Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2

Mattythewhite

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (59/4/0); Scheduled to end 20:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Mattythewhite (talk · contribs) – I present you with a new candidate for adminship, Mattythewhite. This editor is a real workhorse. He has been editing here with no gaps from 2006, and during this time he has amassed a whopping total of 122,000 edits, 88,000 of which are to article space. He is a well-known face at WikiProject Football, and most of his contributions are to football articles (or soccer, if you prefer). He has taken York City F.C. to featured article status, and has nine featured lists and 42 good articles. He also made York F.C. a featured topic to boot. And that's not to mention all the new articles he has created.

He also has a great AfD record, and he obviously knows the protection policy well - search for "Mattythewhite" in the RFPP requests for this week and you'll see that all five of them were fulfilled, as were the four he made the week before and the two he made the week before that. He is also helpful and easy to get along with, and does a remarkable job of dealing with all the vandalism and silliness that goes on in football articles.

This is Mattythewhite's second RfA. The first one was back in 2007, and failed because of issues with his understanding of copyright. He has since more than made up for this, though, with some seriously impressive work over at Commons. Six years is a long time to wait for a second try at RfA, and in my opinion, it's several years too late. I hope you will all agree that he is overdue for a mop. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I'm delighted to join this nomination. I've been aware of Mattythewhite round WP:FOOTY for as long as I can remember. When he was younger, he used to go round every matchday keeping players' infobox stats correct and up-to-date, a boring, thankless, but extremely valuable task that keeps the problem of stats-related vandalism to an absolute minimum if performed regularly. He's still painstaking and thorough: not just dealing with the fancruft, BLP-problematic and plain vandal edits that popular culture topics attract, but also helping with article assessment backlogs and putting a huge amount of work into perfecting someone else's FLC. And he can spot a sockpuppet when he sees one.

Matty has always come across as friendly and helpful, but he's matured: he's learnt from his mistakes, has acquired a sound practical understanding of policy and procedure, and hasn't lost his willingness to listen to and learn from others. And he still finds time to create and maintain quality content... I'd better stop this before one of us dies of embarrassment, but hope you'll agree he'd be a worthy addition to the admin ranks. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you both for providing such kind nomination statements. Before answering the questions, I would like to briefly expand on my the details of my block, which was discussed at my previous at RfA in 2007. Essentially, I uploaded a number of photos, claiming to be the copyright holder despite knowing this was not the case, for which I was given a 24-hour block. More details can be found at my previous RfA. Looking back in retrospect, I view this as an act of immaturity and naivety, not understanding the relevance and seriousness of policy regarding copyright. I have in the intervening years developed a responsible and committed attitude towards file uploads, and as is referred to in Mr. Stradivarius' nomination statement I have been active at Commons in uploading images, including some taken from Flickr and some taken by myself. I felt it best to touch on this before questioning opens, for the sake of openness, and anyone is of course welcome to question me further on this. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would look to be more heavily involved in the areas I am experienced in, at least initially. One area I feel I could add to is the deletion process, especially PROD and AfD, having been long-involved in these. I am familiar with the protection policy, and having nominated a sizeable number of articles for protection I believe I would be capable of administering this. Further, having vast experience in warning users for vandalism I would be able to assist with the WP:AIV backlog. In terms of administrator responsibilities relating more to article creation, I would be interested in becoming more involved at WP:DYK; having contributed to the project with 28 DYK entries this is an area I have a long-standing interest in.

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

A: I consider myself as having varied areas of interest on Wikipedia, contributing not only to content expansion and creation but to more small-scale and mundane activities.

In terms of content, I'm proud of the 'featured' and 'good' content I've contributed to, especially the work I've done on York City F.C.-related topics. I suppose this is due to my support for this team, with that being the primary reason I decided to start editing here in the first place. In addition to getting content promoted to elevated status, it's a job in itself maintaining this status, with standards having risen considerably over the last six years. Article creation is another area of interest I take pride. I was especially active in this when I was newer and there was a greater number of articles still to be started. I do still create new articles, and when I do I ensure they are well-referenced and meet the relevant notability guidelines.

I feel doing the 'little things' is arguably as important as performing large-scale work on specific articles. I have been consistent in dealing with disruptive users, such as out-and-out vandals and those adding unsourced content, which is an important task because it helps keep the encyclopaedia clean, accurate and respectable. Further, I have been active in performing smaller-scale edits on a number of articles, particularly BLPs, helping copy edit, reference and perform other WP:MOS-compliant edits.

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: The collaborative nature of a wiki means that disagreements and conflicts are to be expected for most active contributors. As the years have progressed I have become more adept and skilled at dealing with disagreements, and would say I am generally approachable and friendly in my communication with others. Whenever I do find myself in a disagreement with another user, I tend to message them on their talk page about the issue, and if we cannot find common ground I will usually seek independent views at WT:FOOTY to help garner consensus. If I find myself feeling stressed by a conflict I usually take a short break to help clear my head, but with the experience I have in communicating with other users I tend not to become too emotionally affected by disagreements.

Additional question from Go Phightins!

4. Please note this is an entirely optional question. Should you choose not to answer, I will not hold it against you if I decide to vote. I was reading your prior RfA and had not heard of the nominator, so I clicked on his username, and it turns out he's a blocked confirmed sockpuppet and had not edited in over five years ... would you shed some light on your first RfA, what made you accept, with 20/20 hindsight, what would you have done differently, etc.? I am not overly concerned, but at the very least, I am interested, and at most, I think it might be moderately relevant. Thanks.

A: It's difficult to look back and try to analyse my thinking at that time, but I think accepting the nomination perhaps came from being a little overeager, without really knowing what was in store in terms of the RfA process and despite probably not being experienced enough to be successful. One thing I'd have done differently would have been to disclose the details of my block as part of my acceptance, but with the block having been less than a month before the nomination was posted I'd likely have deferred or declined the nomination. The reality though is I did accept the nomination and ultimately it was part of my learning curve; I moved on and feel I've improved as a contributor.

Additional questions from JayJay

5. Have you ever ran into an issue where you could not or did not edit Wikipedia in a extended amount of time? If so why?

A: No, I've edited consistently from June 2006 onwards. Although there have been periods where I've edited less frequently I've always had time to make a sizeable number of edits.

6. What is the number one issue on Wikipedia you think is right now and how do you think we can fix it?

A: A few issues come to mind, but what stands out for me is editor retention. A number of explanations can be forwarded why both experienced and newer users become inactive, such as burnout for the former and a lack of interest for the latter. I think one long-term solution in keeping users steadily active is by strengthening communal ties through users opting to become part of collaborative projects, for example through activity within WikiProjects and maintenance-related areas like the Village Pump. My thinking being that this will help strengthen bonds between editors and help individuals feel fulfilled with their work. One the other hand, all users have their own way of going about their business and being active communally isn't for everyone, and it's only natural that some users will move on from the project. But that's one idea anyway.

7. Finally, what do you love most about Wikipedia

A: That the project allows individuals from across the globe to volunteer their time and resources in the name of creating a free source of human knowledge. What has been accomplished so far could be described as being like a patchwork quilt, comprising the efforts of many individuals who have poured their blood, sweat and tears into the project. I don't mean to sound overly-romantic, but that's pretty special.

Additional question from User:Carrite

8. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under another user name? If so what name or names were these?

A: No, I've only edited as User:Mattythewhite.

Additional questions from RightCowLeftCoast

9. Although the content on Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, are there articles on Wikipedia that are not neutral? If so, please provide examples, and why you believe they are not neutral. Although Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, editors opinions are not; as such, what is your opinion of the communities political balance at this time? Are there political ideologies that have greater representatives than others? If so, which ideologies? How does this effect the community? How would this effect your role as an Admin?

A: As a wiki that that can be edited by just about anyone, there are bound to be individuals who attempt to promote certain agendas on some articles, but possibly the biggest concern regarding neutrality is systematic bias that occurs more naturally and unintentionally. As someone who contributes very little toward subjects of a political nature I'm not in a position to make an informed comment on the political balance of the community. I've done a bit of research on political bias on Wikipedia to get a better idea, and one piece I found useful was this from the Washington Post which reports that very few articles relating to US politics are politically neutral, and that this is occurring on articles across the political spectrum. But as I say, I don't feel I'm in a position to make an authoritative statement on this. As an admin I would always seek to be neutral and level-headed, and as someone who is not active on political articles my Wikipedia activities are not influenced by political ideology.

10. I am of the belief that all people, are naturally imperfect and thus prone to fault. Therefore, Mattythewhite, what are your faults? Due to these faults how may they effect your usage of the Admin tools? Why, even though you have the faults that you will list in response to this question, do you believe that the community should trust you with the Admin tools?

A: You're right in saying that we all have faults, it's a case of doing what we can to improve on our weaknesses. As I referred to in Q3 I have become more comfortable discussing issues with other users, whereas when I was newer here that didn't come quite so naturally to me. So I wouldn't quite say this is a 'fault', but more an area of improvement. I think the fact I've put the effort to make myself a more well-rounded and 'complete' editor, and that I am receptive to the ideas of others, has helped instil the community with trust in me.

11. Although all people have their faults, we also have our strengths, those things that set ourselves apart (in a positive way) from others. Therefore, what are your strengths? Due to these strengths how may they effect you usage of Admin tools?

A: As I referred to in Q10, I've become confident and assured when communicating with others, which will valuable if I'm chosen to become an administrator. My attention to detail and work ethic have helped me achieve success in my mainspace and non-mainspace endeavours, and I am confident I can translate this into diligent and responsible use of the admin tools. And by holding a good level of experience in a number of maintenance areas like the deletion process, page protection and warning disruptive users I hope the transition into holding admin responsibilities will be natural.

12. Ultimately Wikipedia is about presenting neutrally presented, verified to reliable source content about subjects determined to be notable as defined by the various notability guidelines that presently exist. As such please tell us about your article content editing experience. What article content that you created are you proud of? Why? Of the article content that you created what have been elevated to GA and beyond? In editing article content have you ever come into conflict with another editor? If so, please provide examples; specifically, how in dealing with those conflicts do you believe show that you would be considered responsible in handling the admin tools.

A: As I touched upon in response to Q2 I have contributed to a number of articles that have reached recognised status, specifically one FA, nine FLs, 42 GAs and 28 DYKs (links to each of these pages are present on my user page). In addition I've created over 900 articles and have substantially contributed to many other articles that haven't been elevated to recognised status. As I stated earlier, my my work on York City F.C.-related articles gives me most pride from a personal perspective, with my work on these culminating in a featured topic.

What I said in response to Q3 that conflicts naturally arise on a wiki is relevant here. A recent example of a conflict I had was with Pippin0490 (talk · contribs) regarding the text reading 'match played' before the 'As of... date' displayed above the career statistics tables of footballer articles. After I saw an instance of the user removing this text I engaged in discussion with him via his talk page and recommended that the issue be brought up for discussion at WT:FOOTY, where a lengthy discussion then took place on the issue. So, I'd say this example demonstrates my ability to avoid edit warring and to instead facilitate discussion, which is an attitude that will help me be responsible in performing admin duties.

13. Do you have experience in conflict/dispute resolution? If so, please describe this experience and how it would assist you as an admin.

A: I'm not sure there's much to add here that I haven't already covered, so I'll refer you to my answers to Q3 and Q12.

14. Please inform us of any conflict of interest, if any, which you may have. Do you pledge to use the admin tools without your political opinions effecting their usage? Do you pledge to recuse yourself from areas where Admin actions are required in situations where you may have a conflict of interest?

A: I'd say I have no conflicts of interest; there aren't any outside interests I've forwarded and I haven't engaged in anything like paid advocacy. As I explained in response to Q9 I'm not politically motivated in my Wikipedia activities, so I can assure you I won't let any political opinions affect my use of the admin tools. And if there's any area in which I may have a COI I'll avoid using the admin tools.

Question from User:B

15. You uploaded File:YCFC1950.jpg under a claim of fair use in 2007. Do you still believe that this is an appropriate example of fair use on Wikipedia? Why or why not? --B (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A: Looking through the Non-free content criteria, it looks like the image should not be tagged as fair use. It arguably fails criterion 1 (No free equivalent) as a free equivalent could theoretically exist (though this is very unlikely), and criterion 8 (Contextual significance) as I don't think the image's presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic. As such, I'd suggest it be nominated at Wikipedia:Non-free content review.

Additional question from Stfg

16. Please could you point us to one or two examples where you have demonstrated your ability to read consensus in the light of policy? (Doesn't have to be AfD -- I'm just checking skill at reading consensus.)

A: Are you referring to where I've contributed to a discussion seeking consensus by promoting a certain policy or guideline? I've found a couple of instances, such as this discussion in which I forwarded WP:FONTSIZE and this discussion in which I argued along the lines of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK (although I don't explicitly refer to it in the discussion).

Sorry, I didn't phrase the question well. Your answers illustrate the ability to bring relevant policies into a discussion, but I was looking for signs of an ability to read consensus, for example in non-admin closures or by commenting on the direction in which you see a discussion heading. Don't worry too much about this question if, for example, you don't do NACs. I'm strongly leaning to suport anyway. --Stfg (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite
• Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2

• Links for Mattythewhite: Mattythewhite (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mattythewhite can be found here.
• Edit stats posted on talk page--My76Strat (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Strong support - Matty's work around the football wikiproject has been extremely impressive, it's always been a pleasure to interact with him, I couldn't think of a better candidate for adminship right now, he'd be a net gain for the project if he was given the bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. I've been familiar with Matty's work for several years through our involvement in WikiProject Football. I offered to nominate him some four years ago, and since then my belief in his suitability has only strengthened. His first RFA is so long ago that the issues raised therein have loooong since ceased to be an issue, IIRC he was still in school then. It is safe to say he has matured in the six years between then and now; I've seen it happen first-hand. He is primarily a prolific content contributor and topic specialist, and I don't expect that to change if he's given the bit. But it would mean all those requests he makes to RFPP and AIV don't need to take up someone else's time (So far this year I count 30-odd reports to RFPP and 20-odd to AIV). Oldelpaso (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Seen this editor around for several years and am fairly sure he can be trusted with the tools. Number 57 21:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Sure thing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Strongly, would have gladly nominated him myself if I knew he was interested in RFA. Secret ^account 23:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Support – Great editor, has done incredible work with articles relating to York City F.C. and one of the mainstays of WP:FOOTY. He is also very active in dealing with vandalism and dubious or unsourced edits. I've always found him very approachable and extremely helpful. I have to concur with The Rambling Man I can't think of a better candidate at the moment. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Support - It doesn't look like the user will be heavily active in Admin stuff but they appear to be a trustworthy user. No reason to oppose. Kumioko (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Support Though he may not be the busiest admin of the project it will be a net gain to have him as an admin as has been stated above. I believe him to be trustworthy with the mop. I give him my full support. Woody (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
11. Support - All issues from 2007 seem to have been adressed; the candidate also has an interest in participating in the often back-logged WP:AIV, so definately plus. Good luck! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 00:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
12. Support - I don't see any problems.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
13. Support - plenty of content work, no problems after a quick search. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
14. Support - An easy yes for me. — -dainomite   02:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
15. Support --Rschen7754 04:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
16. Support No concerns. Widr (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
17. Support Satisfied. Faizan 05:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
18. Support - Longtime, respected Wikipedian. Willingness to help at AIV a big plus. My thanks to the candidate for being willing to serve. Jusdafax 06:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
19. Support as co-nom. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
20. Definitely. Mattythewhite brings a diverse range of experience and would be very helpful as an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
21. Support per above. I don't care about 2007.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
22. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
23. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 10:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
24. Support - I have known Matty for a good number of years over at WP:FOOTBALL and I cannot commend him enough - honest, hard-working, smart - everything we need in an Admin. His work rate and experience are second-to-none and he will be an asset to the community. GiantSnowman 11:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
25. Support Sure. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 11:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
26. Support per nom, et al, though I do question the candidate's wisdom and emotional stability. I mean, it says something when an editor is willing to wait this many years before having another go at RFA - perhaps we were not sufficiently brutal the first time around. Doesn't look like we'll break him this time around, either, so might as well give'im the tools. Good luck! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
27. Support 6 years shows a determination to improve which implies a determination to be a commendable admin. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
28. Support In short, WP:NETPOS clearly applies here. Editor is clueful and dedicated. The tools will help them do even more. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 13:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
29. Support. Good contributions. Obvious improvement since 2007. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
30. Support. Yep, great hard-working contributor with a calm head - should be just fine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
31. Support per nom. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
32. Support No reason to oppose.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 16:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 16:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
33. Agree --Rzuwig^► 16:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
34. Support Absolutely agree with nom -- JMHamo (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
35. Support after a review of contributions. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
36. Support Well, we clearly know what his interest is! With a demonstration of such great knowledge over his interests (via creation of several featured lists) he knows how to make a great encyclopaedia better. At this moment, he deserves to have admin privileges. Minima© (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
37. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
38. Support I judged this user based only on their userpage according to the policy here. This user meets my expectations and based only on that, I support this user's promotion. Others should check other aspects of this user's work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    That is the stupidest reasoning I've seen in quite awhile. Congrats. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    I disagree, Nathan. Raspberry specializes in user pages, and votes accordingly. Imagine an otologist saying that your ears are ok and that, if you feel pain somewhere else, you should consult a different doctor. Perfectly logical and legitimate. Coming from a user without any user page (your user page redirects to your talk page) "stupidest reasoning" seems to me to come dangerously near the border of civility. Kraxler (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    That is not a "policy," that is an opinion essay of your own creation. Just to be clear... Carrite (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

39. Support per everyone above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 23:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
40. Support Good candidate JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
41. Support I've seen Matty around and have always been impressed with his edits. I think he'll make a great admin. Webclient101^talk 04:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
42. Support Vigorous edits and a general commitment to Wikipedia's policy. CarterRios (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
43. Support - haven't interacted with the candidate much (as far as I can recall) but I can't see anything that concerns me greatly. Stalwart111 05:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
44. Support - Everything looks good to me. Good answers to the questions, and I trust the user with the tools. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
45. Support I am little concerned about this editor limited participation at AFD to only football related nominations. A more broad level of participation to be familiar with the status quo at AFD would have been my one criticism for a candidate that wants to specifically go into closing AFDs as a sysop. Unfortunately (but fortunately in this case) I'm sure the participants would let them know immediately if they felt the close was incorrect. There are plenty of editors whom I have the utmost respect for supporting this candidate so I am inclined to happily add myself to the supports. Mkdw^talk 07:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
46. Support - experienced editor with great contributions. No concerns at all. Tolly4bolly 08:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
47. No red flags and good record. While I don't think there's a strong need for the tools, I think he'll be a net positive. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
48. Support edit history and answers demonstrate more than adequate maturity and knowledge. No reason for concern; will be an asset as admin. -- Scray (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
49. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
50. Support Great user, experienced and should be fine with the tools. Andrew Stiff (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
51. Support - Adequate tenure and contributions. Blotch on block log is 5 years distant. Good answers to questions, no concerns. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
52. Support - based on review and issues from 2007 seem to be moot. Kierzek (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
53. Support. Good user, net positive. Spencer^T♦C 21:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
54. LlamaAl (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
55. I am not seeing any reason for the editor not to get the Admin tools, however, I would have preferred that the editor give a better conflict of interest statement, especially in regards to "external relationships" which may trigger potential COIs in the future. Otherwise, the single block the editor has had was a long time ago, and the editor has contributed positively to Wikipedia as evident by the numerous GAs, and FAs that the editor has helped promote.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
56. Support per Oppose #3. TCN7JM 22:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
57. Support not reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
58. Yes.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
59. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. User wishes to work at AfD, but I cannot find one instance within the last year where they provided a rational that wasn't basically "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL". Piling on delete votes on obviously non-notable football players at AfD does not show ability to interpret deletion policy. I'm also concerned that in X years and Y edits, you're only able to point to one article in Q2. (Granted it asks for the best, but you provided more than one example.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

   What exactly do think should be said at AfD's, if the article doesn't pass a policy then what else is there to say. Do you expect him to write a novel every time he votes at an AfD or what? Oh and did you take a look at his AfD stats out of his 496 AfD votes 443 matched the result, so what do you mean he doesn't show ability to intercept deletion policies. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

   I believe Nathan Johnson is alluding to WP:JUSTAPOLICY but I do not believe most of Mattythewhite's arguments at AFD fall with in that category. He often explains an extended rationale, albeit rarely at AFD. Mkdw^talk 07:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose. User should work with article stuff as opposed to WP:AIV TXDRDGR (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

   — TXDRDGR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

   Doesn't Matty have 88k edits in the article space? Andrew Stiff (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

   Uh-huh, along with around 30+ good articles, some featured material and a featured topic. This oppose is clearly a very late April Fools' Day joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

3. weak oppose leaning support. Great editing history, but know that blocking editors can be risky and have dire consequences. 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scstadm (talk • contribs)

   — Scstadm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

   Makes no sense, you haven't asked any questions, or given Matty the chance to address your concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

   Obviously this account and the one above are WP:SPAs and should be disregarded. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

4. Oppose Would seem to be well qualified to be an administrator on Wikia or football wikis, but I don't see contributions to traditional encyclopedic content. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)