Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matilda

Matilda

Ended: December 1 2008

Result: Not promoted (14 support, 11 oppose)

Nomination by RyanCross (talk): Hello, I would like to present to the community Matilda (talk · contribs), a contributer to the Simple English Wikipedia for now three months and administrator on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, for adminship. Matilda has shown a great dedication to contributing to our project in the last three months, and I think she would make a fantastic administrator for Simple English Wikipedia. She has served as an administrator on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons—two important wikis—so she obviously has experience as an administrator already. There shouldn't be any problem at all with Matilda as an administrator here on Simple English Wikipedia. If there was, why would I be nominating her now?

Matilda has done a great deal of work already for Simple English Wikipedia in the last three months. Matilda has amassed over 1300 edits in her three months of activity here. She has made approxamently 20 WP:QD tags to pages. I've taken my time to check all of them, and they are all accurate. Obviously, she would be using the deletion tool to good use as an administrator. She has also made about five WP:VIP reports. It may not be much... but we don't get that much vandalism, so I consider that a fair amount in only three months of activity. She would use the block tool to good use also. She even has done some substantial article work around Simple English Wikipedia, having over 600 of her edits in the mainspace. That's nearly half of her edits in the mainspace! Not only does she care about the maintenance side of Wikipedia, she cares about the articles we're here to contribute to. Her civility level is just fine when communicating with others. She has participated in discussion pages such as WP:ST, WP:AN, T:TDYK, WP:PGA, WP:PVGA, and several user and article talk pages, which have all been contructive.

Overall, Matilda would do just fine as an administrator for Simple English Wikipedia. I think Matilda is one of our best candidates for adminship. Matilda would do very positive tasks with the tools. Matilda would only be beneficial to our Wikipedia community. She has all the good traits of an administrator for our project, and most of all, I trust her with the tools and as an administrator for Simple English Wikipedia. Hopefully, the community agrees with me. Thank you. – RyanCross (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co nomination from Synergy:Greetings fellow editors. I am here today to present Matilda for adminship. Over time I have found her to be helpful, cordial and understanding. Yet, although I have not always agreed with her, I trust her to make the right decisions with the extra buttons and not abuse them. Not just for our articles but for the communities needs and wishes. I hope you feel the same. :) Synergy 03:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination by ✧ CM 16 : My statement will NOT be as long as Ryan's but here It is. I belive Matilda is the first person to really deserve it since I supported American Eagle's RfA. I think she would make a great admin. That's my statement.-- ✧ CM 16 03:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination by B G^7even: Another short and sweet one from me, I first encountered Matilda through the DYK? process, where her input has been monumental in taking the project forwards. Although we did occasionally clash over a difference in opinion, it was always in a calm manner, and I believe that Matilda possesses all the qualities needed in a wiki administrator. B G^7even 14:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept the nomination and am very humbled by the kind words in the nominations above. I am happy to answer any questions people may have of me about this nomination. --Matilda (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as co nom. Synergy 03:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Beat the first nom support.[reply]
Weakly support as Co-Nominator. I just think she needs to stretch out and be more open.-- ✧ CM 16 03:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)You wouldn't have if it weren't for edit conflicts.[reply]
Change to Weakly Support cause comments below in oppose section made me second guess my vote.-- ✧ CM 16 05:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per co-nom. B G^7even 14:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Meh. I offered to co-nom before you all, that's all that matters :P [reply]
All that matters is if the candidate is a good choice for the position. Who said what first is petty squabling which has absolutely no place here but belongs in some elementary school playground. -- Creol(talk) 05:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i'm aware of that. Thus why it was small and with a ":P". It was meant as a joke (and also to clarify worries over the multiple co-noms, it might be stupid and pathetic but as I said I was the first to offer a co-nom and therefore i'm not not making it or withdrawing it unless Matilda wants me to do so. A tad immature perhaps, but that's how much I support the candidate.) B G^7even 09:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 23:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support-You've only been here a few months, but I think you have the intelligence level to make a decent admin. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) (Rev) 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support American Eagle (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matilda argues in favour of common sense, and is here to build an encyclopedia. I thus trust her with the tools. Giggy (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some evidence of her being here to build an encyclopedia (points made below tend to argue against this statement in a more convincing manner). -- Creol(talk) 05:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. A glance at her contribs page at the moment brings this up as a random example (note 2 of the edits are by Isis, the rest by Matilda). Admittedly she has not written as much content as others, and I don't believe she has a GA or VGA under her belt, but it is indisputable that she has contributed a good deal of content to the encyclopedia. I don't want to have to go through weeks of her contributions to put together hundreds of diffs with which to prove it; anyone who doubts this is welcome to look here.

Furthermore, I believe her DYK work, where she has worked hard to ensure articles met WP:V and WP:NPOV policy, has been very important for the encyclopedia. As another random example, see the work done to Tom Wills after I noted on T:TDYK that it could do with some help.

It's upon this basis that I believe she's here to build an encyclopedia. I hope this helps and is convincing enough—let me know if you'd like more. Giggy (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add, in the spirit of discussion, that I don't see how her comments below are argumentative at all (in response to Gwib) and am yet to see evidence of her commenting in an uncivil manner. Saying someone's work is not (yet) up to scratch is not uncivil. Giggy (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support – RyanCross (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Matilda has been a great help to me, pointing out improvements, giving me support and encouragement (especially in developing and building Australian content, fixing some of my mistakes etc. This is what I would expect from a good admin person. She has always had a polite and friendly tone. I don't think she has an inflexible approach to simplifying language - using automated tools etc have helped me have a measure to work against. They are not "the answer" but they sure do help. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see her discussions and arguments with other editors as being productive and helping them find a stronger reason to justify and continue the status quo (or reframe it) or to discard it in lieu of something better. I consider it progress and not something deterimental or that would reflect badly on her and affect her work if she were to be given the sysop flag. I do not see anything that would make me distrust her. alexandra (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I hesitated a long time, and decide to have a weak support (still a support). I do agree, at times, Matilda seems a bit cold, but (s)he is dedicated and for instance has done some good on the France article (refs, links...). Not that many QD tags or VIP reports, but still not that bad! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 14:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--vector ^_^ (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good at deciding when and when not to AGF. Also, Matilda is very active and has brought much peace to the minds of Wikipedians. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 23:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. -- Da Punk '95 talk 00:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Strong oppose - Its hard to put into words why. So here goes: I don't fully trust you. Perhaps its the fact you have only been here a short time. But I feel that you seem to be slightly "dry" for lack of a better word. I would like to see more of you being an editor, before I could fully support you. Kennedy ^(talk) 21:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)+[reply]
Changing to strong oppose because she is badgering those who oppose her. Kennedy ^(talk) 09:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Gwib, or other people? alexandra (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its pretty clear on this page, and also here. Kennedy ^(talk) 09:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also per this, which I have finally found Kennedy ^(talk) 15:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too aggressive from my experience; too negative for my liking. Also dislike the pointless multiple co-noms. Majorly ^talk 22:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmm, I don't know how to say it, but you don't seem to love SEWP... ѕwirlвoy ₪ 22:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify or expand on your reasons for stating you don't seem to love SEWP. Thank you --Matilda (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just seem to snap quickly, yell, etc. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 00:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You really lack experience, so I do not fully trust you. Oysterguitarist 06:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per your, once again, argumentative response to a conflict of interests. Chenzw, do you still want diffs? I'll go get some for you if you really want them... --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean by conflict of interests. On my talk page you have stated Yes, I know what it means. Yes, it's justified. The relevant guideline is not replicated here so please refer to en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in your response. (Note also on my talk page Cassandra also asked for your explanation - I waited for you to provide it there before coming here when you had obviously ignored her request and my follow up to it.) --Matilda (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Gwib has declined to substantiate the allegation with the comment Why should I? I've no interest in explaining myself to you. . I believe the community actually deserves an explanation too. However, I will assert now that I am unaware of any possible reason for a COI allegation. I do not for example write about my employer, my family, ... anything that could be construed as a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. Gwib's allegation is bizarre. --Matilda (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've thought about this for a while, and decided that this is how I'll !vote. While I do agree with Matilda on some things, and I don't think she would misuse the sysop tools, there are some factors about this editor that does concern me somewhat, and for this reason, I feel I have to oppose.
1) I feel you are what some might call "too conservative". For example, I feel that on T:TDYK your views on reading ease just aren't flexible enough. Sure, these automated tools can assist in checking articles for readability, but I feel the best way to do something like this is to read the article and check how simple it looks to read. I also think we should give a little room for flexibility, and I feel that because on this matter , I can't see any flexibility from you, and more of a "strict adherence to rules" approach, it worries me as to how you will approach these sorts of situations in administrative duties. The Simple English Wikipedia doesn't have as many of the policies that En Wikipedia has, and while we can lean on the policies of En Wiki when we don't have them here, I think the biggest thing an admin gets is their ability to use their discretion in their day-to-day duties. Basically, I feel that administrators need to be flexible, and I don't feel you would be.

2) Your time at Simple English Wikipedia I feel is inadequate for me to know if I trust you as an admin here. You are an admin on the English Wikipedia, but they are very different communities, and I think I need a little more time to know if I trust you with the sysop tools on this wiki. I'm sure you're a fine admin on En.

3) At times, I've found that your general conduct been somewhat argumentative, and hot-headed One example is at Talk:G-spot. While this wasn't clearly uncivil, the fact that two users had to ask the environment be toned down is troubling to me. I'm pretty strict on policies regarding editorial decorum, and I feel that administrators have a certain standard of conduct that must be met, and, at this time, I don't feel you meet it. However, I haven't seen a lot of your editing (as noted in my second point), so I'm sure that with time, I'll be able to see the fuller picture, but at this time, I can't support based on what I see.

That's all from me. I'm happy to respond to comments about my oppose. ~~(N.B - Bureaucrats, as this is a weak oppose, I think it should be counted as half an oppose, ie, 0.5. Thanks.)~~ ס (Samekh) ^Talk 06:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. You appear to be contradicting yourself. What do you mean by "I'm pretty strict on the civility policy.", yet you still think it "shouldn't be counted much"? Chenzw Talk 06:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify where and how I breached the civility policy. As I responded to you at the time with regard to the conversation about G-Spot, I did not believe I was breaching the policy. Arguing, or pointing out that an editor fails to abide by the basic policies of writing an encyclopaedia - WP:V and WP:NPOV, is not a breach of "being kind". --Matilda (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose point number 3) refactored. ס (Samekh) ^Talk 09:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my ignorance, but it appears that both were expressing their opinions. It was heated, but hey, it's a controversial subject; all I'm seeing is both users trying to improve the article. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I too find her sometimes to be slightly cold, for want of a better word, when talking to people who do not conform to her point of view. I found this hard to explain, so if that doesn't sound right - I had my reasons. FSM ^Noodly? 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I hate to pile-on, from the time you have joined this wiki you have come across to me as very arrogant and hot headed. And it seemed you were out to push your views on people. Unfortuantely first opinions suck but when when you have so little experience here they are the ones that count as you haven't had time to show otherwise. -Djsasso (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've thought about this-it's a very tough decision in this case. I believe that you need to work a little more on communicating with people who don't share your point of view on things. Remember, this is nothing against you as a person. I just don't think that...it's hard to put into words. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 17:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per this. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 23:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Many of the above points are valid, but my main oppose is that I see very little need for the tools: - 36 deleted edits, of which only 27 appear to be requesting a QD; and (according to the nom) 5 VIP reports. These 32 activities in just over 3 months don't warrant a need for the relevant tools, in my opinion. Also, the 51% mainspace editing is quite low for a potential admin, although I think if there were no other issues I would let that pass. I also feel that (as said above) your responses sometimes have a slight edge to them which I don't really like. Of course, this isn't all the time, but does happen quite a bit. Finally, just as a request, could I also ask you to "Opt in" to this edit counter (official MediaWiki one), as it lets people see how your editing activity changes each month. If you want an example of how it looks, you can look at another user here on simple, as many use it. Thanks - tholly ^--Talk-- 22:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have opted in to the edit counter as requested - not sure if it works yet - assume it takes a while for the server to catch up. --Matilda (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's showing now. Many thanks - tholly ^--Talk-- 08:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all concerns raised above. Jonas D. Rand ^T 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I am wary of giving the flag to Matilda here. She seems cold and disinterested on some of the pages she edits (notably WP:DYK) and cannot resolve agreements easily (shown by her comments on her talk page about reading ease, DYK nominations, various comments on Simple Talk and on my own talk page). Whether or not these issues are due to inability to work well with a small community (admin on ENWP and Commons = big communities) or even a dogmatic personality, it is a trait needed to resolve arguments quickly when wishing to become an administrator.

Her edit count is also worrisome, but not very. Many edits are to Wikipedia_talk:, Wikipedia: and talk: pages justifying what I have said above about lengthy arguments without clean, quick resolutions. Her mainspace edits are rather low (51%), however, they are quality edits and generally, quality comes before quantity. --Gwib^-(talk)- 21:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you Gwib, and I will wait a bit before choosing to support or not. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still support her but I fully agree with you, Gwib.-- ✧ CM 16 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some strong diffs to further support your point? It would be slightly easier for us that way. Chenzw Talk 05:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote Neutral if we could. Matilda seems to be diligent at working, but my gut says differently... Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to some of the comments made above - some comments I will let go past to the keeper (Cricketing metaphor).
- Concerning my edit count: my main space edits are perceived to be low though compared to other active editors the proportions are comparable.
  - My edits are almost always accompanied by clear edit summaries allowing any reader to follow what was going on
  - My mainspace edits, in particular where I add content to articles, is almost invariably accompanied by a properly formatted reference. To my mind this is essential to meet our policy of Verifiability.
  - I have a higher proportion of non-mainspace edits than might otherwise have been the case as I have been an active contributor to the DYK project - including extensive checking of references for nominations that had they proceeded would have brought disrepute onto the encyclopaedia because they were either unreferenced or the facts in the hook did not align with the reference provided. Before editors take offence at this criticism of hooks they provided, they need to look at what they did to comply with the policy of verifiability which had always been an overt part of that aspect of the project.
- concerning contributions to WP:VIP: when reverting an editor's poor contribution, provided that reversion is close to the time of the orginal edit, I usually message them on their user talk page. I do so using the templated escalated warning system. These warnings are accompanied by an edit summary. Of the 214 edits to date in the user talk space, 22% are warnings or welcome messages - the great majority are warnings.
  - My experience both here and on enwp are that warnings are very effective in limiting vandalism. Hence there are few escalations to WP:VIP.
  - As noted by RyanCross in his nom, there isn't a high proportion of vandalism.
- Another translation for cold and disinterested is objective. It doesn't mean I am not "passionate" about Simple English wikipedia. Objectivity or lack of bias is normally regarded as a good thing in creating an encyclopaedia - it aligns with our policy of Neutral point of view.
  - As observed elsewhere, I am not a refugee from enwp. If I want to create or edit an article, I can do so there and I still contribute there.
  - I see Simple English wikipedia as different to enwp. I believe that an important point of difference is readability and hence I have devoted quite some discussion to it. I have raised the discussion at Simple Talk in an attempt to engage the community and continued it on my talk page when that seemed a more appropriate venue. One person's lengthy discussion is another person's attempt to find consensus and work through the issues constructively. There are other issues where the discussions I have been involved with have been relatively short, sharp and painless - eg User_talk:Gwib#1891.
  - I am not sure what the basis is for the comment you don't seem to love SEWP.

--Matilda (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that Wikipedia is not just about article writing, admin tasks need to be done as well. Yes, article writing should be a primary goal, but many other things have to be done around Wikipedia that only administrators can do. I'm sure Matilda has made a few mistakes.... haven't we all? Some users are better at article writing... some are better at being an administrator and doing what administrators are supposed to do for Wikipedia. Even if Matilda hasn't done as much article work then some other editors, she shows she can be a good administrator. That's the main reason why I nominated her. She can make a good administrator for Simple English Wikipedia. I just wanted to say that. Thank you, – RyanCross (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are saying that we should give Matilda adminship not based on her contributions, because she will not be contributing in that way. And will instead concentrate on the bureaucratic red-tape issues of wikipedia, of which we have no way of proving she will be good at? Kennedy ^(talk) 10:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, when you have made up your mind on whether to support Matilda or oppose her and vote, please keep in mind that a vote that gives a reason (other than me too) is more helpful to the closing 'crat that one that does not. So please help our friendly crats by stating why you vote the way you do, even though your choice may seem obvious. It will make their lives easier, esp. in the case of a close-call. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're Creol, it's only numbers that matter. Majorly ^talk 12:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not Creol. If at the end, Matilda is far off the 65% needed, then it is clear she will not get promoted; However, if she is close to the percentage needed, then is not just numbers. At that point, it is up to the closing 'crat to decide whether to promote, or not. In that case, it helps to know why people voted one way or the other. And no, don't ask me what percentages close or far off translate to. This is up to the closing crat. --Eptalon (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]