Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2

Username:	Mattythewhite
User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker
First edit:	Jun 18, 2006 18:24:37
Unique pages edited:	23,618
Average edits per page:	5.33
Live edits:	122,722
Deleted edits:	3,249
Total edits (including deleted):	125,971

Namespace Totals

Article	88243	71.93%
Talk	4067	3.32%
User	3724	3.04%
User talk	10413	8.49%
Wikipedia	2583	2.11%
Wikipedia talk	516	0.42%
File	8	0.01%
Template	10869	8.86%
Template talk	1676	1.37%
Category	435	0.35%
Category talk	138	0.11%
Portal	4	0.00%
Book	1	0.00%
	
Namespace Totals Pie Chart
Month counts
2006/06	54 	
2006/07	1708 	
2006/08	3800 	
2006/09	2331 	
2006/10	2622 	
2006/11	1793 	
2006/12	3493 	
2007/01	4610 	
2007/02	3400 	
2007/03	2792 	
2007/04	2915 	
2007/05	3367 	
2007/06	4445 	
2007/07	4824 	
2007/08	4178 	
2007/09	2313 	
2007/10	1362 	
2007/11	1025 	
2007/12	774 	
2008/01	411 	
2008/02	397 	
2008/03	396 	
2008/04	270 	
2008/05	474 	
2008/06	1317 	
2008/07	1431 	
2008/08	1830 	
2008/09	726 	
2008/10	492 	
2008/11	836 	
2008/12	745 	
2009/01	1426 	
2009/02	1102 	
2009/03	1215 	
2009/04	1034 	
2009/05	1127 	
2009/06	973 	
2009/07	1460 	
2009/08	1308 	
2009/09	683 	
2009/10	470 	
2009/11	530 	
2009/12	442 	
2010/01	1197 	
2010/02	415 	
2010/03	709 	
2010/04	470 	
2010/05	756 	
2010/06	1181 	
2010/07	1251 	
2010/08	1026 	
2010/09	391 	
2010/10	428 	
2010/11	292 	
2010/12	278 	
2011/01	538 	
2011/02	219 	
2011/03	186 	
2011/04	327 	
2011/05	416 	
2011/06	556 	
2011/07	1240 	
2011/08	1288 	
2011/09	842 	
2011/10	275 	
2011/11	670 	
2011/12	828 	
2012/01	2351 	
2012/02	1887 	
2012/03	2361 	
2012/04	2027 	
2012/05	1421 	
2012/06	2268 	
2012/07	2180 	
2012/08	1599 	
2012/09	1747 	
2012/10	2250 	
2012/11	1491 	
2012/12	2050 	
2013/01	2596 	
2013/02	1734 	
2013/03	1430 	
2013/04	1776 	
2013/05	2829 	

Top edited pages are disabled for users with over 45000 edits.

Traditional encyclopedic content

Let's have a look at page views, comparing Mattythewhite's page with some of Kiefer's, as highlighted by Kraxler.

• Mattythewhite - 11,170 for York City F.C.
• Kiefer Wolfowitz - total of 3,211 from major thirds tuning (807), Ralph Patt (604), Discipline Global Machine (1,016) and Shapley–Folkman lemma (784).

Make of that what you will, but seems to me that many more readers prefer Mattythewhite's "non-traditional" content to Kiefer Wolfowitz's "traditional" content. GiantSnowman 14:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

More persons still suffer from HIV. Quantity, not quality. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you just compared football fans to HIV sufferers?! GiantSnowman 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not read what I wrote? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No - please clarify what you meant. GiantSnowman 16:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast answer, Snowman. And I'm amazed: I hadn't been aware that Wikipedia seems to be a major source of knowledge for sports fans, although I knew that the sports section is taditionally the most read part of most newspapers... Kraxler (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Over half-a-million page views for the Manchester United F.C. article, and I'm sure there are more football articles which are even higher. To basically say that such content is not worthy of an encyclopedia is a great disrespect to the many, many readers who turn to Wikipedia for football-related information, as well as the editors who maintain such articles (myself included!) GiantSnowman 15:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would anybody care about your interests? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you getting personal? GiantSnowman 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, why the crusade here? It transpires you focus a lot of your time editing esoteric articles that would not be considered traditional content, just as Matty has (and Matty has dozens of GAs, several featured articles and lists, and a featured topic). Are you now suggesting there's a scale on which GAs, FAs, FTCs should be judged when it comes to assessing one's contribution to Wikipedia? Is writing extensively about a football club in the north of England any better or worse than writing about how to tune a guitar? There must be some bad blood here, please explain. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The candidate writes badly, even here, and so it is questionable whether he can serve well as an administrator. I've never interacted with the candidate, as far as I remember, and I wish him well.

Again, the universe has space for Wikia and other pop-culture repositories, which presumably need administrators. I applaud him for contributing to Wikipedia, and I trust he shall continue. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

How does your personal (and inaccurate) interpretation of his writing skills have any relevance to his ability to apply blocks to vandals for instance? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

After reading Kiefer's concern about the writing skills in the Oppose comment earlier today, I went and carefully re-read those answers.  I agree that the writing is substandard, especially knowing that this is how the candidate chooses to present himself to the community.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad writing

Quoted for convenient reference

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 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. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Even in his quoted response to the standard questions, the candidate has trouble writing standard written English. Most of the sentences have clichés, and nearly all sentences are badly expressed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

And that affects his ability to determine whether a vandal needs to be blocked how, exactly? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, please, you cannot lecture anyone about clear or precise language skills. GiantSnowman 16:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"clear or precise language skills"! LMAO Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"LMAO"? That sums up your meaningless oppose. You have yet to demonstrate why your version of "classical writing" would prevent Matty from being a net positive to the project as an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Blatant troll votes

I am considering removing (by the current numbering) oppose !votes 2 and 3, which appear to be blatant trolling by brand-new accounts that have no intention of making a serious contribution to the RfA. I consider this action to be necessary, but if a bureaucrat would like to take care of this, it might be less controversial. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I think they should be removed not sure what the protocol is though. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

They should at least be indented. I'd prefer actual removal. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've indented them. A 'crat can always undo what I did if they wish. I wanted to hat them as well, but the template seemed to interfere with the numbering (made Kiefer's vote #1 instead of #2), so I gave up on that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A note that an IP deindented them, so I reindented. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved from Kiefer's oppose

Pure snobbery. GiantSnowman 08:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has enough low-brow projects with members awarding one another GAs for illiterate articles. I wouldn't object to such projects' responsible and literate leaders having limited administrative powers. But c.f. Stephen J. Tonsor on neoconservatism.... The cliches and tortured syntax of this editor's responses to the standard questions confirm that this candidate is unlikely to be the C.L.R. James of football. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC) (underlining 16:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC))

"...there is here not culture but a need for human relations of a size and scope which will in the end triumph over all deficiencies." (C.L.R. James, Mariners, Renegades, and Castaways)

Matty's quite good at human relations. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Since when was Wikipedia a "traditional encyclopaedia"? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Please focus on the noun "content". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean traditional content like alternative tunings for guitar, jazz-guitarists, independent record labels and higher mathematics? Are there numbers available how many people consult "traditional" content and how many people consult sports articles? Maybe a task for some wiki-statistician... Kraxler (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see this RFA's talk page for the relevant statistics. GiantSnowman 14:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Like logarithm, statistics receives 4000 views daily.

Guitar tunings receives 1500 views daily and guitar chord 500, not bad for the world's most popular musical instrument (since the first enlightenment patron). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Association football receives just under 6,500 views daily. Not bad for the world's most popular sport. GiantSnowman 16:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Guitars and their ancestors contributed to music, mechanics, Diophantine approximation, harmonic analysis, etc. What is football's contribution to civilization, Andy Capp? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, again with the personal attacks? Please stop, it's becoming tiresome. As for football, it was played by Ancient Greeks and Romans, as well as in Ancient China, are they high-brow enough for you? GiantSnowman 16:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, this is becoming entertaining. We now need "classically-trained" admins when we can barely get any admins at all? This is all wrong. KW, do you think allowing Matty to have the ability to block vandals on our "less-traditional content" (e.g. football, as you seem to imply) is a net gain to the project? Do you think Matty will suddenly wade into a discussion about deletion of guitar tuning? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that Mattythewhite would perform better than Giant Snowman? Giant Snowman writes grammatically and without clichés. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ironically, that's something you appear unable to do, based on that rambling farce. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

  Luke, Run along and play nice somewhere else. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Now it's clear why WP:NOTPANTOMIME is a redlink. --Stfg (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps that wasn't useful. What I really meant was, OK, so he said something that sounded mighty like Not in my encyclopedia, and many people aren't impressed. So what? If it were going to change the outcome, it might be worth debating it, but all this "mine's bigger than yours" stuff (regarding view counts, obviously, what else?) is just noise. By just how much is any of this going to change the price of bread? GiantSnowman, you're an admin. How can you complain about personal attacks after you started them off with "Pure snobbery"? Great example! --Stfg (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Despite his literary studies..., GiantSnowman apparently misread my question about a comic character as the amusing "What, Andy Capp, is football's contribution to civilization?". (I could have imagined his having written a thesis on the subject, but not that he'd think I was addressing him.) Precisely because GiantSnowman is an administrator, he gets to lead with personal attacks without facing any consequences. If GS resigns his administrator status and submits to a new RfA, then I will reconsider my oppose. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how my comment was a personal attack. GiantSnowman 20:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Please explain how "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." is "pure snobbery". Then please explain how "Guitars and their ancestors contributed to music, mechanics, Diophantine approximation, harmonic analysis, etc. What is football's contribution to civilization, Andy Capp?" is a personal attack. --Stfg (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Easy: because it shows that Kiefer will only support candidates who work in specific areas. That would be fine, but opposing on those grounds is indeed snobbery. Especially as the scale and readership of the football articles is far greater than the musical instrument ones for the most part. But then, this is Kiefer we're talking about: I'm completely unsurprised that he made an oppose in this manner. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Lukeno94, but I already understand that. My question was intended to invite GiantSnowman to explain how "pure snobbery" can be said without it being a personal attack. Your explanation confirms that it is one. --Stfg (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Is it a personal attack when it is a statement of fact? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Stfg, Kiefer's comment was a personal attack because he addressed me - in both edit and edit summary - as Andy Capp. GiantSnowman 09:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, I see how you're reading it, but I don't think he did address you as Andy Capp. I think he was just snarking about Andy Capp being football's contribution to civilization. He has already addressed this, by the way. Still, perhaps he would have done better to write: "What is football's contribution to civilization? Andy Capp?" So perhaps the criticism of Matty's prose skills loses a small amount of any credibility it had. And I still think you'd have set a better example if you'd just left the whole thing alone. It's not as if any of us needed to have it explained what KW's oppose really was. --Stfg (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, I can now see the two possible readings - one can also now see the irony in Kiefer's complaint about Matty's language skills. As for AGF, I'm afraid it only goes so far with KW. GiantSnowman 10:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Who cares about your opinion? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, how about you stop insulting other users and go and make some actual edits? You are obviously gravely concerned with the quality of Wikipedia articles, strange that you are more concerned with talking about the problems rather than trying to execute a solution. GiantSnowman 12:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, Stop your dishonest harassment, which has been renewed at this RfA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What harassment? I strongly suggest you either provide some evidence or withdraw your false accusations. GiantSnowman 12:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kiefer, you need to drop the stick - you were the one who started this farce, after all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok, so now we have to judge RFA candidates who have dozens of GAs, many FAs and FLs and an FT on some unknown scale of importance of said GAs, FAs, FLs, FTs? Is that what we do at RFA nowadays? I've never ever known a Wikipedian to make such a fool of themselves (beside me) as I'm seeing KW do now. Quite outstanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

All that anyone needed to remember is DFTT, and there would have been nothing to see here. None of this makes any difference to anything at all. And just in case ... I haven't said who I think the troll and who the feeder. G'night. --Stfg (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)