Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt

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

Matt Britt

Ended 00:50 April 24, 2007 (UTC)
Matt Britt (talk · contribs)

On the format of this RfA

Observe: This RfA has been intentionally formatted much in line with common practice at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. This format has been suggested as a potential way of conducting RfAs at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship from time to time and at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. Contributors to this RfA are asked to please refrain from holding this format against the nominee. This is merely an experiment, intended to help RfA evolve. Matt Britt has graciously agreed to be the guinea pig for this experiment.

Shortcomings: There may be significant shortcomings to this format. This is one of the possible outcomes of this experiment and that is ok. If the bureaucrats find it impossible to evaluate consensus in this format, the RfA may be restarted in a different form if the nominee chooses to do so.

To contribute: To contribute to this RfA, please see the instructions located on the talk page.

To comment on the format: Format meta-discussions are inappropriate for this RfA and should instead be directed to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship where centralized discussion may evolve. Contributions to this page may be re-factored and/or removed in support of centralized discussion.

To vote: You can't. There is no place to vote specifically on the candidate. Instead, you are expected to endorse/oppose views presented, perhaps contribute to related discussions in those sections and if you like create a view that is not already substantially addressed in earlier views on the candidate.

Nomination statement for Matt Britt (talk · contribs)

Overview: User:Matt Britt is an electrical engineering undergraduate student at Georgia Institute of Technology. He first came to Wikipedia in September of 2004 (first edit), more than 2 1/2 years ago. He's been an active, regular contributor during most of that time, with generally increasing activity over the last year and a half. He's never been blocked block log, shows coolness and maturity, and is an all around fantastic editor.

General behavior: I've reviewed various talk space messages performed by Matt Britt and found him to be apologetic when need be [1], polite [2], helpful in attempts to quell brewing fights [3], having a good understanding of policy [4], supportive of centralized debate [5], understands the difference between vandalism and content dispute [6] and patient with other editors [7]. He also has a good approach to the concept of improving the encyclopedia [8]

Main space contributions: Matt has contributed significantly to areas of his expertise in electrical engineering. He's been quite active in this arena with substantial contributions to Central processing unit, Computer, bipolar junction transistor, IBM System i and a whole host of other subject related articles.

Non-mainspace areas: Matt's contributed to a very broad range of Project space pages, including Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, Wikipedia:Peer review, Wikipedia:Reference desk, associated talk and sub pages of those areas and many other areas in project space as well. It's hard to find an area where he has not contributed at least some, if not significantly, in project space.

Featured pictures: Matt has had two of his pictures elevated to featured picture status. These are Image:80486dx2-large.jpg and Image:Internet map 1024.jpg. I found it encouraging that he was modest about the latter [9].

Vandalism fighting: Matt Britt has been a very active vandal fighter on such contentious articles as Jehovah's Witnesses and Xbox 360. In total, he's made more than a thousand vandalism reversions in his time here. He has received a barnstar for his work on vandalism [10].

Other: I found Matt's essay at User:Matt Britt/Don't just do whatever to be very refreshing, and demonstrative of a strong grasp of what it is we are trying to achieve here.

Conclusion: I find Matt to be a great presence on the project. His ideas on where we are supposed to be going, along with his patient demeanor and willingness to work with others on contentious issues show him to be well capable of the extra demands placed upon an administrator. Having Matt as an administrator will be a great asset to the project. --Durin 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate acceptance and statement

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. -- mattb @ 2007-04-16T21:37Z

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Mostly the ability to speedy delete articles per WP:CSD and block disruptive and unrelentant spammers after warning them. Surprisingly, I come across a significant number of both just by following the trail of editors of the articles I watch (especially those related to video games and electronic test equipment). -- mattb @ 2007-04-16T21:37Z

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I'm pleased with Oakland Cemetery and CPU simply because I put a lot of work into writing them and am proud of the result. I'm even more pleased with computer since its current state is the result of a joint writing effort with Steve Baker, and it was a pleasure to be able to collaborate on a major article rewrite. I was happy to have the viewpoints of another person in writing such a broadly-scoped article, something that I had a hard time finding with the first two articles I mentioned (one can never be quite sure if a fair treatment has been given if they are the sole author and editor). -- mattb @ 2007-04-16T21:37Z

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've been an ongoing proponent and somewhat a poster child for the binary prefix guideline at WP:MOSNUM. I've been involved in numerous lengthy debates on the matter, many of which become frustratingly cyclical and induce a lot of arm waving. This usually involves some firm language, but it rarely becomes incivil due largely to the good intent of everyone involved. I suppose that could prove stressful to some, but to be honest, Wikipedia doesn't cause me anxiety on a personal level. I say this with all the bittersweet love possible, but Wikipedia simply doesn't have any bearing on my well-being and I don't give it a lot of thought in my daily offline activity. Hobbies, however diverting, should be kept in appropriate perspective.

Perhaps a better example of a stressful situation regards the actions of two editors on pages related to (and including) Jehovah's Witnesses. Without going into gory detail, there was a lot of incivility and egregious personal attacks, things escalated to an arbitration case, and two prolific editors ended things on very bitter terms with permanent bans. Before the arbitration case was opened, I decided that my energies on Wikipedia were better spent making productive edits rather than engaging in viscious debates, so I removed the related articles from my watch list and avoided them for about a year. In the time after that I worked heavily on the aforementioned CPU and computer articles, so I think the decision was a good one. I've recently returned to editing the Jehovah's Witnesses related pages since a much nicer and more reasonable group helps maintain them now. (the full text of the RFAR can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein; back then my username was "uberpenguin") -- mattb @ 2007-04-16T21:37Z

Optional question by Húsönd

4. What are the advantages of WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and how does this new RFA concept help to simplify the process of determining the preparedness of an adminship candidate?

A: I have not been a party to your ongoing discussions as regards RFA reform, I do not regularly participate in the RFA process, and I therefore do not feel entitled to take sides in the matter of whether this format is a viable ongoing alternative to the norm. I agreed to this format because it seems to be a constructive way to test an alternative "in the wild". I think your point is better made on the RFA talk page. -- mattb @ 2007-04-16T22:49Z

I think this question is not really about the candidate's ability as an admin either. Majorly (hot!) 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing bureaucrat: Based on Matt's answer above, I do not endorse this candidate. I endorse though Majorly's comment, my question was indeed not specific about the candidate's ability as an admin, but rather about his ability to weigh his decisions based on Wikipedia's policies and his ability to aim for the improvement of Wikipedia (these I believe are fundamental for an admin candidate). Dodging a question instead of responding to direct concerns is also not what I look for in an admin candidate. I apologize if I happen to sound a little bit stern, I'm just expressing my personal point of view. --Húsönd 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken, but I could have just as well ignored your question altogether. I merely wanted to get across that I do not quickly form opinions about matters in which I have no previous involvement. My response was also a nice way of saying "please don't try to rope me into your debate with a loaded question". Of course, you're fully entitled to your opinion. -- mattb @ 2007-04-16T23:31Z

Optional question by Black Falcon

5. What are your thoughts on the on-sight deletion of pages by admins? Do you believe the immediate or long-term benefits of that practice to outweigh its immediate or long-term costs, or vice versa? My question applies only to speedy deletions of pages that were previously not tagged with {{db}} and performed under A7 (no assertion of importance) or T1 (divisive template).

A: The answer to this depends on the circumstances. I don't see any problem with on-sight deletion of, for example, a brand new article entitled "GEOGRE BUSH SI SATAN" [sic] containing nothing but images of the human phallus. Of course, this is a trivial case and doesn't answer the question very well.

In non-trivial circumstances I wouldn't normally feel comfortable with on-sight deletion. Where editorial judgement is required for deletion, I don't think that it ever hurts to wait a while and give other editors the chance to weigh in. One can't always rely totally on one's own judgement in information removal. It's better to err on the side of caution than to delete an article that might have had some useful purpose. I believe that any consequences of leaving a potentially bad article in tact for a little while longer (speedy deletion is usually pretty speedy, after all) are negligible compared to the backlash that can be caused by hasty deletion. -- mattb @ 2007-04-16T23:50Z

Optional question by eric

6. Would you comment on this thread where you are joking around with and encouraging [11] [12] a banned user, at the same time as that user is causing disruption and making vandalism edits elsewhere on Wikipedia? Would you handle such a situation differently as an administrator?

A: In the first diff I didn't realize who that was, and the second was a passing joke. I didn't realize that he had continued being disruptive after his ban, and probably would have withheld the joke if I knew that he was still being problematic. -- mattb @ 2007-04-17T06:05Z

Optional question by UTAFA

7. Do you support or are you opposed to the inclusion of articles related to pornographic subjects, such as porn stars and sexual intercourse positions, on wikipedia even if the content is interesting?

A: I don't see how this is relevant to this RFA, but for the record I'm totally indifferent since I don't edit articles on pornographic subjects. -- mattb @ 2007-04-17T06:05Z

Optional question by Black Falcon

8. If your RfA succeeds (and maybe even if it doesn't), would you mind enabling the "force edit summary" feature in your preferences? The exact title of the field is "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". It can be annoying at first, but should become less bothersome as your edit summary usage increases.

A: I'm willing to try it, though I do not guarantee that it will change my views on edit summaries to talk page comments espoused below. With this edit I have turned the feature on for a trial run. -- mattb 06:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by Daniel Bryant

9. You come across a marginably-notable x party activist's article in Special:Log/delete which has the following deletion summary: "Unsourced, negative article since creation, article subject complained to WMF". The article has had no AfD/DRV, and has existed for four months. You disagree with the assessment that it is "unsourced", given there are three references in the article to literary sources. What do you do next?

A: I'd avoid such article topics in the first place, but for the sake of argument, my next action is simple: Contact the admin who performed the deletion and ask for additional details so I could understand his perspective, perhaps get some history I wasn't aware of, and seek clarification on the alleged complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation. -- mattb 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Views

Contributors to this request for adminship are free to endorse or oppose any or all views expressed below. If you have a substantially different view than those expressed in the views currently shown on this page, please feel free to create a new view following the instructions on the template at the bottom of this page.

Demonstrated need for tools

Matt has demonstrated a need for the tools based on his very significant activity in vandalism fighting and his answer to question 1 above. His use of warnings to a variety of users [13][14][15][16] shows he knows how to use warnings appropriately and would not block inappropriately without warning users beforehand.

Nominee response

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Users who endorse this view

1. --Durin 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Matt's WP:AIV reports are reliable. I am confident he understands blocking policy and has need of the tools in this area. WjBscribe 22:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
3. JoshuaZ 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Yup, a good answer, especially considering his AIV reports are reliable. Addhoc 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Extensive history in vandal-fighting. JavaTenor 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Yes demonstration is shown by previous editing history.--VS ^talk 00:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Sure. Ryan619 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
8. –Pomte 05:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Hell Yeah..Good Answers and even Great Editor..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
10. -- LeCour^T:C 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
12.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
13. —ÅñôñÿMôús _{Dîššíd3nt} 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
14. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
16. —eric 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
17. Viridae^Talk 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
18. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
19. EdJohnston 23:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
20. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
21. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
22. – Riana ^ऋ 08:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the talk page of this, there's a red line that shows average number of edits per day. It's well below 10. That's not enough commitment. This is not to say Matt is evil. He's been here a long time but (?) has too much schoolwork to be an administrator based on <10 edits per day????UTAFA 05:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

   It's an edit per day count. Lots and lots of well regarded admins get busy in real life, and their edit counts drop to maybe 1 or 2 a day. Are you proposing we de-sysop what I would suspect to the the majority of admins who fit in that category due to lack of activity? -- Tawker 17:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

   • You're not wrong with the numbers, I guess, but if you want an admin candidate to sustain an average of more than 10 edits per day over 2.5 years, your standards are ludicrously high. Multiply it out and you're asking for over 9,000 edits. That's editcountitis that is completely out of control. You don't have to spend all your waking hours on Wikipedia (or spend lots of time making trivial bot-like edits) to be a good admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. I don't do editcountitis, but my monthly activity rate is more or less his annual activity rate. And anyway, that does not demonstrate a credible use for the tools. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• His user-talk edits show plenty of spam and other vandalism warnings. There is a single incident of repeated <non-literal quote>"how dare you remove a warning after reading it", however I don't consider this to be a big minus. I've only glanced at the edit summaries, but I can't see any warnings for prod or speedy delete, which is slightly odd considering that was the first chore he mentioned. Overall, good enough. Addhoc 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• I don't consider this to be a necessary criterion for adminship. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Likewise. >Radiant< 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Likewise. But it's true of this nominee nonetheless, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• I consider it irrelevant whether the candidate has demonstrated a need for administrative privileges. The principal question in any request for adminship is not whether the candidate needs the tools, but rather whether he will misuse them. I therefore neither support nor oppose this point as it is irrelevant to the decision to be made here. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I absolutely agree with the Tony Sidaway et al. on this issue. Since when did adminship become such a big deal? Users don't need to demonstrate a need for the tools to become an admin, given the tools and experience, I'm sure they will make fair use of them. - hahnchen 01:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominee has long, consistent history at Wikipedia

The nominee has been with Wikipedia since October of 2004 and consistently active with the project since 2005 as demonstrated by the chart on the talk page of this RfA. There's few gaps of any significance in his contributions. He remains available for and involved in ongoing discussions of pertinence as demonstrated by his recent attention to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) [17].

Nominee response

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Users who endorse this view

1. --Durin 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Pascal.Tesson 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
3. JavaTenor 22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
4. WjBscribe 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
5. JoshuaZ 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Addhoc 23:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
8. -- danntm ^T _C 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Yes indeed - evidence for this candidate is available and shows improvement over the time of his registration.--VS ^talk 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
10. green card and some finger wiggling --- RockMFR 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
11. YechielMan 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Captain panda 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Definately true
13. .....--Cometstyles 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
14. -- LeCour^T:C 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
16.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
17. Endorse, except that on principle I object to hunting for "gaps" in a user's activity as a possible negative. Wikibreaks can be good and they can be necessary, but currently admin candidates encounter something like <McCarthy>Are you now, or have you ever been, on Wikibreak?</McCarthy>. Lucky for Matt that he apparently hasn't. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
18. Bah, I went on a three-month wikibreak once. He's around enough. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
19. I generally do like a wait of some sort, to make sure a candidate is reasonably stable, likely to stick around, and isn't a sleeper account. I'm pretty sure being active since 2004 covers that. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
20. Viridae^Talk 06:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
21. This point is only marginally relevant. A candidate with a long history may (or may not) have developed enough of a reputation that sacrificing it for the pleasure of abusing admin's privileges would be a substantial price to pay. However, I emphatically reject the notion that an admin candidate need necessarily have either extensive or consistent levels of contribution. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
22. EdJohnston 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
23. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
24. True, though I agree with Radiant. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 22:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

1. Consistent isn't even a relevant issue. Consistently good would be good, consistently bad would be bad, and consistently mixed would be bad. This is not as written, a reason to promote. GRBerry 01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. So what? We don't want consistent people, we want good people. This is a non-issue. >Radiant< 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Agree with the above, long + consistent != good. This should not be an issue when evaluating someone for adminship. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Also agree with the above. Not an issue. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Agree with Kelly, only marginally relevant. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominee appears to be trustworthy

Matt has never been blocked [18]. Further, the last (and only) time he was ever warned about anything about his editing behavior that could lead to a block was in January of 2006, more than a year ago. Lastly, despite being confronted with sometimes very contentious users, he has kept his cool. This, combined with his previously noted willingness to warn users of improper behavior before acting seems to indicate he would not act rashly with the admin tools and would use them appropriately for the betterment of the project.

Nominee response

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Users who endorse this view

1. --Durin 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Pascal.Tesson 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
3. I don't think "trustable" is a word. But I think I agree with the general sentiment. WjBscribe 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Addhoc 23:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
5. It probably should be "trustworthy"-- danntm ^T _C 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Trustworthy Yes - and a good endorsement question.--VS ^talk 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
7. YechielMan 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Captain panda 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC) From what I have seen, he is trustable.
9. eskimospy^(talk) 04:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
10. –Pomte 04:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
11. In my recent dealings with Matt, I've found him to be very reasonable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
12. .....--Cometstyles 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
13. -- LeCour^T:C 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
15. – Steel 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
16.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
17. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
18. Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
19. —eric 03:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
20. Viridae^Talk 06:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
21. Another point which marginally adds to the conclusion that the candidate at least understands and follows basic community standards. Not sufficient by itself to convince of trustworthiness, but it adds to the inductive calculus. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
22. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
23. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
24. I endorse that the nominee appears to be trustworthy. -- Jreferee 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
25. On much more solid ground here. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
26. EdJohnston 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
27. yes, and a little more relevant than the last two. Still not sufficient in and of itself. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
28. Tawker 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
29. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

1. "He has never been blocked therefore he is trustworthy" is a non sequitur. This view conflates several issues. >Radiant< 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• I was considering adding another view with the text: "Administrator standards are too high. Matt has experience and isn't a jerk is pretty much sufficient in my book." But that seems to be a bit WP:POINT, and this view seems to be similar enough to me. Plus, such simple standards are likely to upset some people. Anyway, going through his edits, he seems to be a solid contributer to articles, and genuinely not a jerk [19]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominee has no experience with XfDs

The candidate does not seem to have any experience in deletion discussions. This makes it difficult to evaluate whether he can be trusted to close such discussions, a particularly contentious task for an admin.

Nominee response

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Users who endorse this view

1. Pascal.Tesson 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
2. View is endorsed in line with the parameters surrounding the question.--VS ^talk 01:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Endorsed as "technically true but largely irrelevant", he never said he was planning to close XfDs, and not all admins do or have to. If he wants to start later he can always learn (and I'm confident he will, rather than doing anything rash), and if he never does, that's perfectly alright too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. I'd say "little" experience, but yes, this appears to be the case. >Radiant< 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
5. User has little experience with XfD's but I would question how this is real relevant to the discussion, he hasn't said that his focus as an admin would be there. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Agree with Radiant's comment. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

1. See rationale in discussion section below --Durin 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Not true. Addhoc 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
3. His general demeanor outside of deletion-related pages, regardless of experience in those specific areas, is sufficient to produce a reliable evaluation of his trustworthiness, which is high. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. I'm adding my comment here as opposed to the section below, as I feel that a "qualified oppose" in this case is superior to an extra view (avoiding "view creep"). As long as closing XfDs isn't his primary initial focus, I don't see the lack of experience here as a major issue. JavaTenor 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
5. As far as I can tell, this does not seem true. Captain panda 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Not all administrators need to be able to close deletion discussions. Very few ever do. --Tony Sidaway 13:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Per Tony. – Steel 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Christopher Parham nails it. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Technically false, the user has SOME experience with same, as demonstrated by diffs. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Matt Britt has nominated a number of articles for deletion [20][21][22][23][24]. While this is not his biggest area, he shows competence to handle himself appropriately in this realm. I also note that his answer to question 1 does not show a focus on XfD discussions in potential role as an admin. --Durin 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I'm arguing for the sake of the experiment... But in any case, I believe you have pretty much listed all of the candidates' XfD contributions. He has not participated in a single XfD discussion since late November. I don't think it's so problematic since, as you point out, he does not plan to get involved in XfD closures but it's still a shortcoming that should be adressed. Pascal.Tesson 22:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well at least its easy to check all his XfD contribs :-). I'm not against there being few in number provided they show a good grasp of the relevant policies. WjBscribe 22:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. Despite common belief to the contrary, closing deletion discussions is not within the exclusive authority of administrators. Any competent editor may close a deletion discussion (either to keep or delete; a non-admin may close a discussion as a delete by adding {{delete|Consensus at xFD was to delete; see ...}} to the article to be deleted). Because this discussion is predicated on a falsehood, its contribution to deciding the question before us is limited at best. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominee has little experience with XfDs

The candidate does not seem to have much experience in deletion discussions. This makes it difficult to evaluate whether he can be trusted to close such discussions, a particularly contentious task for an admin. If this nomination is not passed, the nominee is enouraged to participate in the process more.

Nominee response

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Users who endorse this view

1. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. – Pomte 04:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. - All in favor of an already good Wikipedian seeing more of the world. Mackensen (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
4. This one is better. >Radiant< 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Pascal.Tesson 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
7. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

1. Not really relevant... The candidate has not stated that he will touch XfDs. Furthermore, I trust that he will approach the process with care if he does decide to participate in it as an admin in the future. Grandmasterka 10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• The view seems to state that xfd participation is necessary for an admin, however I can say with surety, you can be an admin and never touch that aspect of the project. Viridae^Talk 06:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Irrelevant for the same reasons as above. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominee has little experience with XfDs but this doesn't seem much of a problem

The candidate has not contributed much to XfDs but what contributions are sound, in particular he has been able show he can identify borderline speedy candidates (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compufrost). Personally I think it was a fairly obvious speedy- but if anything it looks like Matt Britt will err on the side of caution when using the deletion tools. As such his lack of experience in this area does not seem very concerning.

Nominee response

Thank you for your vote of confidence, but isn't this view more or less counter to the previous one expressed? If that's the case, would you kindly consider moving your comment to "Oppose this view" directly above? I'm not sure that it's entirely necessary to create another view section to express your sentiment. -- mattb @ 2007-04-16T23:27Z

You'd have us instead only be asked questions about how good you are? Splash - tk 23:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That was not what I intended to imply, and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I only was suggesting that the users who support this view are in effect opposing the previous view, and that I don't see the necessity of having one view that expresses concern with my lack of XfD experience and another that explicitly expresses lack of concern with it. In any case, it was merely a suggestion, and my intent was only to try and keep this RFA page as readable as possible. I'm sorry if that intent didn't come across. -- mattb @ 2007-04-16T23:56Z

Mmm, not sure I consider my view to be opposing that above, more that I had a slightly different take on the matter. But I guess I am disagreeing with "no experience". Mmm, not sure what to do... WjBscribe 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. WjBscribe 23:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
2. There's no point in asking people what they would do if successful and not evaluating their experience on the basis of that answer. Matt isn't proposing to be a leading XfD closer, and judging his experience as he were is mistaken. Not that I'd have a problem with him closing XfDs if he felt confident about it. I'm sure he'd know when to jump in, and when not to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Not a great deal of experience in the XfD process, however per Angus, not overly concerned. Addhoc 23:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
4. My opinion is stated per the others. Captain panda 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Isnt it about time we stop judging how much an Editor has contributed toWikipedia and concentrate more on his contributions as a whole....--Cometstyles 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Alright, so he doesn't participate a ton in AfD discussions, but when needed he uses the tool and uses it properly. What more can you ask? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
7. -- LeCour^T:C 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
9. I can't see a requirement that, after not really showing an interest in XfD, being given the mop should require a user to suddenly start. Quite the reverse. My reading of the nomination and questions suggests that XfD is not where his interest lie. Me neither, and that doesn't stop me making productive use of the tools.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Angus McLellan puts it well. Moreover, a knowledge of XfD isn't necessary to handle speedy deletions (although it doesn't hurt). Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Viridae^Talk 06:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Per my comments in the last section. Grandmasterka 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
13. EdJohnston 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Yes. Has some experience. And XfD experience is not a binary suitability metric. So agree with Kelly as potentially not relevant either way. ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
15. And alas, nor did I. It's a non issue -- Tawker 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
16. I agree that this doesn't seem to be a real issue. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

1. Question is somewhat obtuse and grammar used in the heading is difficult to comprehend. On that basis I can't endorse it.--VS ^talk 01:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Yes a lot better WJBscribe. I remove my opposition but I don't know (can't read) candidate well enough to know if it will be a problem or not. (So I guess I remain neutral or silent on this point now).--VS ^talk 02:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

   I agree, by the time I'd figure out the template I wasn't at my coherent best :-). I've tweaked it slightly- is that clearer? WjBscribe 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

2. His XFD nominations appear sound, but I'd still like to see more descriptive nominations. The 3 noms I checked state the subject is not notable without much explanation as to why Matt believes this to be the case. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Xoloz 13:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Nominee indicates a desire to do speedy deletions. Thus his participating in XFD is significant to whether he can be trusted to use the tools to the betterment of the project. GRBerry 18:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Fail to see how a single example makes for a relevant view. >Radiant< 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Also irrelevant, as per previous two views. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominee's experience with XfD/DRV is not sufficient to promote

Nominee's XfD experience (every diff linked above), is not significant, and generally not recent. His description of his intended activity is "Mostly the ability to speedy delete articles per WP:CSD and block disruptive and unrelentant spammers after warning them." Since his first listed activity is deletion, we need to know whether or not to trust him with the deletion tools. His participation in deletion discussions is far too low to provide a basis for trust, so he should not be promoted.

Nominee response

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Users who endorse this view

1. As author GRBerry 01:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. orange card --- RockMFR 01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Xoloz 13:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Badly worded view, but we get the point already. On a normal RFA, he'd get several opposes for lack of experience. >Radiant< 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Technically correct. This user's experience with XfD is not sufficient to promote, in and of itself. But I posit that NO User's experience with XfD is sufficient, in and of itself. I need to see more than just XfD wonking. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

1. One does not necessarily require XfD experience to become an admin. Captain panda 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. There are processes and others to watch him during "probation" on this point. And an admin does not have to undertake XfD duties to become a useful admin.--VS ^talk 02:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

   We have administrative probation now? How does it work? How long does it last? What happens if you are only mediorce, or simply don't use the tools? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Closing deletion debates is an art which is learned. Since there are literally hundreds of deletion debates most days of the week, there are plenty which are uncontroversial and easy to close, which Matt can start with if closing deletion debates is something he wants to be involved in. --bainer (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. People are not required to be involved in XFD to become an admin, and even if they are involved in nominations, closing debates is something non-admins rarely get involved in. The only way he could learn that is by doing it. I support the view Thebainer posted just above my comment here. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
5. In the context of useful WP:AIV reports and some XfD experience, combined with a significant amount of overall edits, I don't envisage a problem in giving him the mop, which by the way, isn't a promotion. Addhoc 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
6. You don't need experience of deletion discussions to have the bits. --Tony Sidaway 13:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
7. You don't have to know how an AfD works to speedy "John Doe is the dumbest kid at Somewhere School lololol!" Speedy is not AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Participation in deletion processes is not necessary to create a basis of trust, even with specific regard to closing deletion debates. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
9. This is ridiculous. He's got no experience of blocking people either.--Doc^g 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

   This is not ridiculous. Contributions to AIV, RFC, ANI, etc... are how we evaluate a candidates likely behavior with the blocking and protection tools; contributions to XfD (or declined speedy nominations) are how we evaluate likely behavior with the deletion button. I think much of the opposition to this view is void of contribution to the discussion, but this one is far less valuable than others. (On the other hand, Addhoc's response is quite reasonable, and could be considered an exemplar for the kind of disagreement that is meaningful.) GRBerry 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

10. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
11. To reiterate, I can't see a requirement that, after not really showing an interest in XfD, being given the mop should require a user to suddenly start. Quite the reverse. My reading of the nomination and questions suggests that XfD is not where his interest lie. Me neither, and that doesn't stop me making productive use of the tools.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
12. People who frequent XfD blow its importance out of proportion, and this statement is an example. XfD is not the encyclopedia, and it's not the only use for admin tools. It's perfectly acceptable for admins to not be interested in that corner of WP. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
13. XfD is not the raison d'etre of adminship. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
14. I've never closed a XfD as far as I can remember. It's certainly not essential to adminship. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
15. There are too many very nearly redundant sections on this RfA. Grandmasterka 10:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    I think that's natural the first time you try this -- the two views above are of much less value than this one, because the first doesn't clarify its relationship with the overarching question about adminship, and the second actually denies such a relationship. It took three tries to get here, but if we used this format repeatedly I imagine we would get better at writing useful views. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

16. As participation in deletion discussions is not a prerequisite for adminship, the candidate's lack of such activity is not a predicate for denying promotion. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
17. I was unaware of the rule saying an admin must have a certain level of participation in deletion discussions. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
18. EdJohnston 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
19. I actually agree with everything except for the "and so he should not be promoted" part. Very badly-worded. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Another marginally relevant point. I am not sure it's better. Perhaps "the experience (quantity, nature, history, ... all of it) this user has had with XfD is not a bar to a successful candidacy"? which I would endorse without quibble! ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominee may cause undue disruption

The formating of this request alone is making the already burdened RfA system more difficult by providing an extremley esoteric format. Acceptance of a format that places such an extreme burden on editors to contribute comments and suggestion regarding this request shows a lack of regard for consensus gathering, as new statements (such as this one) require such careful editing skills (this page subsection has at LEAST 15 control tags) that new opinions, specific support and/or oppose reasons will be discouraged to typical editos.

Nominee response

I suppose it's time I comment on this. I agreed to this format because it was presented to me as a good faith and potentially useful experiment to test a possibility for RFA reform. I did not have much of a prior opinion as to whether RFA needed reforming, but I could not (and can not) see anything malicious or disruptive about a well-planned experiment such as this one. Our policies and guidelines are constantly tested, revoked, and re-affirmed on Wikipedia, consensus can change, and I embrace attempts to change things for the better (even failed ones). I think this RFA is showing some of the benefits of this type of format, as well as many of the flaws.

I did not agree to this format simply to "move the cheese" of RFA regulars, and I disagree with the view that constructive experimentation should be stifled simply because it breaks the norm (for heaven's sake, this is an online collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit; how many norms does that break?). If my time as a research assistant has taught me anything, it's that even an experiment with bad results still provides useful insights (just last week I spent ten hours developing a very poor method of etching a certain rare-earth ferrite). I cannot stop my fellow gentle editors from disagreeing with my openness to experimentation, but I wanted to make my view on this matter perfectly lucid. -- mattb 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Naconkantari 03:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Húsönd 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Q4 shows the nominee did not investigate this format seriously before agreeing to it. Also, the timestamp in his signature deviates from convention and prolongs the time taken for other users to determine the time of his comment. It can distract other users from editing the encyclopedia to wonder about how it works, and has raised a concern about bot disruption. –Pomte 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

   I appreciate your concern over the format of my time stamps, and I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that I'm going back to using Wikipedia default time stamps due to the issues brought to my attention by Ral315. I do apologize if my usage of ISO 8601 standard time convention has "distracted you from editing the encyclopedia" and sincerely hope that the damage caused hasn't been irreparable. I do hope that you won't begrudge me the few hours it took for me to come to this decision. -- mattb 06:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

5. MaxSem 09:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Xoloz 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
7. This is completely unusable. I am all for some changes to RfA, but using (and allowing) this format is a severe misjudgment, which is not one any admin should make without a very inclusive consensus to use the format. No one RfA should be different then the others, and this is not acceptable. I oppose the format and the candidate for allowing its use. Prodego ^talk 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
8. This format makes it impossible to determine consensus, and seems designed to take the RFA decision out of the hands of the Wikipedia community and put it in the hands of a few top officials. I usually don't throw around terms like "cabalism," but in this case, I really can't think of any more appropriate word. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Yep. >Radiant< 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

1. I think Matt Britt should be commended for being brave enough to give this format a go. He has not stated that he thinks this is an ideal format but has been willing to be experimented upon. If RfA variants are to be tried, guinea pigs will be needed. I don't see how his willingness to risk this style of RfA suggests he will be disruptive as an admin. WjBscribe 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oh come on. I also feel that the format is proving to be awful but holding this against the candidate is not fair. I have suggested here that we might want to restart the RfA but this really has nothing to do with whether or not Matt should be an admin. Pascal.Tesson 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Regardless of the merit of this specific format, I cannot hold it against this candidate that he was willing to allow an experimental format. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, "RFC-style RFA" has been a suggestion in the past, and it's good to have a test run to expose the flaws and strengths of any particular format. JavaTenor 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Question is not a fair one in terms of it being related to this candidate. New process has promise in my opinion but would bog down if questions such as these were added and then levelled at the candidate.--VS ^talk 04:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

   This was never intended to be a question. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

5. This seems ever so slightly ridiculous. We're holding formatting against RfA candidates now? This is exactly why RfA is 'broken'. User:Veesicle 05:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Whether the format turns out to be good or bad, the exercise of running through an RfA this way is productive. Accepting innovation is a good thing, and the nominee has shown he is willing to try something new in an attempt to improve the system. I see no connection to whether or not the nominee will act as a rogue admin. Strong opposition. Dekimasuよ! 06:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
7. This isn't proving to be the best of ways to format an alternative RFA nomination, but the fact he's willing to be a guinea pig for this has no bearing at all on how the candidate would perform admin duties. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Agreement with Veesicle. It's absurd that we should hold the format of an RfA against a candidate. If you have no other reason to oppose a candidate than being willing to be a guinea pig, he must be an outstanding candidate indeed. --Durin 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Not a sensible objection. --Tony Sidaway 13:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
10. I don't see any trouble with willingness to experiment. The only person who could possibly be harmed by doing things this way is the nominee, and he's agreed to it. There's already too much resistance to change around here in general, good to see someone bucking that trend. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
11. I don't like the format, but I do not feel that his agreement to try it out is detrimental. -- LeCour^T:C 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
12. His willingness to risk his RfA to be a test pilot is commendable. Yes, if this format is to be used, it needs a lot of tweekng - but that's not a reason not to promote.--Doc^g 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
13. The possible harm that can come from this experiment is relatively low. Captain panda 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Ridiculous, and I'm not surprised at some of the names that are endorsing this. Perhaps one of them could drop by my talk page and explain how "the candidate would likely misuse admin tools" follows from "the candidate is willing to pilot a new RfA format". – Steel 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Neither the time nor the place to express such shocking views. Endorsers should be ashamed of themselves.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
16. This statement has no bearing on the candidate, and is explicitly against the instructions for the RfA. The 8 (or more?) supporters above are disrupting this RfA to make a point about how they think RfA should be run. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

    I am fully aware of WP:POINT and I stand by my endorsement. It is perfectly legitimate for users to refuse to trust another user for their actions, such as accepting this entangled RFA format (and just as legitimate as it is supporting them for the exact same reason). The last time I checked, users were still allowed to express their opinions on Wikipedia without having to be accused of violating WP:POINT just because some new concept of discussion with undiscussed guidelines says that they may only nod instead of talk. Please be balanced.--Húsönd 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    Nothing says you can't express your opinion. The directions are pretty clear: discuss the candidate on this page, and discuss the format on the talk page. It's just like if you're dissatisfied with the quality of the article on chickens, you discuss it on the talk page, you don't add "This article sucks, and so do chickens!" to the article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

17. I find this fascinating; rarely has so much been said in an RfA about the basic qualities needed in an administrator. Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

    I'm confused, how do you oppose this viewpoint? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    I assume that Mackensen believes that this RfA format is good or at least worth experimenting with, and therefore Mackensen opposes the viewpoint that "Matt's acceptance of the format implies he would cause undue disruption". --Metropolitan90 13:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    Piloting a new RfA format on your own RfA shows maturity and dedication to the project. Whether that's what Mackensen meant, I don't know, but that's the way I read it. – Steel 16:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

18. I don't hold the format of the request against candidates who use the traditional setup, although I think that format shows vastly less regard for consensus gathering than this one. It seems unreasonable to hold the format of this candidacy against the candidate, who is eminently qualified. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
19. Strongly opposed, per reasons above. The willingness to allow others to try something new is not itself an indication that you will disrupt the encyclopedia. Viridae^Talk 06:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
20. A willingness to experiment is not a willingness to disrupt. I don't want to encourage, in admins, an absolute fear of trying new things, and I fear that's what the supporters of this will impose. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
21. Irrelevant and quibbling objections like this are far more disruptive. —Phil | Talk 10:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
22. Beyond ridiculous. Matt Britt should be commended for trying this. The supporters are the POINT violaters, if anyone. Grandmasterka 10:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
23. This "view" is a logical fallacy. —freak(talk) 11:20, Apr. 18, 2007 (UTC)
24. The candidate's willingness to try something new in an effort to better Wikipedia is absolutely not a reason to consider him ill-fit to be an administrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
25. Isn't being bold supposed to be one of those fundamental things about Wikipedia? It's an untested RfA format and I hate it, but the user's willingness to be the guinea pig is not something to hold against him. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
26. EdJohnston 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
27. The format is painful and takes a lot more effort to get to the point. But the nominee is worthy of praise, not condemnation, for trying something worth trying... (if we did not try we would not know if it worked well or not) As part of an earlier experiment, I participated in this: Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship/Lar and I don't recall it being held against me. Of course it was more of a trial run in a development environment than an actual live test in production conditions, but still. 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
28. This comment has nothing to do with the editor and everything to do with the format, and therefore goes against what an RfA is for. I also find it absurd that people are commenting about the date format in his former sig. Who gives a damn? This section should be taken out and shot. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Well, this certainly isn't commendable. I also don't think it a reason to deny the candidate the tools at a subsequent, reasonably formatted RfA. It may, however, be, a reason to declare the whole thing incapable of producing a consensus, because it is a very painful structure to work with. GRBerry 03:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Guys, you realise you can make this format really easy to use by turning on section editing in your preferences? --bainer (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  How does that make it really easy for people to add new viewpoints? While normally editors can support/oppose/or just comment, they can always put in a short statement why. Now they have to start a whole new section to put in a statement, or else be forced to just agree or disagree with someone elses viewpoint. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  My comment was directed at the argument that participating requires too much in the way of editing skills. --bainer (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  Most people are coming from the RfA main page, where the things that are sections on this page are not editable sections. So it isn't even an option. GRBerry 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I absolutely hate this format. However, that isn't a reason to oppose the candidate. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 08:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• This format is clunky, however that shouldn't reflect unduly on the candidate. Addhoc 08:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I would discourage this format from being used again, but the fact that Matt agreed to use it on an experimental basis should have no bearing on whether he is or is not made an admin. --Metropolitan90 13:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly so. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of reversion tools

The nominee's use of automated reversion tools (akin to administrator rollback) here: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]; used for reverting non-obvious vandalism, without a descriptive edit summary suggests that they may need more time working on reverting changes to articles in a manner that will not discourage newcomers.

Nominee response

The editors that were being reverted were all aware of the reasons for doing so. If you look at the page history in the first edit and the talk page of the user being reverted, you'll see that they were informed of why their changes were being reverted. The last diff is trivial vandalism; meaningless removal of some key words in an article. I didn't bother adding another warning template to that user's talk page since he was already under scrutiny for his many other trivial vandalism edits. I agree that I should've provided additional explanation with the revert to the multicore article. -- mattb @ 2007-04-17T06:09Z

Users who endorse this view

1. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. In the third and fourth diffs, Matt did notify the user on their talk page. However, brief edit summaries would be helpful, especially in the first diff. –Pomte 04:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

   In the fourth dif above the other editor was given a {{spam}} warning for placing internal links in a see-also section. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

3. This is uncool. MaxSem 09:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Shows grave inexperience; candidate not ready yet. Xoloz 13:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Edit summaries are very important, especially on reversion. So this is a true statement. It is not in and of itself a bar to being an admin. ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

1. Nitpicking. – Steel 20:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. I have some sympathy with this view, but have done it myself, do do it myself, will do it myself. It's just to easy and is thus meaningless. Therefore I must oppose in order to not be a hypocrite.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. This is small beer. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

   Does this mean you disagree with the viewpoint, or that regardless of the view point you would !vote support for the nominee? (question meant for all 3 above). — xaosflux ^Talk 04:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

   It means that I don't necessarily agree with the viewpoint as presented, and that I don't see it as a major issue regardless. Mackensen (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

   I disagree that rolling back a few non-vandalism edits requires the candidate to spend more time as a non-admin learning how to revert with an informative summary, and I five out of context rollbacks wouldn't be the basis for me opposing an RfA. – Steel 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Three of the five diffs provided above were immediately followed up on with talk page messages. Most of those are, in my opinion, within the realm of reasonable rollback territory. If there's some strong pattern, here, I'd like to see more, but to be honest, I anticipate we could find five such diffs for just about any longtime contributor. I'm not seeing an abusive pattern, here, I guess is what I'm getting at. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Per redvers and Luna satin both. I was going to say similar things. Viridae^Talk 06:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
6. {{shrubbery}}. Admin candidates need to spend more time on reverting changes? Come on. >Radiant< 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
7. I do not see the information raised as reflecting negatively on the candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
9. EdJohnston 23:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
10. It's a means of speeding up a revert (one click is a lot faster than 3) so more time can be spent explaining. -- Tawker 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
11. While I think it's generally bad practice to use rollback instead of doing a real edit, I don't think this is important enough to bring up here. Candidate has said he likely won't do it again. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• A good revert is one that makes a page better. A bad revert is one that makes a page worse. Who cares how either is performed? —freak(talk) 11:37, Apr. 18, 2007 (UTC)

  The view specifies "without a descriptive edit summary". Only blatant vandalism should be rolled back without a descriptive summary, but I think everyone bends that rule from time to time. GRBerry 16:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  Exactly so. ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominee makes insufficient use of edit summaries

According to the mathbot tool, Matt Britt's edit summary usage is "99% for major edits and 90% for minor edits". However, this includes section editing where no human-written summary is provided. In actuality (see contributions history), the nominee's edit summary usage is below 50% (19 of the 50 most recent major edits as of 01:26 UTC on April 17).

That's not correct I think. The bot only looks at edits in the article namespace, and there the edit summary is what the bot says it is. Edit summaries in other namespaces are not that important. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominee response

I'm not entirely sure how the breakdown pans out, but I suspect a large percentage of these are talk page and reference desk edits. I see no reason to add an edit summary to most talk page and RD edits because the purpose of those edits are totally self-evident within the text. If I'm leaving a comment on a talk page, I don't see much utility in adding an edit summary to the effect "left a comment". -- mattb @ 2007-04-17T06:15Z

Users who endorse this view

1. Black Falcon 06:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Xoloz 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Promises to try to rectify, so I'm happy; nevertheless, it seems true (out of mainspace) so I endorse against my better judgement.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Endorse, and hope he uses them more, but the fact that this is true doesn't mean the adminship request should be rejected. Dekimasuよ! 04:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Edit summaries are important on talk pages. Again, this is not an opposition to the adminship request. Ben Aveling 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Edit summaries are important. Full stop. This candidate did not use them as much as they should. Therefore support the assertion. BUT this is not sufficient, in and of itself, to deny adminship. 21:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
8. I fully agree with the comments made by the above unnamed editor. Candidate could fix this by checking the box in preferences. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

1. Even the objector admits that the candidate makes edit summaries to all mainspace edits. I agree that it's nice to annotate every single edit, but it isn't a sensible criterion for rejecting a good candidate. --Tony Sidaway 13:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

   I only added this view as I noticed the discrepancy between actual usage and the mathbot results. I never intended this to be a reason to reject an excellent candidate and have in fact expressed my full support for the candidate. I sincerely hope that the closing bureaucrat will not reject the candidate based on this minor matter. -- Black Falcon 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

2. People make too much of edit summary use. It's nice, and I'd be concerned if someone never used edit summaries, but especially on talk pages/discussion boards, the auto section header is often enough. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. I'm not leaving a human-created edit summary for this "indication of opposition". -- LeCour^T:C 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Ridiculous. Who cares? --Doc^g 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Per Doc. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
6. I thought we agreed ages ago this this was pretty high on the "stupid reasons to oppose" list? – Steel 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

   Blame it on the format ... this section is just a "statement of fact" and should not constitute a reason to oppose (well, technically, we're not allowed to oppose or to support). -- Black Falcon 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

   Well, sort of. Saying that the nominee's edit count usage is low would be a statement of fact. Saying that it's insufficient is akin to an oppose. – Steel 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

   Hmm ... you're right. But the thing is ... I support the candidate and have expressed my support on the talk page. I suppose the section title constituted a poor wording on my part. So I guess the question is, how do I succinctly express the idea that: "the nominee's use of edit summaries is less than I'd like, but it's really a minor issue that the editor can and has agreed to improve, and in any case, I support the candidate and do not think this minor matter should under any circumstances be a reason for not promoting him"? Any suggestions? =P -- Black Falcon 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

7. I acknowledge the low edit summaries but I don't think it's a problem. Apparently he uses them in the main namespace, and that's where they really matter. I find I don't use them much in the project namespace, because it would always be along the lines of "reply," "no," "yes," "go drown yourself" and so on. Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
8. I happen to append edit summaries even to things that don't need them. That doesn't mean I insist on everyone else doing so. -Amarkov moo! 04:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
9. True but irrelevant. >Radiant< 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Nonsense. From his edit count his edit summary usage appears to be quite high, nearly 100% in the past 12 months! —freak(talk) 11:30, Apr. 18, 2007 (UTC)
11. The use of edit summaries is completely irrelevant to the qualifications of an admin candidate. Danny, one of Wikipedia's best and longest-serving admins, rarely uses edit summaries; Wikipedia has not failed to function as a result. Let's focus on things that really matter, rather than things that can be easily measured by automated tools, but are fundamentally irrelevant. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Oh come on. Based on where he edits he doesn't need too many anyway. Plus irrelevent.--Wizardman 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
13. This is overly picky, particularly since it appears he uses the edit summaries where they count the most. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Object to "edit summary usage" as a criterion for adminship. Even if you use it as a criterion, Matt's usage is more than adequate for adminship as per previous discussion above. --Richard 06:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Largely irrelevant. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 03:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
16. Per Matt's response. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Here's the actual breakdown (I'll use only your last 50 edits):
  • Mainspace........100%
  • Article talk.....28%
  • User.............58% (as all but one are to your userpage, that's not a problem)
  • User talk........60%
  • Wikipedia........6% (most to the Reference desk)
  • Wikipedia talk...4% (most at the talk page of WP:MOSNUM)

  Your suspicion that most of your edits lacking summaries are to talk pages and the reference desk is correct. However, I think the use of edit summaries even on talk pages is useful. If you agree to enable the "force edit summary" feature, the rather minor issue of insufficient use of edit summaries really becomes a non-issue (at least for me). -- Black Falcon 06:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• So far this, as with most of these assertions, does not get to the root... is the nominee in tune with our goals and approach here, possessed of a deft hand in dealing with others so as not to cause a ruckus when things are done, and not particularly likely to delete the main page in a wild rampage on a regular basis? ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominee's non-automated edit summaries are informative and civil

When the candidate provides edit summaries (about 40% of major edits) that are not automated (about 25% of major edits), they are informative and civil. See, for example: [30][31][32][33][34]

Nominee response

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Users who endorse this view

1. Black Falcon 06:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Appears factually true. The fact that the candidate is consistently informative and civil adds to the inductive calculus; again, not a factor that is sufficient in itself, but the absence of a negative amounts to a positive in the full evaluation. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
5. True, but what is the point? Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Ugh... getting deeper and deeper into the nitpicking about edit summaries. It's enough that he uses them; the quality of the edit summary is not a critical criterion for adminship. --Richard 06:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
7. True but irrelevant. Edit summaries are expected to be informative and not incivil, that's what they're there for. So I support this view as technically correct. (while Radiant! opposes it for apparently exactly the same reason :) ) ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
8. True. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 22:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

1. True but irrelevant. Edit summaries are expected to be informative and not incivil, that's what they're there for. >Radiant< 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
2. I agree with Radiant. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This method of RFA is so confusing that I am unable to participate.

Editor's note: I have move this view from Matt Britt's RfA to here, as meta discussions regarding the format of the RfA are inappropriate for the RfA and are better directed here. --Durin 12:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of varying opinions is very low, and the whitespace very high. I have a fairly high screen resolution, but I'm unable to see even one opinion on the screen at a time. I would encourage this user to re-apply immediately with a standard-formatted RFA.

Note to Bureaucrats

I strongly disagree with Durin's summary. This was a list of users who were 'unable to participate' in the RFA due to the reformatting. I don't think that one should necessarily consider all of these as opposing editors, but it is a reasonable option.AKAF 15:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors who endorse this view

1. AKAF 07:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Black Falcon 07:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC). It's impossible for me to participate within this format in a manner that will actually reflect my view of the candidate. If I were to try, it'd come out to endorsing 5 views and opposing 5 others. Yet, my comments would be a product of the way the views were worded rather than my actual opinion on the candidate.
3. Not that it's completely useless, but clicking "voice your opinion" leads you to a huge amount of text, full of <noinclude> and <includeonly>. You'll have to open the subpage first, and edit separate sections. And even in that case you'll encounter overzealous amount of formatting. This is very close to WP:BITE, because novices and users not experienced enough with wikitext will find participation in RFAs close to impossible. MaxSem 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Mailer Diablo 10:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC) - Exactly. In fact if I weren't to add any additional comment but to just endorse with ~~~~, it still ends up more like voting to me.
5. It might be better if commentary were restricted to a few categories (you could have an "other" if you wish) but there are way too many dimensions being explored here for any kind of consensus to clearly emerge. The result of this will be that every section becomes a "!vote" instead of just one big one, as Mailer Diablo said above. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
6. It's kaput. —Anas ^talk? 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
7. 'fraid so. >Radiant< 12:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
8. My brain be dizzy. // Sean William 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Just awful. If RfA is broken, then this is picking up the bits and smashing them to smithereens. --Dweller 13:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
10. I actually was curious to see how this format would work but now that we've got multiple sections all with slightly different formulations I think this is an unmitigated disaster and I hope that Matt will be wise enough to request a re-start of the RfA under a normal format. Pascal.Tesson 15:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
11. If the sections below didn't make it obvious. Kafziel ^Talk 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
12. I'm dizzy from trying to figure out what where how why when... No, I don't think it's a good format, because a prospective candidate might get 100 endorsments from one point of view, then totally fail another because it isn't his or her area of expertise. Evilclown93 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
13. The big problem with RfA is not that we have an imperfect process, but that bureaucrats don't follow properly the process we have (like promoting against consensus). Making it more painful to vote and for bureaurats to decide won't fix anything and may actually make things worse I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
14. My brain be dizzy, too. I have a slightly differing view, though - it wasn't just the adding comments and reading views, the format also caused an "I don't know what to say in my comments" feeling. I was open-minded towards the other "new" format on Moralis's RfA, and ended up being a big fan of it. On this one, it seems that comments are restricted to a simple vote for or against very narrow 'points'. The discussion does not seem to flow or even fit together, with no communication between anyone on the entire page. I can't see where determining consensus would be even remotely possible. All in all, the format has caused me to decide that I'm sitting this one out. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 02:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
15. There is little way to tell how many people oppose, and no way to tell how many people support. And I'd have to add like 5 new sections to get across everything I want to. -Amarkov moo! 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    Also, I recently added a statement that the nominee demonstrated that they are fine with people contributing mostly to projectspace. Unfortunately, that turns out to be wrong. If I had not looked through the RfA very carefully, I would not have noticed that he actually says the opposite. -Amarkov moo! 05:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

16. More than a couple sections leads to exhaustion. RfA should not be multiple-choice. Most especially, everything becomes exquisitely sensitive to the phrasing/framing of the section statement/title. It becomes less about the person than the whimsy of how the question is received. Shenme 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
17. Okay, this looks like the place. I oppose promoting this guy. RfA is already fucked up enough without making it such a trial! Let him come back when he doesn't think this is a good idea. Grace Note 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
18. I placed my vote on the talk page. Kusma (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
19. Far too confusing a format when lots of pepople contributing with many different opinions making it impossible to tell whether someone should be promoted or not. Davewild 18:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
20. Sorry, but I didn't want to contribute until I'd read everything. And now that I have read nearly all the comments, it's over half an hour later and I'm more confused than when I started. I agree that RfA needs reforming but IMO this is excessively long, complicated and (on the evidence of some of the topics herein) can encourage nitpicking. Will (aka Wimt) 20:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
21. I think it's an absolute mess. I get tired of reading it less than a third the way in. I would hate to be the bureaucrat to sort through all this. Acalamari 21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    I can participate, I just don't find this type of format appropriate for RfA; for RfC it's fine. Acalamari 18:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

22. Oh yes. It's not to the point of being unable to participate, but it's making the participation exhausting and intimidating. The fact that there are 4 slightly different sections touching on the same topic speaks volumes in and of itself. I appreciate what this format is trying to accomplish, trying to get a feel for exactly why someone supports or opposes a candidate is a noble idea. However, asking participants to sound off on what winds up being a long list of vaguely related ideas leads to confusion. Unfortunately I feel that in the end it's simpler to just let participants elaborate on what they will rather than structuring it like this. I also keep running into edit conflicts, which is annoying to say the least, and all these multiple sections just makes it that much more aggravating. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
23. Positively. When a simple Rfa gets to the size of a small novel I know which I prefer to read. And good luck to the closing bureaucrat. feydey 00:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
24. Yeah, I wasn't going to add to this poll (or whatever you want to call it), but it's true. This is just dumb. -- Kicking222 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
25. I was hoping there would be this option. No prejudice to candidate either way. Johnbod 02:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
26. This format is dreadful. The purpose of RfA, ultimately, is to find out whether or not there's a consensus among the participants in favor of making the candidate an admin. This format just makes figuring out whether or not there's any consensus much more difficult. In the traditional format, participants may have many different reasons for their opinions, but at least they summarise their views in a way in which makes their opinion on the final outcome clear. In this format, every aspect of different people's opinions can end up becoming a new section, leading to opinions being expressed on all kinds of minor aspects, with any hope of a clear consensus emreging from that being almost impossible. RfA participants should be looking at propsepctive admins as whole complete candidates, not a series of broken-down aspects which are meaningless unless considered as part of the whole picture. Zaxem 05:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
27. Although I did participate, I hate this format. For a start, I don't even understand this irrational opposition to voting. RfA should be a vote, because it's the only way to ensure that admins are promoted by the will of the community, rather than the will of the closing bureaucrat. I agree that there are problems with RfA, but the solution is the opposite: have a specific, numerical vote threshold of 75% for promotion, and allow canvassing. The bureaucrats don't need more power. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 08:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
28. This format seems to be rather unfair, in that it brings up the possibility of selective ace-ing of one section, combined with selective bombing of another - i.e., failing miserably in one section as it is not the user's area of expertise, and receiving no oppose-promotion votes in another, as it's a candidate's strong point. No, the old RfA system, despite its flaws, works much better than this. anthony^[review] 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
29. Black Falcon (#2 in this list) hit the nail on the head. In the end, I'm not sure how I can get across my overall feeling for or against this candidate, except by jumping out of the system and using that section at the bottom for people not interested in the experiment. Also, unlike the traditional RFA format, I haven't been able to get a good sense from the other user comments of the overall feeling, or which comments are the critical ones. Mangojuice^talk 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
30. An interesting idea that was definitely worth trying, but it didn't work. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
31. First, thanks to Matt for his courage of being the test subject for this format. Second, thanks to Durin as well for his obvious effort in seeking a positive reform to the RfA system. That being said, and coming from someone who endorsed the theory of a mixed RfC/RfA system, I believe the practical experiment has proved it doesn't work - at least, not in the way it has been presented in this case. And that, on a fairly normal candidacy; I tremble to imagine a truly controversial and highly populated one under this format in terms of reflecting where consensus is leaning to. Broken as the current system may be, it allows at least a minimum of communication and fact-finding that, many times, proves to be decisive in the opinion of later participants - this system effectively disables this possibility. Last but not least, let's say I endorse with a mere sig the statements that Matt (to pick just two) "has a need for the tools", and that "he makes insufficient use of edit summaries", and not endorse any other ones. Does that mean I'm 50% yes/50% no? How will opinions like these help to form a reliable consensus in either sense? The advantage of being granted a single space to clearly, unequivocally express one's position, summarizing all the information that has been presented, becomes clear to me. Notice that this was indeed possible at Moralis' RfA format, which I observed with interest, so my thoughts in no way mean an endorsement of the current system - but they do mean that I certainly don't endorse this one. Phaedriel - 20:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
32. I oppose this nomination without prejudice - it's too confusing. --BigDT (416) 23:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
33. I'm not sure what problem this format is supposed to solve, but in my opinion the cure seems worse than the disease. Bucketsofg 01:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
34. No way.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
35. Dreadful format. Looks like voting. PeaceNT 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
36. I feel sorry for the b'crat(s) who have to try to make sense of this mess. While the format is interesting, it is completely useless in helping to determine whether there is consensus to twiddle the bit. Half the "views" listed here have nothing to do with the main purpose of an RfA: to determine whether the editor has the trust of the community, and by extension, whether the tools would be abused. I've only seen one "view" so far that even tries to address these points. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

    That said, I support Matt's admin candidacy. I think he would do a fine job, and wouldn't abuse the tools. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

37. The RFA process, while criticized, still regularly promotes good candidates and is pretty clear. User RFCs regularly become train wrecks. The purpose of RFA is to determine whether the candidate has a bit turned on at this point in time: that is a binary decision, not a rainbow of responses. Jonathunder 07:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
38. Ridiculous, sorry. Matt, please come back when your candidacy is not being compromised in this manner. – Riana ^ऋ 08:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
39. I object to the format of this nomination, which makes both discussion and consensus assessment needlessly hard and complicated. I'm expressing no opinion about the nominee, who I'm sure is a fine person, but who doesn't deserve this mess. Sandstein 08:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
40. Endorse the opposition to this view-style RfA. It is confusing as I point out here. In proposing a view, there is an element of judging that view on the quality of the argument/effort made for that view. In other words, part of Matt's RfA is being judge on the abilities/efforts of those who advocate a view. Since there were only about one or two sponsors for a RfA nominee under the category style RfA, the category style RfA usually focused on the nominee's qualities rather than the abilities/efforts of the sponsors of that nominee. Under this view-style RfA, each view has a sponsor. This gives Matt numerous support/oppose sponsors which, in turn, raise the importance of the abilities/efforts of the support/oppose sponsors as part of the RfA nominee. This is not fair to the nominee since the nominee has no approval over who posts a view to be discussed. The nominee should be judged on their own merits, not on the abilities/efforts of the view-sponsors of that nominee. I am able to participate, so I would have to oppose the proposed view. -- Jreferee 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
41. Oppose candidate for participating in this. If we want community input, the best way to pick candidates is through a vote. If not, do it through a lottery or by committee. The worst way is something like the mess displayed on this page. --JJay 16:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
42. Endorse this opposition. I feel tired just having got this far. It lacks a clear overview, and it's difficult (not impossible) to find what the relavant factors which need focusing on are. Drmaik 09:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors opposed to this view

1. I have had no difficulty participating in this RfA. I'm curious, however, to see how a bureaucrat might approach it, as it would involve the weighing of a number of disparate views. JavaTenor 08:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Not that high a step above understanding the structure of standard wikimarkup in articles (and templates). I have made some suggestions here for making the format more intuitive. –Pomte 22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. I wandered in and participated without trouble. Granted, I did load the individual page first, if that makes a difference. Mackensen (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. It is my considered opinion that anyone so unable to comprehend the format as to be completely disabled from participation by it should not be participating in requests for adminship -- or, for that matter, in Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

   I think the parent section is meant to say not that some people are intellectually unable to participate in such a convoluted RfA, Kelly, but rather, they are unwilling to put up with it as too time consuming and not worth the trouble. At least, that's how I read it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

   That's how I read into it, as well. -- Kicking222 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

   Comment That is certainly what I meant by my vote/whatever above. This rather proves the point that however many different headings there are, you may well not find one expressing exactly what you want to say, which brings us back to ..... Incidentally, I have my own "considered opinion" on some of Kelly Martin's recent RfA contributions, which I will spare everybody, just as she should have spared us hers on those in the endorse section here. Johnbod 22:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

5. I didn't have problems participating in it... It's problematic for different reasons. Grandmasterka 10:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
6. It is no harder to participate in than a normal RfC. Hell, all the different arguments are clearly and concisely stated. Pretty much what Kelly said sums it up. Viridae^Talk 12:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
7. How on earth are people unable to participate? Advanced mathematics are not needed. OK, so its a little more complicated and you may have to edit a few sections to get your point across, but I have yet to see any explanation of how someone of at least moderate intelligence (which I believe all Wikipedia users are) would be unable to participate. I also agree that this section should be on a talkpage. It is irrelevant to Matt Britt's ability to be an admin. There is already a thread about whether his adoption of this format means his judgment is questionable which at least makes some attempt at relevant comment. WjBscribe 12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
8. The format of this RfA doesn't strike me as being a fundamentally bad idea. I suspect it isn't perfect (which is true of all new processes, as I know from experience), but it's generating more reasoned discussion than the current RfA process. Whether this process is adopted or not (and this RfA should highlight problems with it), people shouldn't do what they assume is opposing the candidate just because they don't like the layout. (Yes, the WP:BITE problems with layout do need to be sorted out.) --ais523 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
9. I think it needs refining if it's ever to be accepted as the norm, but it's not that bad, especially for the first of its kind. – Steel 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
10. I like it. I'd prefer to see all options expressed as a positive, eg "user will not abuse tools; user is trustworthy; user policy knowledge is good; users edit summaries are OK" instead of this mix of positive and negative "user is trustworthy; user edit summaries aren't good enough". But that's minor. I would still like to see at the bottom of the page an option like "overall, I support this user for admin". Regards, Ben Aveling 21:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Pure exaggeration. I find it improbable that there are 20-some editors who would usually participate in RfA but are completely baffled by the format of an RfC. It would basically require showing up on RfA as a newbie and never learning to do anything else. I think "I can't use it" is code for "I don't want to use it". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
12. This strikes me less as a vote saying they can't participate than a vote on the format. As of this writing, fully 20% of the people saying they can't participate (6 of the 29) actually *have* participated in other sections than this one. So you can participate but can't participate. That doesn't make any sense, since the six of you have. Further, the number of people opposed to this view is functionally inaccurate, as 58 people to date have managed to be able to endorse or oppose a view, vs. 29 (or is it 23, minus the 6) that say they can't. Are these 23 also incapable of contributing to User RFCs as well? --Durin 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

    That doesn't make any sense? Sure, it does! The issue is not one of a physical or mental ability or inability to participate. The difficulty is not in scribbling a signature in a few random places; anyone can do that. Rather, it is that the format does not allow us to participate meaningfully, that is, in a manner that reflects what we actually think about the candidate. -- Black Falcon 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

    (edit conflict so probably a bit redundant) Of course this section is a vote on the format. Those of us who have endorsed it understand (as I'm sure you do) that the statement deliberately is a bit of a hyperbole. I was the first to actually create a second section in the RfA so you can't say I did not give it a go but as it stands now, I feel that I'm indeed unable to participate or, to be more precise, unable to participate in a way that I feel is constructive and actually conveys my assessment of this candidate as a potential admin. Pascal.Tesson 21:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

    I have participated with little trouble. It is less easy to participate, but far from being impossible to participate in. Captain panda 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

13. This format is much harder to participate in than the typical "ZOMG Support!!!" participation in the typical RfA. But it is not so hard as to be impossible, so technically oppose. The real issue is whether this collection of assertions, and the consensus we arrive at with regard to their validity, is sufficient for anyone sane to actually determine whether this candidate is suitable or not. Some collection of such assertions exists but I think this isn't it (yet). ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
14. This gives a thorough breakdown to ensure the community does not get overrun with admins who are popular, yet bad. Though the community currently has over 1100 admins (and I'm not one of them), I wonder, (a) how many are active, (b) is having 1 admin per 1000 articles a good ratio, and (c) how many bad apples rout of 1100 are there? Otheus 08:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
15. I chose not to participate, but not because of the format. The argument that the RFC format is "so confusing as to be unusable" is belied by years of experience conducting them at WP:RFC, and the actual participation of several of the endorsers in other sections, showing that it was not impossible. That said, is this a good way to conduct RFA? No, I don't believe so, as it makes consensus nearly impossible to discern. -- nae'blis 18:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors going <shrug> whatever

-)

1. Hey, it's an experiment. What do you expect, mermaids? :-) --Kim Bruning 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes, please :) OK, so it's very confusing but not so much so that I could not participate. But, it is high on the lame scale. -- LeCour^T:C 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Yeah, it's an experiment and it's cool that we tried it once. I don't like it, and it would be really silly to expect editors to read through pages of text for every admin candidate. All that aside, Matt seems to be civil and has a long history of positive contribution; therefore I support his admin candidacy. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
4. You must be joking. Way overboard. --kingboyk 09:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment (Just realy didn't feel the need to create ANOTHER viewpoint for this comment). Although this format is esoteric, I've been able to participate, though it has been dificult, and would likely be even more so to editors wanting to add viewpoints that are not well versed in formatting. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While not prevented from participating, the format makes it much more difficult to participate. It also makes it much harder to determine whether the community believes that the candidate should be promoted. As an experiment, it has proven that this format is a really really bad idea, and should be discarded from further consideration. GRBerry 13:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  Expanded comment: The structure also makes it harder to follow the discussion, making it, in my opinion, a worse format for holding an ongoing discussion than the standard format. GRBerry 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please move this back. It is extremely significant that the view that this process is invalid has nearly as many endorsements as the most popular view of the candidate. The alternative for me would be to disendorse every single positive view of the candidate in that RFA. >Radiant< 14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree - this should be moved back to the discussion. Metadata or not, it is significant. Kafziel ^Talk 18:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Meta discussions do not belong on the RfA. I have placed a marker to this section of WT:RFA at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Opposition_to_format_of_Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FMatt_Britt. I'm sure the bureaucrats can follow along. --Durin 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't just about the bureaucrats. This is about others who might want to add themselves to the list. Kafziel ^Talk 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Since the list has been noted to the bureaucrats, and since people can add themselves to the list above, I fail to see how it is appropriate to have the meta discussion on the RfA rather than here. The RfA is about the candidate, not the format. --Durin 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I fail to see how it's appropriate for you to tell the rest of us what is and is not appropriate for an RfA. Kafziel ^Talk 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Sounds good to me! Let's put all RfAs here on the talk page then, mixing them all up with the meta discussions here. Might as well jumble all the stuff together. :) --Durin 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Whatever you say. You're the boss, apparently. Kafziel ^Talk 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• I was able to participate but only after frying some brain cells while learning how to. The format of this RfA is likely to have thwarted many users willing to participate and should be voided. And this section should definitely be moved back to the main page.--Húsönd 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note (copied to) Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt so it won't get lost from the RfA it is about. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• I found the format to be self-contradicting and unnecessarily painful. I supported some views which reflect positively on the candidate, but also some that reflect negatively on him. I added a section intended to be a "statement of fact", but it was perceived by more than one editor as an argument to reject his candidacy, even though I strongly support Matt Britt's promotion. Some of the views I found to be completely irrelevant to adminship. What should I do in those cases? Oppose? Not comment? Discuss? Give myself an aneurysm? -- Black Falcon 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'll help out by hopefully summing up the above guy's thoughts with my own, using three words- this is stupid. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 02:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• As per my statement above, this presentation deemphasizes the individual and emphasizes the phrasing of individual section questions/statements. We even have an article about the problem "Are you still beating your wife?". The format must allow the presentation to center on a discussion of the individual. This format seems to defeat that. Shenme 05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• If I may, many of the objections above focus on longer being able to tell where the nominee has overall support or not. That sounds suspiciously like asking what percentage he has. What we will be able to say, with a considerable degree of accuracy, is whether any objection raised to him becoming a sysop has wide support. Mackensen (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  Determining consensus is all about determining if the candidate has overall support. Whether you do it by counting votes or by reading all of the comments to determine it, a candidate is not going to receive the admin bit unless s/he has overall support. You're just playing a semantics game here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that the users who endorsed this view of "I am unable to participate" have been participating quite a bit. Perhaps they scope of the pronoun "I" should be clarified. Or perhaps change the heading to "Due to cognitive difficulties with the current format, User:AKAF is unable to participate". I might endorse that. —freak(talk) 11:18, Apr. 18, 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, we do the impossible all the time, that's not surprising :) >Radiant< 12:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• This RFA is so badly broken, but this section takes the cake. Users who endorse this view - how are you able to do so? That's amazing, really. Somehow you managed to participate in this section, but not elsewhere. And those who oppose - why? I mean, if this isn't supposed to be a vote, why comment at all? That's like if someone asked for help and you responded by saying "I don't need help!". Well really, that's great. Fantastic. Here's a solution: those of you who like this format, continue using it. Those of you who don't, put a break at the bottom of this RFC (or whatever this nonsense is now) and support/oppose as normal. For those of you who'd rather this be an XFD discussion, create another break and vote keep/delete (in reference to this discussion or the candidate - take your pick!) --- RockMFR 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• What da... Should I spend 20 minutes on an RFA? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• How on earth are the 'crats going to decide it - that is my big question -- Tawker 17:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominee has stated that he would like people to be encouraged to contribute in ways they believe are best

Yeah.

Nominee response

I'm curious where you got this notion from. As far as I'm aware, I've never indicated that I dislike anybody on Wikipedia. I don't care for peoples' actions and comments sometimes, but I'd never hold that against them. If you are uncomfortable solely on the basis that I've expressed my opinion as regards the focus and direction of Wikipedia, I suppose I can't do anything to dissuade you, but I'd at least like to know why you feel this is the case. The comments in my user space weren't intended (and quite honestly, were not even remotely worded) as an attack or an identification of "my enemies", merely as an expression of something that concerns me. I'm sorry if expressing my opinion makes you feel uncomfortable, but I don't see any reason to censor my opinions when they are carefully worded and clearly marked as such. I humbly put forth that editors are not required to stifle their ideas for making a better encyclopedia just because another editor might disagree with them. You've edited your comments slightly since I wrote this response. All I can say is that I feel you're putting words in my mouth and that I do not regret writing my ideas for improving Wikipedia in an essay clearly marked as my opinion. Unless my understanding is terribly off, administrators are allowed to express their opinions in a civil and respectful manner. -- mattb 05:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the "dislike" was a stupid wording, I've revised it to be better. Anyway, it's not that I intend to censor your idea; I truly don't care if you believe that. But that does not mean that I trust you, and I simply have not had good experiences with people who hold that viewpoint.

This is not a rant against everyone who voted ag~ainst me in my RfA; there were perfectly good reasons to oppose me. Anyone who complains about such will be troutslapped. -Amarkov moo! 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. I do not trust people who believe that people should do things they believe are best for the encyclopedia, instead of what they want to do. This is a volunteer project, so people who can't contribute the way they want to just don't do anything. I don't write articles because I don't like to, and I'd honestly leave if I could somehow be forced to start doing so. As I expect the people who only write articles would if I forced them to contribute to AfD (but I do believe it would be good for the encyclopedia if we could draw more people into projectspace). -Amarkov moo! 05:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

• I do not understand what the author of this particular opinion statement is trying to say. I therefore object to it as a "view". >Radiant< 09:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Per Radiant!... ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Also per Radiant. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• So... what's this essay you're talking about? It's not mentioned in this section, and I'm not going to read through 100kb of text in the hopes that it's mentioned somewhere else. - Bobet 10:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Matt Britt/DJDW. -- mattb 12:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, sorry for not linking it. He's right. -Amarkov moo! 15:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I do not understand what the author of this particular opinion statement is trying to say. I am therefore not able to agree or disagree with it. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I'm not sure what exactly the point here, is? Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The point is that I don't like it when people say that certain ways of contributing are "good", and others are "not as good". I know this is a terrible phasing, but I really can't think of anything better. -Amarkov moo! 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominee understands policy

Per About RfA, the community will grant administrator status only to trusted users who understand policy. Therefore, nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy and knowledgeable about policy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice. The issue of trustworthy is addressed above, here. In this section, the issue is whether the nominee understands policy. In this case, the nominee Matt Britt understands policy.

Nominee response

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Users who endorse this view

1. Jreferee 19:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this view

1. Insufficent evidence from participation in deletion related activity that the candidate understands WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. GRBerry 02:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2. He may understand policy, and there is little evidence that he does not, but there is also not enough evidence that he does. -Amarkov moo! 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Proof by assertion isn't. >Radiant< 09:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Could we have a few more diffs to support (or oppose) this assertion? ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• OK, I'm confused. In posting this "Nominee understands policy" view, should I have provided the diffs in the initial posting so that others can endorse or disagree with my analysis? Or, should I have merely post the view that "Nominee understands policy" and let each participant provide their own opinions and reasonings supported by diffs? If you look at the "poof by assertion isn't" oppose 'disagreement' opinion, it appears that my initial posting in this thread was being judge for its quality rather than the merits of whether Matt understands policy. -- Jreferee 15:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Gets it

Since this is an encyclopedia and we are all engaged in writing it, it is important that admin candidates be here to do just that, not to do things that work against it. The nominee has a good grasp of the goals of the encyclopedia, and our general approach to achieving them, and has demonstrated alignment with them and a willingness to work within them to further the project... the nominee is "in tune" with the goals and approach, and "gets it".

Proposed by Lar.

Nominee response

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Users who endorse this view

Users opposed to this view

Discussion

Has a Deft Hand

Since admins are often tasked (by dint of having volunteered) with things that not everyone agrees with, and must carry out these things in a harmonious way, it is important that all admins have an effective way of doing so. This nominee is possessed of a deft hand in dealing with others so as not to cause a ruckus when difficult things are done.

Proposed by Lar.

Nominee response

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Users who endorse this view

Users opposed to this view

Discussion

Not Likely to Go on a Spree

In view of the wasted effort that can happen when people do things to make points, or because they are bored, or even careless, it's important that admins are not particularly likely to "delete the main page in a wild rampage" on a regular basis. This nominee is such a candidate.

Proposed by Lar.

Nominee response

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Users who endorse this view

1. Hey... If there was reason to believe he'd delete the main page on a daily basis (silly kids and their delete buttons) he would be blocked indefinitely right now, not running in an experimental RfA. Stupid format... Grandmasterka 10:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2. I seriously doubt Matt would go on a spree. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Ha ha. Of course it's no problem, but I chuckle at the mere mention of it. YechielMan 03:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Nor is this user likely to start systematically hunting down Wikipedians for the Mafia. Seriously, even some people who have been banned would not do this... -Amarkov moo! 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Users opposed to this view

Discussion

Add a new view here

This is a summary written by a contributor to this RfA. If you would like to add a view to this RfA stating an opinion that is significantly different than those opinions expressed above, please copy this template to the space immediately preceding this template, titling it appropriately and write a summary of your opinion. You may endorse your own opinion. If appropriate, please provide diffs that support your view.

Nominee response

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Users who endorse this view

Users opposed to this view

Discussion

Note

Parts of the discussion have been removed in order to keep the experimental format of this RFA intact. Diffs:

1. [35] by Durin GRBerry 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
2. [36] by Durin Mangojuice^talk 04:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.