Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matthew Yeager

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

Matthew Yeager

Final (7/17/7); Originally scheduled to end 04:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination withdraw by bureaucrat. --Deskana (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Yeager (talk · contribs) - I've seen and heard of this user many times all over Wikipedia. Matthew is an excellent vandal fighter, and contributed to AfDs. Currently, Matthew Yeager is involved in WikiProject Chess. Everyone, time to vote for Matthew Yeager for adminship! NHRHS2010 talk 04:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm pleased to have been nominated, I accept. MatthewYeager 04:42, 10 November 2007 (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: I would plan on being quite active in responding to WP:AIV, as I am familiar with the vandalism policies and process. As well, I would up for taking care of general administrative backlog such as closing WP:AFD, WP:RPP, WP:UAA and the likes.

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

A: My work on Wikipedia has, for the most part, been in improving the community and general maintenance. I've contributed to building an encyclopedia mostly through Project:Chess, rewriting WP:AFD proposed articles and random page improvements but I feel the best can be seen in the other tasks I preform. One of major things I've accomplished is a user script for generating all the different types of chess templates so that a user does not have to sort through countless templates or painstakingly enter every piece into the position. I also consider most of the little things I often do, to add up to also being some of my best work, such as my involvement in WP:AFD, general corrections with AWB and my work with adoptees.

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 not been involved with any conflicts dealing with editing. I am a fan of the 1RR and have no problem taking the editorial differences that might exist to the talk page or user page for further discussion before editing again. I've had my run in with vandals, but nothing extreme or memorable.

Thank you for your time, I'd be happy to answer any additional questions. MatthewYeager 04:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Nat

4. What is the difference between banning and indefinite blocking?

A: Banning is a powerful tool to stop disruptive users. Banning is also a very flexible tool, as it may not only be customized in duration but also in the location of the ban. To clarify, user "YEAGER" who seems to be particularly interested in Chess articles yet seems to have caused controversy with his constant POV. "YEAGER" has been warned about his actions. He continues to edit with these initiatives, yet seems to be motivated by good faith. Instead of completely blocking this user from the entire Wikipedia, it may be felt appropriate to ban this user from all Chess related articles for 36 hours or so. Now, banning has allowed us to solve the problem of user "YEAGER"s honest attempts at editing in the Chess section, cool the user down, demonstrating his actions are not appropriate for Wikipedia, while not completely restricting his privileges. If we determine there is a particular problem with Chess we can extend this ban without revoking edit rights in other sections, yet if we determine he has become disruptive to the Wikipedia community, then we would look into blocking. Blocking (indefinite or finite) is a tool available to protect the entire Wikipedia from a disruptive user. This tool can be most often found in practice when dealing with vandals \ vandalism accounts. Blocks are used as a prompt indication that the behavior exercised by the user will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. To expand on this, user MYEA is a new account which has been consistently vandalizing articles left and right for the past hour. MYEA has been properly warned, repeatedly. On top of this we find that all of MYEA's contributions are vandalism. In this instance we can conclude that this is a vandalism-only account and has no place on Wikipedia. Hopefully you can see the difference in the user YEAGER and MYEA's actions that lead each to different administrative actions against them. If clarification is needed, please let me know.

5. If you ran into a extreme POV pusher, and he/she has not committed any vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this individual?

A: If I was personally involved with this article \ user I would follow the steps outlined by Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution to reach a NPOV solution. If I was not involved, initially and instead this problem was brought to me for a solution, I would simply interact with the user explaining our policy and quickly discovering the intent of the user. If the user is here to make honest, good faith edits then we would not have a problem. The article in question would be reverted back to an agreed (by both sides of the POV dispute) neutral revision, and then we would begin following the outlined dispute resolution methods. To elaborate what that means, simply mediating the problem attempting to reach a compromise. If this is unsuccessful, we continue through the suggested methods (bringing in editors for comment on the situation, WP:RFM up to WP:ArbReq if needed). On the other hand, if this POV user has not committed any vandalism but is disrupting the article or Wikipeida, and will not calm down to properly discuss a compromise then further administrative action would have to be considered. A possible choice, would be to ban this user from the article \ topic in question for 24 hours-ish or protecting the page if it has escalated to a wide edit war. Either way, the intent would be give the user time to cool down and hopefully begin the dispute resolution method. To sum it up, I would take every step possible (that the user allowed. for instance if the user begins vandalizing and personal attacks, then he limits the steps available before administrative actions would be necessary) before administrative actions would be needed.

6. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?

A: My understanding of WP:NFC is as an exception to a policy of providing free-content. This exception has strict guild lines but exists for the overall betterment of Wikipedia as a whole. Paraphrased, it conveys that if there is no other possible way to depict "whatever" with using free-content, then if this image will add to the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia, it is permitted to use non-free content in the most minimal standards that will fulfill your need. Specifically in reference to promotional and non-free portraits of living people things become complicated. Not only does the image have to fulfill the outlined policy in WP:NFC but it would also have to remain WP:NPOV and follow the guild lines in WP:BIO. NFC is not to be taken lightly, but instead a decision made when no other choices are available. With that said, I would apply extra scrutiny upon images in this category to ensure proper legal and neutral standards are in order to protect Wikipedia, the example company and the example living person. This topic is very complex, if i have not covered the specific section you wish to speak about, please let me know.

7. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?

A: Absolutely. adminship is no big deal, I'm here to help with the tools. If there comes a time that I would no longer require the use of the tools (as decided by the community) I would happily request to have the tools removed. I believe that admins are placed in such a position by community consensus and should therefore be taken down from this position in the same manner, if needed. If successful, my first action would be to add myself to that category, without restriction for re-confirmation. I'm very open to other opinions, but I currently can not see the argument for not having this as a policy. At the same time, I do not feel it would ever need to come to that (re-confirmation), as I am willing to discuss any problems that any user has with any action I may preform.

8. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances should one follow that policy?

A: From my interpretation of Ignore All Rules, I feel it portrays the heart of Wikipedia, which is the overall development of Wikipedia and the constant maintenance of keeping it functional. Ignore all rules is here to reinforce following the intent of the policy not the exact words. My feelings are best represented by #6 which reads The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both. IAR isn't a reason for doing whatever you want, its for actions that may be against current policy, but are in good faith and supported by the majority of the community, while keeping WP:POINT in mind. The circumstance which IAR would apply is outlined above, but can also be reinforced by imagining this situation: lets say group of vandals have decided to vandalize a large set of articles (100s) before the issue is properly addressed. Now, due to this vandalism, 100s of pages are left in an unreadable state disrupting Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. With this dramatic effect, user MATTHEWYEAGER decides to run an unflagged bot without proper approval or discussion because he feels action needs to take place quickly to correct this otherwise immense effort to clean up by hand. In doing so, MATTHEWYEAGER runs the bot, not only without being flagged, but at a speed above recommendation. Although this may not have been the best choice of actions, I believe this is an instance where the user properly used IAR to the best of their knowledge, acting only in good faith for the betterment of the community. If my explanation or example has not made you clear on my position, please let me know, it was quite difficult to come up with an example. This example does not illustrate my actions, as I would have taken the time to notify the community and establish proper consensus before action.

Optional from Spebi

9. Would you be able to point out a specific article that you have substantially improved or worked on a lot? A part of your contribs ([1]) looks like you just revert vandal edits and fix typos (et al) with AWB.

A: Good question, I do admit my contributions are quite cluttered with AWB and Vandal Fighting. I have spent a good amount of time on the following articles \ developments: Kettering University, developing user script to generate chess templates, wiki code for a template that auto generates chess notation, King's_Indian_Defence are some of the places I've spent more of my time. I feel most my contributions, such as adopting 20+ users and guiding them through Wikipedia, can not simply be judged by my namespace edit count. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Optional from Zachary crimsonwolf

10. I'm referring to your answer in Nat's first question. As you said, banning 'YEAGER' for 36 hours, nyah nyah, gives him time to cool down. But what if he considers the action to be inappropriate? He might take that action to be an offence against him since he edit based on "good faith" and considers his edits "honest attempts".

A In this case, YEAGER has been given every opportunity to calm down and reach a compromise. If we have been through the dispute resolution process and YEAGER has not cooperated, then we have to consider what is best for Wikipedia. If he has not been able to properly explain and discuss what his changes are, and he is just set on editing the article (in good faith) the way he thinks it should be, then banning him for a certain about of time so that he can hopefully calm down and understand the policies and then have the cooperation that is needed to build an encyclopedia. I do not believe everyone can have common sense and be understanding to different opinions, but I would give YEAGER every chance to see that and help us out. I would say there is always someone who will think that they are right and that is all that matters, I would be sorry that YEAGER feels disrespected from being banned and I would wish for him to continue to contribute. Unfortunately, if he is unable to do it civilly and by following the Wikipedia guild lines and policies then he has no place at Wikipedia, despite how he may feel.

Optional Question from SJP

11. Are blocks meant as a punitive measure? Thanks for your time.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A Blocks are not suppose to be used as a punitive measure. Blocks are used to protect Wikipedia, from widespread disruption from a user(s). This may be to the community or to the articles themselves. For example a user who is in constant use of personal attacks to a vary of users or a user who consistently violates the integrity of Wikipedia through copyright \ legal violations should be considered for being blocked. Please let me know if you have a certain situation you would like me to reply to.

General comments

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

• Links for Matthew Yeager: Matthew Yeager (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/Matthew Yeager before commenting.

Discussion

• Note that this isn't the same user as Matt Yeager (talk · contribs). Picaroon (t) 04:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as a nominator. NHRHS2010 talk 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
2. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 05:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Your first name is my first name, and your last name is the last name of my cousin. That's not my reason for support though. I support because I think you're a good editor ;). Ρх₥α 06:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Support I've seen your edits, they are good edits and you would be good as an admin. You seem like the kind of person who would... well, be a good admin! Ryan 06:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   How have you seen his edits, when you have three edits to the mainspace, three to the Wikipedia-space, and less than a hundred overall, may I ask? Daniel 08:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Support. As an Adoptee of Matthew, I can personally say that he is an excellent wikipedian and will make a great admin. Along with his knowledge of wikipedia rules and etiquettes as well as his expertise with programming, he is ever-ready to help out users in any problems. He is also quite available to edit and improve wikipedia, and i'm sure that will continue if he's elected. Additionally, I think his edit count shouldn't count as inexperience. That would be a mistake. Look at his edits, and decide. Statistics are just numbers. Sniperz11^talk|edits 12:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. I agree with Sniperz. Edit counts are not necessarily importaqnt. "Quality, not quantity" as they always say. Anyway, I believe this user will be a good admin and give him my full support. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Moral Support, as I think the candidate is an excellent editor, and would be a valuable admin. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   Comment Should this RfA end unsuccessfully, I would encourage the candidate to reapply at a later date with more (and broader) experience, that being the concern voiced by my colleagues below. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   Very Weak Support This users lack of experience bothers me, but not enough to oppose. Since I do not believe that this user would be abusive, I have to support. Good luck.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 15:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Changing to neutral until my question is answered.

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose Seems like a good editor, but with only about 1200 edits, it doesn't seem to be enough to show how good an editor you are. I recommend about 3000 edits before trying again (that is, if you don't succeed). In addition, your replies to the questions were too short, a little more detail would help. --Astroview120mm 04:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   I'd be happy to answer any additional questions that you feel where not covered in the above answers. MatthewYeager 05:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose The lack of experience here is a concern. 1200 edits is not a lot and it has been a long time since someone passed a RFA nomination with less than 2000 edits. I suggest you withdraw from this RFA and try again after a couple of months. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   this says that he has ~1200 mainspace edits and ~ 2900 total edits. - TwoOars (Rev) 06:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   I say, I do not agree with your opinion, Siva. Matthew may be short on edit counts, but he is deemed as a good user by many others. Telling him to withdraw from this RFA because of insufficient edit counts is too extreme and inappropriate. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   Well, sorry, my mistake. I meant 1200 mainspace edits. I agree with you that Matthew is a good user who is an asset to this project. But the reason why I suggested him to withdraw from this nomination is not to further discourage him. An RFA process can be very harsh to even the most strong hearted user. Just take me for an example! I already have five failed nominations and it can be very depressing! I would like to encourage Matthew not to be disheartened by this RFA and try again after a few months! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose, inexperience in encyclopedia-building (which administrators often have to intervene in, with protection/blocking/closing page moves/judging consensus etc.), general inexperience overall. Hasn't demonstrated that his judgement can be trusted, because automated work doesn't require judgement or discretion. Furthermore, the following AfD comments from earlier in the week demonstrates that this user doesn't understand how consensus works in deletion discussions: [2][3] and WP:ATA#Per nominator, [4][5] and WP:ATA#Just a policy or guideline. Additionally, Inexperience in Wikipedia-space generally, also - 100 contribs only since 13:18, April 24, 2007? I don't think this candidate is ready yet. Daniel 07:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   You dropped a zero there, Daniel.--chaser - t 08:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   How? The link I gave shows that he's only made 100 contributions in Wikipedia-space between April 24 and today... Daniel 08:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   My bad. I thought you meant generally.--chaser - t 09:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   June -> August I spent most of my summer overseas due to several unforeseen deaths in the family. This editing pattern should not be considered normal for me. MatthewYeager 09:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose Sorry but I have to opposed per Daniel. nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 07:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   As this being quite similar to AFD (a discussion to reach consensus rather then a vote) I ask that you understand my intent for what I said as opposed to the actual text. My intent was to reinforce what the the other user (per whoever) I was referencing. If I would not have said "per whoever" I would have written an almost identical argument to the user I was "per"-ing. Very similar to Nat opposing in this discussion with the reason "per Daniel". I know that his intent was to reinforce the concerns brought up by Daniel without having to physically type a similar post. With that said, I ask you to look at the intent, if you honestly feel I do not understand the policies and process of AFD then please ask me a question about it. Similarly if you feel I am inexperienced in a certain area, please ask me about it. I've spent much time speaking with other users and just general research \ testing to experience much of what my edit count can not reflect. No disrespect was meant by anything I have said. MatthewYeager 08:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

   AfD's are about who presents the best policy- and logic-based arguments, hence "per X" votes are pointless. RfA's are determining the will of the community. It's chalk and cheese, really. Although both have an element of the other, the weightings are inversed (RfA it's more quantity over quality of arguments, whilst AfD is quality over quantity). The determination of the magical 'consensus' takes different requirements for different things. Daniel 08:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

5. I really appreciate your efforts, but I'd prefer to see you gain more experience before you are sysopped. ~ Sebi 07:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Regretful Oppose - per Daniel's diffs. You're on the right track but you just need a little more experience here. Try again in another few months and you'll get through - Alison ^❤ 08:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Per all of the above, the highest amount of edits you have made to a mainspace article is 13, this is not impressive in the sense of building the encyclopedia. Qst 10:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose. The worst admins, especially in creating a hostile community tone and driving away good editors, are those admins without serious article writing and editing experience. Tact and personal experience in dealing positively and fairly with heated editors in conflict (and other such interpersonal situations) can only be gained by going through the writing and editing experience personally and feeling what is is like to have a article you have put much work into trashed and live to tell the story! Mattisse 11:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per Daniel; there are some very pertinent points raised, and thus I have to oppose at this stage. Phgao 11:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Regretful Oppose - I don't usually oppose candidates at RFA, but that does not mean you are a bad editor. Your excellent gnome edits are valuable to Wikipedia, but your lack of edits to Wikipedia namespace, where you can report users that vandalise repeatedly etc., and a place where you can gain lots of experience with other editors doesn't seem to have prevailed in your case. I would be likely to support in a few months time when you have gained a greater (IMO) understanding of Wikipedia through more edits and interactions with the broader range of editors, here at the wiki. Rudget _zŋ 17:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose: Writing, nursing, editing, managing, politely defending, politely expanding articles is the sole meaning of Wikipedia. Vandal hunting is a personal matter, not an encyclopedic one. Geogre 18:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose I'm sorry, but I don't think you have enough experience in the areas that you wish to help out in. For example, you said you wanted to help out in WP:UAA, but I wasn't able to find any reports to there on your edit summary. Also, I personally think you need more than just 18 edits to WP:AIV to become more experienced. Please don't get discouraged, however. I just wish to see evidence that you're knowledgeable and capable of handling issues as an admin. Icestorm815 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose per answer to q8. Running an unflagged bot without permission at above the permitted speeds would never be a good idea. We don't need more admins who are willing to ignore the rules laid down by the community in favour of what they personally believe is best for the encyclopedia. Walton^One 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose with no prejudice for future attempts. This seems to be a case where the candidate is mostly trustworthy, but is so inexperienced as to cause serious concern over his possible ability to properly function as an admin. The diff provided by Daniel are especially strong evidence. I say dig in and get your hands dirty, then try again in a few months. VanTucky ^Talk 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Your mainspace talk page usage sums up my concerns. You rarely talk to users who edit those articles. It can be really easy to get into conflict this way. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Regretful Oppose Needs more experience. Keep up the good work, learn your way around a bit more, and I'm sure things will go better next time. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Sorry, it seems you haven't contributed enough lately. Most of your edits came when you first joined here.   jj137 (Talk) 01:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Pending answer to question 14. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Until my question is answered.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral per WP:NO POINT PILING ON IN CLEAR SNOW SCENARIOS, WHERE THIS WILL ONLY HINDER OR HALT PROSPECTIVE FUTURE CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO WIKIPEDIA. i.e. on the right track but alas not yet I'm afraid. Do not be down hearted!! Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I see many good edits, but I do think that he needs more experience. I'm not going to Oppose, because he has lots of good edits, and I'm not going to support because I do feel he needs a little more experience. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral leaning towards support Totally agree with what Pedro and Onceonthisisland are saying above. Keep up the good work and try again later. ♠TomasBat 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
6. The Oppose Side of Neutral - I don't want to pile on opposes, since you have made some good contributions. However, you need to gain more experience in the areas of article writing and the areas which you stated you wanted to be involved in. (runon :C) I don't see too much that I must oppose, but I see enough issues not to support. --tennisman 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral, per no piling on, and recommend closure per WP:SNOW if not withdrawn. K. Scott Bailey 00:00, 11 November 2007 (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.