User talk:Pseudo-Richard/RFA discussion

Matt Britt
'''This page has become too long for transclusion on WP:RFA to work efficiently. To see the full request, please see Requests for adminship/Matt Britt.'''

[ Voice your opinion]; Scheduled to end 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP: On the format of this RfA
Observe: This RfA has been intentionally formatted much in line with common practice at 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
Overview:

General behavior:

Main space contributions:

Non-mainspace areas:

Vandalism fighting:

Conclusion:

Candidate acceptance and statement
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I accept this nomination. -- mattb

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:


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


 * 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:


 * Optional question by Húsönd
 * 4. What are the advantages of WP:NOT and how does this new RFA concept help to simplify the process of determining the preparedness of an adminship candidate?
 * A:


 * 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:


 * 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 shows he knows how to use warnings appropriately and would not block inappropriately without warning users beforehand.

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section
 * Nominee response


 * 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)  Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12)  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13)  &mdash;ÅñôñÿMôús  Dîššíd3nt 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14)  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) &mdash;eric 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Viridae Talk  06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 18)  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) EdJohnston 23:03, 19 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)
 * 2) * 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.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) 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  "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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:05, 18 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. - hahnch  e  n 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).

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section
 * Nominee response


 * 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)  Wal  ton  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 Are you now, or have you ever been, on Wikibreak? . Lucky for Matt that he apparently hasn't.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bah, I went on a three-month wikibreak once. He's around enough. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Viridae Talk  06:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) EdJohnston 23:07, 19 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Nominee appears to be trustworthy
Matt has never been blocked. 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.

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section
 * Nominee response


 * 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)  Wal  ton  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)  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) &mdash;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)  Ark yan  &#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)


 * Users opposed to this view
 * 1) "He has never been blocked therefore he is trustworthy" is a non sequitur. This view conflates several issues.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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 . 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.

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section
 * Nominee response


 * 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:10, 18 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)


 * Discussion
 * Matt Britt has nominated a number of articles for deletion . 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  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.

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section
 * Nominee response


 * 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Pascal.Tesson 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6)  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:11, 18 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. Grand  master  ka  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. 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.

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
 * Nominee response
 * 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


 * 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)  Wal  ton  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. Grand  master  ka  10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) EdJohnston 23:21, 19 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Xoloz 13:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) Fail to see how a single example makes for a relevant view.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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.

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section
 * Nominee response


 * 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:05, 18 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) You don't need experience of deletion discussions to have the bits. --Tony Sidaway 13:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) This is ridiculous. He's got no experience of blocking people either.--Docg 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)
 * 1)  Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) XfD is not the raison d'etre of adminship. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) There are too many very nearly redundant sections on this RfA. Grand  master  ka  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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) I was unaware of the rule saying an admin must have a certain level of participation in deletion discussions.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) EdJohnston 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Use of reversion tools
The nominee's use of automated reversion tools (akin to administrator rollback) here:, , , , ; 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.

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
 * Nominee response


 * 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 warning for placing internal links in a see-also section. —  xaosflux  Talk  05:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This is uncool. Max S em 09:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Shows grave inexperience; candidate not ready yet. Xoloz 13:58, 17 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Per redvers and Luna satin both. I was going to say similar things. Viridae Talk  06:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) shrubbery. Admin candidates need to spend more time on reverting changes? Come on.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I do not see the information raised as reflecting negatively on the candidate.  Kelly Martin (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) EdJohnston 23:26, 19 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)

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)

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
 * Nominee response


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) I'm not leaving a human-created edit summary for this "indication of opposition". --  LeCour  T:C 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Ridiculous. Who cares? --Docg 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Doc. Wal  ton  <sup style="color:purple;">Vivat Regina!  19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) True but irrelevant.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Nonsense. From his edit count his edit summary usage appears to be quite high, nearly 100% in the past 12 months! — freak([ talk])</tt> 11:30, Apr. 18, 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) Oh come on. Based on where he edits he doesn't need too many anyway. Plus irrelevent.-- Wizardman 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) This is overly picky, particularly since it appears he uses the edit summaries where they count the most.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)


 * 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)

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:

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section
 * Nominee response


 * Users who endorse this view


 * 1) Black Falcon 06:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  r speer  /  ɹəəds ɹ  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?  Ark yan  &#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)


 * 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion



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.

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section
 * Nominee response


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) Jreferee 19:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Users who disagree with this view
 * 1) Insufficent evidence from participation in deletion related activity that the candidate understands WP:CSD, Proposed deletion, and 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  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  04:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Proof by assertion isn't.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.''

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section
 * Nominee response


 * Users who endorse this view


 * Users opposed to this view


 * Discussion