous u's into perfectly fine words like "color" and "flavor" (kidding!); and the fact that admins are so slow at times to ban truly malicious vandals. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category