UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Matthewfarenheit/2007-03-07 Promotion

Administration » Sysop Archives » Matthewfarenheit » 2007-03-07 Promotion

This page is an archive of Matthewfarenheit's Promotions candidacy, which was withdrawn. If you wish to speak with this candidate, please use their Talk page.

Matthew Fahrenheit

I have made around 2700 edits up to now, the current Guidelines have large contributions made by me and I'm probably the greatest newbie friendly user around. You hardly haven't seen one of my contributions, and you can have a brief list of them here. I think the greatest contribution that I can make by being a Sysop is representing the fraction of wiki users that trust my judgement and think of me as a level headed guy (poor guys =P), and I would gladly attend every request on the different moderational pages that seem to pile up recently. Vandalism won't be my area of choice BTW, but I'll still attend obvious and/or urgent cases there too. I had a previous bid and you can find it here: UDWiki:Moderation/Promotions/Matthewfarenheit.

As a last comment, I'm requesting Sysop status as I'm as of lately doing basically administrational and maintenance labor instead of creative one. With this I mean that I'm usually intermediating in a conflict, or updating a page, or adding a new format and such instead of starting my own projects, so when I heard Boxy here requesting guys to lighten his load I thought that if I passed this bid I would do just that, and if I don't I don't really lose anything do I? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Vouch Like him. Would provide some nice balance to the mod crew. --Barbecue Barbecue 05:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain - Seems pretty cool now...some bitter fights with mods worry me though. He's nice and all, and I guess he's okay with newbies (never seen him in action in that respect though), but...yeah, I don't know. Maybe he can convince me.--Lachryma^☭ 06:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Vouch - You convinced me very thoroughly , but you didn't have to act so high and mighty about it ;)--Lachryma^☭ 06:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Just to let you know, this template is my creation. I constantly find myself defending a newbie's mistake in VB too, and I have been asked by not so experienced users for insight and to represent them when confronting more experienced users in multiple ocassions. In the past I have moved character pages made by newbies in the main namespace instead of their personal userspace to their proper place, but that is something that I cannot do anymore as the move permission has been restricted to Sysops. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Against I don't think he could possibly be impartial in any important issues.--Jorm 06:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain - I don't really care. I don't think he'd be impartial either, but there are definitely worse current sysops than him. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 07:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Against - I really didn't want to do this, but his reaction to Liche is very poor form indeed. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 04:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Against - The only contribution of late from this user has been an increase in my blood pressure. He has proven his impartiality again and again.--Gage 09:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Impartiality means 'unbiasedness'. I do believe the phrase you were looking for was 'inability to display impartiality'. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 12:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  It seems I was editing the wiki at 4:00 am, so yes, you are right. <_<--Gage 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Vouch - I think that Matthew would make a good sysop. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 11:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Against - I'd sooner nominate 3Page. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 12:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against - His relations with most of the current Admin crew are bad to worse, so i think he wouldnt serve that well working together with us. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Do you consider yourself as offended by me or my actions? I don't doubt that Gage and Xoid do, and I can confirm that my relations with them are going from bad to worse, but I have good or at least neutral relations with all the other Sysops. I can even dare to say that, after our last peace deal, I have come to trust Cyberbob's judgement a whole lot more. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain - I'm unsure, it seems you are requesting this in the best intentions but Xoids comment has made me think about it. Any reason as to why he may say that? Also I moved it the under discussion section as you have 3 vouches. Pillsy ^FT 15:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Vouch - After reading other comments from other users I think given the chance, matt would be able to learn from being a mod. He has the skills and I think it would suit him. Pillsy ^FT 12:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  He dislikes me? We have worked on joint projects, of wich the most prominent is the change on the Guidelines, but as soon as I started to do things that he disliked he started to be an asshole towards me and negative towards every project that I start, or opinion that I state. Of course I'm not the victim here, as I have reciprocated the attacks, but do you think that an exaggerated sentence as "I'd sooner nominate 3Page" comes from a level headed guy? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  I think he's probably referring to the wiki monitor bullshit, the constant questioning of every damn little decision we make and the trolling of the moderation pages. You can't let me say anything without dredging up something that I said a long time ago that contradicts what I just said or coming up with a subtle dig to try to imply that I'm a bad sysop. I'm tired of the passive aggressive bullshit Matt. I see it, and I'm going to tell you now that I'm not going to let it slide any more. You're a complete troll.--Gage 20:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Actually Pillsy, I think it needed to wait until a sysops gave a vouch to be moved down here. That's how I read the rules. But I have now, so it's all good -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 23:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  It used to be as you say and then the rules were modified, don't ask me when or by whom. Bureaucrat promotions still keeps that rule as a proof that the page was basically a copy/paste from this one. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  Well it's still up there, although it does say it's "preferable" rather than a firm requirement -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  I do apologise, I thought I was being pro active. Anyway, I'm changing my vote...Pillsy ^FT 12:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Against - JohnWilcox
• Weakly Against- My pants held council, and by majority vote they said yes. But as president, I have veto power, and they will never get the 2/3's vote to override my veto.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Vouch - After looking it over, I think your thoughts are in the right place, and the drama you bring aint any worse than other people's drama. So, I'm changing my vote.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Vouch - I think Matthew would make a good sysop.--♠ Che ♠-^{T GC X} 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against - Too much of drama prima donna for sysopdom, not that that's not a glaring flaw in a lot of other sysops, but let's not exacerbate the problem.--The Envoy 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain - Although Matt has contributed significantly to the wiki, the drama related to Matt leans me towards abstain. -- 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Vouch - But only a weak one, I'm sorry Matt. I think you would be fine from a technical point of view, have a great technical knowledge, and ability to create in wiki code, and you're very helpful to newbies, for sure. I would just be more comfortable giving a strong vouch if your communication and conflict management skills were a bit better. If you can avoid any major drama issues (that includes drama dredged up by others, because I expect sysops to be able to handle provocation) until your next mod bid I'll be all for it -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 23:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  It's a deal =). --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  Can I just ask here, do "qualified" vouches or "levels" of against mean anything. A vouch is a vouch, ain't it?--The Envoy 06:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  No, they don't, but some people like to let the strength of their support/unsupport known. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 06:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  I think that they do. Let me explain myself: if the system was a set in stone percentage of votes as it is in suggestions, it won't matter how every single vote is performed. But here, where the Bureaucrat is supposed to review the community approval of the nominees, how you express the strenght of your approval for said nominees has to have an impact on that decission. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  This isn't a straight vote, it's a process to determine the community support for a candidate, so yes, I think "strongly againsts" especially should be considered -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  You guys all make excellent points. I stand corrected. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 09:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Against - He's done some valid and productive wiking in his time here, but overall I think he calls too much drama to himself (I.E. Wiki monitors) to necessarily be a wiki mod. I'm going to have to go with a no on this one, unless someone will step up to the plate to monitor him. But then we'd someone to monitor them... --CaptainM 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  I know this won't be a popular argument in response to concerns like this, but here goes: his concern with how other mods function (and I do believe it to be genuine, not mere drama-chasing), and the fact that he would not, by default, fall in with the others on the basis of shared views/history makes his reasoned and critical contribution as a mod valuable. If we only vouch for those who already affirm what's being done (which is not to say that all mods are in perfect agreement, of course), we won't see nearly as much active hashing out of policy and judgments. Call me crazy, but I'd like to see more disagreement among the mods to ensure that, collectively, they represent a variety of perspectives, and keep each other honest. Again, not a criticism of the current mods, but a plea for an even greater multiplicity of perspectives among the mods. --Barbecue Barbecue 04:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Vouch helped me understand how to wiki better, and is a friendly person.--Blood Panther 04:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• vouch You seem to be very dedicated and know what you are doing. You do get involved in drama but given its mostly with the mods its not something some of them should be drawing attention to, anyway to paraphrase one of your detractors "mods are humans and wiki users too, as such they are allowed to express an opinion as long as they do not abuse their position to enforce it!" You say you want the promotion to help with the workload... fine by me. And frankly even if you were an asshat as long as your asshattery went the opposite direction to that of some of the equally biased mods it may be a good thing... Oh; but please try to improve your communication skills... things can seem a little garbled sometimes and some may use that as ammo against you!--Honestmistake 09:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Vouch What's the worst that could happen? --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 23:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against - I have to admit, I've seen you in some drama around the wiki. Now that's not to say you aren't good at work around the wiki, it's just that I don't think people who have been involved in drama or who are not impartial should become sysop. Impartiality should be a large part of the duty of a sysop. I know that the current bunch of sysop users do not have clean hands as well, I just think that we should not add to their number. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  You make some good points and maybe of all my replies you're the less likely guy that I think could bring towards my side, not because I think you as a mean or stubborn guy, but because I think that your strenght of judgement will not be swayed by the simple arguments of someone like me. As you said, there's no point in justifying my promotion with "all the other sysops are like me!", so I will say the opposite. They're not like me. That's the point of my arguments. We have the good and moderate Sysops that constitute the vast mayority, and then the not so moderate mods that unfortunately seek all the protagonism. I'm a third class. I'll confess that I'll fight for what I believe right, and in the process drama could be stirred up and a page of replies could be filled easily. But there will be always good intention in my actions, good faith in my edits, and NEVER will I try to do something against the will of the community. Even if in a discussion a very intelligent solution gets spammed by a not so well informed community, I'll held my head down and accept that as a law. You won't find me with one of those "nuke the wiki" templates, EVER. I believe in the community, period. That is my difference: I will not do something for sheer pride. It's so unlike them, you won't find it often here. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Against - As Dux. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  I kinda didn't expect this from you Axe. It's not like I really know you, or that I even talked to you in the last 3 months, but in the past times I was a good nexus between the group of users that formed you, Gold Blade and others alike. I don't know how are you relations with him now that he's off this wiki, and being a vandal and all, but I still think that he was the first Sysop-made vandal and maybe the natural product of the troll behaviour Sysops used to show off in these troubled times. If you wonder what will I do, I'll respond you "just that". I'll be the nexus between the currently underestimated newbie community and those that have to represent them. Give me a chance Axe! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain Your not very level-headed, but your work towards the wiki is great. But, I can't decide between the two of them--Kamden 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agaisnt I have changed my opinion of you. After seeing the responses of many mods, I have decided No. --Kamden 03:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  Please look at my reply to Reaper with no name. Thanks Kamden! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Vouch - You don't bite the newbies, you know how the wiki works, and you can be funny too. I don't like that you get involved in the flame wars with the other sysops, but you still deserve the spot. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 23:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Vouch - As Darth. --Karloth Vois ^RR 11:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Vouch - By a hair. Matt, I think you're an OK guy, I like that you take the time to help newbs, but I'm turned off by all the wiki-drama. In the end, though, I think you get much more crap than you give, and I believe you'll stick to the admin guidelines and your principles in good faith, even if it means disagreeing with other sysops. Stay clear of the flames, and I think you'll do fine. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 19:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Vouch - I want to see your front-seat modding ;) --Toejam 13:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain - While the quality of your contributions speak for themselves, the amount of drama that I have seen causes me concern. Of course, I recognize that my experiences regarding you and drama are limited; which is why I'm going to abstain rather than oppose. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 15:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Well, looking at the vouches and againsts, the only reason to vote against me is that: the drama. But if you look at what the guys above say about me, not my closest collaborators but neither my sworn enemies, you can see that they make 2 points. I don't like them, but here they are:

  • My contributions to the wiki overweight the troubles I make and
  • the ammount of drama I made hardly compares to the one I received.

  This is hardly a justification, but it would be fair that after looking at all the bad things people said about me, you made a space for the good things, and think of me as a human being that when attacked reacts, but even in that situation I "give less crap than I got". I hope that that speaks of the conciliative behaviour I try to maintain on this wiki Reaper =). --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Vouch - Vouched last time, vouching this time. Youronlyfriend 04:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against - We have a candidate who desires a promotion. He has a history of causing and attracting drama. In his defense, he tries to balance out the drama with the possibly good deeds he does on the Wiki. Does one offset the other? No, it does not and can not. Drama and Sysop should ideally be two words that are never said in the same sentence, or paragraph. I cannot help but believe that this candidate's track record of drama will overshadow and hamper any possible effectiveness the Sysop position will afford him. --Liche 18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  Care to tell me who are you and who gives you the authority to give a "qualified" opinion about how valid my bid for Sysop status is if you were obviously not here? When people that have never or seldom participed at anything on the wiki starts to give their "qualified" opinion about something on it, I just can't help to doubt the quality of said opinion. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  And that response, right there - the one where you belittle the opinion of a wiki user - is why you should not be given moderator status.--Jorm 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  I was pointing at the fact that this user made an elaborate conclussion against me when he himself doesn't seem to know me or to have chatted with me or had any contact with me elsewhere. Anyways, he will have respectful responses if he cares to reply my comments, and his concerns will be answered, if he cares to comunicate them to me. Your own comment clearly shows the reason I don't reply to your votes, as you don't express a constructive opinion but have an overall extremist position against me, based on unfounded claims that you believe absolute. Enjoy this, my last reply directed to you, if you want to. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 21:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  Woo-hoo! Awesomeness! You continue to show "qualifications" as being open minded, fair, and willing to resolve disputes. This reads as "he'll get respect from me when he shows me respect." Way to "prove" your ability to be a role-model, dude - especially since Liche's comments weren't abusive or the slightest bit flamey.--Jorm 21:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  I have been here for a fair while now and could not name a single mod/sysop who has never been involved in 'drama' more than a few are frequent visitors to that stage... This is not necissarily a bad thing as long as they don't use their position to lend weight to their argument.It used to annoy me but to be frank, these days i couldn't care less! I would like to see the removal of the mod tag from sigs as it may influence noobs but at the end of the day an arse is an arse regardless of responsibility. As far as i am concerned a mods job is wiki maintenance and drama just does not come into that!--Honestmistake 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  You obviously didn't look too hard, did you?--Gage 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Against - Might not have cared one way or the other before; however, Matthew's reply to Liche's comments dug his own grave in my book. --Teksura^Talk 21:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against - His response to Liche is completely at odds with him putting himself forwards as the "the greatest newbie friendly user around", since he basicly claimed that Liche hasn't been around long enough to have a valid opinion. Further, your comments on other negative votes smack of passive-agressiveness and dramallamery, which nobody wants in a mod. Finally, I just mistrust anybody who would nominate themself for a high-ranking position. - Srekto 03:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against - A sysop/admin/sysadm/admin/whatever should always be apolitical - never involved in drama. The higher the technical rank, the more the person should be able to rise above the drama, that does not seem to be the case here. -- grogh 04:04 16 Mar 07 (UTC)

I wish to withdrawn this candidacy, as I feel that it's purpose has been fulfilled and neither I or the community could gain something from the drama that it's starting to generate. My sincerest apologies for my reaction to Liche's vote, as I didn't want to disqualify it completely but I couldn't help to feel insulted because the hardest criticism to my capabilities was coming from an user that never presented himself to me or anything, thing that I consider very distasteful and not caracteristic of a gentlemen. I will try to correct that aspect of my behaviour before presenting another bid, if I ever do and I'll save to myself my opinion about the following votes and trolling replies. Thanks to the guys that tried to defend my bid, Honestmistake and Barbecue Barbecue in particular: I didn't expect such sympaty from anyone and you proved me wrong guys! That's all. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)