Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt 2


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Matt Britt
Final (68/5/2); Ended Tue, 1 May 2007 21:17:57 UTC

- 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, polite , helpful in attempts to quell brewing fights , having a good understanding of policy , supportive of centralized debate , understands the difference between vandalism and content dispute and patient with other editors. He also has a good approach to the concept of improving the encyclopedia

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 Manual of Style, Administrators' noticeboard, Articles for deletion, Featured article candidates, Featured picture candidates, Peer review, 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.

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.

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 17:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept (note that my answers to the first three questions below are copied from my old RfA. -- mattb 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

 * See also Requests_for_adminship/Matt_Britt

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional 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 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 Requests for arbitration/Tommstein; back then my username was "uberpenguin") -- mattb 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Dweller:
 * 4. Further to User:Radiant's oppose, below, what mainspace articles have you made significant contributions to in the last year, other than reversions, etc.? --Dweller 08:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A: Mainspace? Radiant's position seems to regard Wikipedia space...  Regardless, the aforementioned rewrite of Computer is my most major contribution in the past year.  I tend to perform major rewrites on articles in bursts, concentrating on one big writing effort at a time.  In the past couple of months I haven't had an ongoing major rewrite project because I've been occupied with school and research.  Hopefully that explains why my edits in the past few months have largely been small copyediting, answering questions on the reference desk, etc. -- mattb 14:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Naconkantari:
 * 5. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly?  Are there times when it should not be invoked?  Nacon kantari  23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A: My answer to this isn't flowery, but it's honest and comes from seeing a lot of heated content disputes. To be perfectly truthful, in my experience this policy gets abused more than it is usefully invoked.  That's not to say it doesn't have uses, but I think it's one of the first things people turn to when they're ready to laywer over policies in a conflict.


 * I think my experiences seeing this happen over and over make me take a more cautious view towards this policy. My stance is that if you're worried about making an edit in good faith because you're honestly not sure whether it breaks some rule or unspoken agreement, ignore the rules, be bold, and make your changes.  People cannot be so concerned with the hundreds (thousands?) of pages of policy and guideline debates we have formed that it keeps them from making improvements to the encyclopedia.  Even if they inadvertantly "don't do things the right way", it will likely be corrected in short order, and hopefully explained in a kind and courteous manner.


 * Where IAR frequently becomes a thorn in my side is when it's used to justify edit warring and lawyering. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone persistantly change things against consensus citing IAR as their reason for doing so (their version is, after all, an improvement from their point of view).  When IAR is used as a shield to hide behind self-importance with regards to one's own views, it incites no fondness.  Once an editor is made aware that there may be reasons why their contributions are disagreed upon, IAR no longer applies and they need to be more concerned with consensus.


 * IAR is rather a dichotomy. On the one hand it's the best thing for new users to be aware of, and on the other hand it's the worst thing for new users to be aware of.  It really depends on the person. -- mattb 23:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A: I don't know. I honestly have never contributed meaningfully (insofar as memory serves) to any Wikipedia article about a living person.  I'd probably ask someone more knowledgable to handle it, especially if said contentious material is the subject of an edit dispute (which seems likely).


 * My hypothetical by-the-book reaction would be to make sure the user re-adding content understands the verifiability and living persons biography policies and ask for them to provide a reliable source that verifies the information in question (of course, also making sure they realize what qualifies as 'reliable'). If they persist in re-adding content without any discussion and after having been asked to justify the information, I think a temporary block is appropriate.  While I have my own issues with the way the verifiability policy is sometimes interpreted, cases such as this one where information is challenged clearly require the person adding it back to justify their reasoning.  In any case, I'll tend to hold off for a while on blocking a person over this sort of issue until it's obvious that they have no desire to observe the policy.  There are only a few behaviors that merit quick blocking action, most of which involve serious disruption (vandalism, 3RR, and extreme incivility come to mind). -- mattb 03:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Fixed template below ~ Anthony  17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Matt Britt before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Consensus not numbers: I propose that the bureaucrats promote Matt Britt for reasons discussed in the previous nomination, which has just closed. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with that assessment. --Durin 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye. WjBscribe 18:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be a good idea. From looking at the RFC RFA, I don't see a consensus.  A large part of the opposition, my own included, was a result of the format, but an a priori objection is still an objection.  I have supported this nomination and hope it will be successful, but I don't think that the previous RFA is in and of itself sufficient. --BigDT 18:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion on this. I'll just as well accept the outcome of this RfA as that of the previous one. -- mattb 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I could have worded it better. I don't mean the bureaucrats should look at this RFA and the other one and just say "oh I'll promote now, no need to wait for the end of this discussion."  Far from it, I'm just saying that at the end of this second application I think he should be an administrator. During the course of this discussion I could well change my mind, depending on what turns up.  But for now I think I've seen enough to convince me at least as strongly as any other candidate.  I happened to find the trial format far more informative than the usual one (under which this one is being run) and Instead of entering a statement under "support" (which in my opinion would risk turning this into another silly vote) I'm stating my support here. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with a summary judgment based on the original RFC-style RFA (which is what I thought Tony was proposing, initially), but I do agree that input there should be considered in addition to that here, in the end. If people found the original RFA difficult/unwelcoming to participants, a different cadre may find this one superfluous and not (re)participate. I believe the original RFA did not demonstrate consensus on the question of granting the bit, unfortunately, which makes this exercise necessary. -- nae'blis 19:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the preceding request for adminship did not demonstrate a compelling reason not to promote this candidate; as such, he should have been promoted as a result. This discussion should merely ratify that result; I believe he should be promoted.  I decline to vote in this discussion as a result. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that this candidate has applied for adminstratorship merely 1-2 days after an unsuccessful bid. While there is no absolute rule regarding reapplication, I think that 3 months is entirely reasonable and rare candidate might wait as little as a month to reflect.  If this editor is successful, then it calls into question the objectivity and fairness of the entire process, i.e., why would someone be unsuitable one day and be suitable the next day?  I wish candidate MattBritt well.  As a result, I do not wish to register comments under "Oppose" despite the concerns listed.VK35  21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See discussion and links under the "Oppose" comment below. In brief, the bureaucrat who closed the prior RfA said that he felt uncomfortable finding a consensus to promote based in part on the format of the RfA, although on balance the requisite level of support was probably there. Based on this, there was a discussion on RfA talk that concluded the candidate should be encouraged to reapply immediately using a more conventional format of RfA. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support good luck! The Rambling Man 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support and delighted to do so. --Dweller 17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Yyy? Matthew 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) troppuS per Matthew.  Majorly   (hot!)  17:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per discussion on Requests for adminship/Matt Britt --Richard 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support No reason not to. --WinHunter (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per the analysis I did for his previous RfA. EdJohnston 17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Looks like a great candidate. Adambro 18:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong support per concensus at Requests for adminship/Matt Britt. I remain of the opinion that Matt will make a great admin. WjBscribe 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support.  Give him the tools. -- DS1953 talk  18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) User who endorses this view --> BigDT 18:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Kusma (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I made up my mind a week ago. Matt's handling of this stressful situation only strengthens my confidence that he will keep his cool no matter what comes up. YechielMan 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support (got lost in an edit conflict) I have my reservations because of XfD inexperience and what I felt was a slight lack of judgment about the RfA experiment but that does not outweigh the positives. Pascal.Tesson 19:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Endorse the above. Michael as 10 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. He tripped and fell. So what.  Now he's picked himself up and is moving on.  I think we should encourage rather than discourage him.  Based on Durin's meticulous assessment above, I think we can trust Matt with the admin buttons.  Good luck Matt.  The Transhumanist 19:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, of course.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support per nominator's statement, answers to questions, and candidate's overall record. The concern based on the timing of the nomination, under the circumstances, is unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad 19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Meets and exceeds my standards. There's nothing wrong with Xoloz's oppose, though. He has high standards for XfD experience and is consistent about them. Haukur 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support I actually liked some aspects of the experimental RFA (although it would obviously need major tweaks to prevent an excessive number of "views" being introduced), but it certainly didn't affect my opinion about Matt, which is that he's well-qualified to be an administrator. JavaTenor 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support I fundamentally disagree with some of his opinions, but he's proven entirely capable of still conducting himself in a neutral fashion. Trustworthy with tools, and no bullying-sounds like what we're looking for to me. Bladestorm 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support From what I saw, this user remained calm during that last RfA. That's a good reason to support. Acalamari 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support As near as I can tell, I supported Matt in his jumbled RfA#1 that closed April 24, 2007 and he has not given reason since that time to change my support. -- Jreferee 20:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support per brilliant essay User:Matt_Britt/Don't just do whatever and lack of any negatives. - Merzbow 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. If it was not clear in the experimental RfA - and it may well not have been - I think this user would make a fine admin.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support This user is be a good admin. The results of the previous RfA were inconclusive and should be tested again as they are here. Captain   panda  21:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support per nominator's statement, and I agree that argument against based on the timing of the nomination, under the circumstances, is unpersuasive. Matt appears trustworthy.--Bduke 22:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support per my support in the experimental RFA.-- danntm T C 22:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Per the other RfA, which says a lot about him. – Steel 22:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) This candidate is experienced enough for me, and then some. His willingness to help try new things out is very commendable. Normally I would not like to see a candidate rerun without some sign of having taken feedback given to him on board. But in this case, per Dan's comments (as summed up by NYBrad in the commments section) that is no reason to oppose... there are no comments to take on board. Also, I think he Gets It, he has a Deft Hand, and most importantly, is Not Likely to Go on a SpreeTM... ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not whitewash things; there are plenty of examples of constructive criticism in the previous RFA that Matt could have worked on betweentimes if he so chose. -- nae'blis 23:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support pace Xolos a willingness to be bold and risk himself as a test subject for the good of the encyclopedia is commendable.--Docg 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as in the experimental RfA. An excellent contributor, and I see nothing that would indicate untrustworthiness or potential abuse of the tools. Twiddle that bit! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Suppost Your edits look good, and I think you were generally levelheaded during the experimental RfA. Good luck! --Shirahadasha 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Told ya he would've passed no problem with a regular rfa.-- Wizardman 03:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per, well, last time. Will make a good specialist admin, experienced, seems levelheaded, and his willingness to be our guinea pig for that hideous RfA format is commendable. Grand  master  ka  04:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Supported before, and I don't see a single reason to change that now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - The previous RfA questions users as to their findings of fact about the candidate. The present one questions them as to whether the candidate should be promoted. The bureaucrat who assessed the previous RfA felt unable to promote, but his decision is not binding on the present discussion. Xoloz is being harsh, I think. If the candidate had not submitted to the experiment, his previous RfA would probably have closed successfully. - Richard Cavell 10:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - The format of the previous RfA was absolutely appalling. I'm tempted to oppose him just for agreeing to the "experiment", but that wouldn't be fair when his achievements and wide experience are taken into consideration. Wal  ton  Need some help?  12:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support absolutely. — An as  talk? 12:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support No Doubts..!!..-- Cometstyles 14:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support per Walton. I am also somewhat disturbed by the level of disruption caused by this user by agreeing to be part of the RFA experiment though. Hope it isn't part of a general pattern. AKAF 14:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have no qualms with trying another such experimental format if it were for the potential good of Wikipedia. As I have stated before, I do not see such well-intentioned experimentation as particularly disruptive.  I appreciate your support position, but you should know that I'm not opposed to testing out new formats in the wild as a means of determining their viability (and my test RFA indeed showed some viability problems with the format). -- mattb 14:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Terence 16:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support After consideration and making comments above, I'd like to support the Matt Britt application for RfA. Good luck!VK35  17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Ah, how refreshing to see a format that doesn't have 25 sections and subsections and where participation is actually meaningful rather than a mishmash of irrelevant or confusing "views". I'll write essentially what I wrote the last time: My review of his contributions history has revealed him to be a valuable and civil editor who I doubt will misuse the tools. My only concern is this edit made to the 1st RfA, wherein he states I could have just as well ignored your question altogether. I feel it is never acceptable for an admin candidate or an admin to ignore other editors' good-faith questions. However, given his history, I am inclined to think it was only a poor choice of words and a unique incident. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. The limited experience I've had with Matt has been positive, and upon reviewing both the support and the oppose side of the debate, I think that he would make a fine admin. Rock star  ( T/C ) 21:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A sensible editor who will be an asset as an admin. His willingness to be the subject of a recent experiment is in his favour, and the zero delay between that RfA and this one is wholly reasonable.--Anthony.bradbury 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as great candidate. I don't see any chance for admin abuse here. -  auburn pilot  talk  23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - not insane, no likelihood of abusing the tools. The objections (particularly Xoloz') completely fail to address this and I would suggest disregarding them - David Gerard 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support more than enough experience, brave enough to accept an RFC on his qualifications ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support: Plenty of experience and seems like a great user. Seems well deserving of the tools. Should be a great administrator. It's nice to see a user willing to try something different and even though the new RfA format did not work he has moved on but was willing to try and help further the project.  Orfen   User Talk | Contribs 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Matt appears to be a dedicated volunteer, and I'm sure he'll only further help the project with some extra buttons.   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 03:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support John254 04:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support--MONGO 09:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) I think him as a good person and non of the opposing arguments are impressive enough for me. --- ALM 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) This eitor has made great contributions to the project and I expect he'll be a good admin too. -Will Beback · † · 22:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support I see nothing compelling in the opposition. --kingboyk 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per kingboyk. My experience with Matt has always been positive and I appreciate his willingness to participate in an experiment to improve the RfA process, when he must have known some individuals would hold it against him. Rockpock  e  t  01:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. The trial of a new RfA format was definitely a trial for Mattb also. He came through it showing a much better attitude than most could. The willingness to allow himself to be a guinea pig for a new RfA format shows he has the good of the project as a goal. I hated the new format - I see nothing wrong with the editor.  (Oh, and maybe MOS work was a trial also? ;-)   ) Shenme 03:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - I think Matt wasn't promoted because his RfA was so confusing, not because he was underqualified or unsuitable. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support A.Z. 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Nacon kantari  22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Tried hard to support you on the last ill-fated RfA - but so as to make this clear now you get my tick of approval.-- VS talk 08:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) --dario vet (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support -- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support consistent with my RfA guidelines and Yyy? and with the reservations of Pascal, namely to the effect that Matt's permitting his first RfA to be conducted under a system for which a consensus of the community did not (and ostensibly will not) exist wasn't perhaps the wisest thing ever one might have done&mdash;experimenting for the good of the project is generally to be favored, but not where it appears plain that the net effect of such experimenting will be disruptive or negative [one might properly infer that I mean to suggest that one's thinking that such situation was not plain is itself demonstrative of (or, rather, a specific instance of) bad judgment], but this particular issue is one to which, the length of this support notwithstanding, one need not to devote much concern&mdash;but is surely not representative of the candidate on the whole. Joe 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. ElinorD (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support &mdash; a bit late in the day, but I never had a chance to drop by; anyway, a fine editor who will do well with the Janitor's Trolley ~ Anthony  18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Strong Oppose Editor doesn't seem to have gained much experience since his last RfA closed yesterday; therefore, my concerns regarding inexperience remain as voiced therein. While the editor shouldn't be punished for the format of his first (failed) "experimental" RfA, he should at least wait a bit before reapplying.  "Too many bites at the apple..." sets a bad precedent. Xoloz 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship, in particular . --Durin 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If a b'crat chooses to ignore a perfectly valid reason to oppose, that is his business, and his insanity. I have no control over that. Xoloz 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we tone down the rhetoric please and stop calling Dan insane? Thank you. --Durin 18:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please cease your habit of mischaracterizing my statements. I called no one insane. I assume Dan has the good sense never to ignore a valid oppose, despite his off-hand statement, which I assume was an ill-thought "slip of the tongue/finger" Xoloz 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't want people to presume you're calling someone insane, I would recommend you not call ignoring votes per Dan's stated intention to do so "insanity". I'm mis-characterizing nothing. Please remember the limitations of textual language; I recommend you avoid the use of the word "insanity" as you did above in the future. --Durin 18:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional statements are marvelous things. If Dan were to ignore my comment, that choice of his would be insane.  I stand by that sentiment, although I'm sure Dan would never make that mistake  To avoid needlessly escalating disputes with inappropriate allegations, I suggest you read my statements much more closely in the future.  I am very careful to use language precisely. Xoloz 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so we can be perfectly lucid, what exactly are your concerns regarding inexperience? My lack of participation in XfDs?  You're certainly entitled to oppose my candidacy for that, but I must point out that I have stated no desire to participate in the closing of XfDs. -- mattb 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Xoloz seems to opposing on 2 grounds. Lack of experience and time since last RfA (too many bites at the apple). Even if per Dan the latter is not a valid oppose, it seems to me that the former (though I disagree with it) is a valid reason to oppose an RfA. WjBscribe 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Xoloz, I have absolutely no problem with someone opposing because he finds Matt to have insufficient experience (even though I disagree) but to oppose because the last RfA closed yesterday, well now that's just a tad silly given the circumstances. Matt went ahead with an experiment which turned out to be not so convincing but by all accounts instructive (if only to demonstrate how unworkable that format is). Now a b'crat has expressed his concerns that he cannot make much sense of the resulting 200kb of text and suggested that a standard-format RfA would be a decent idea. I think it would be good for Matt's sake (and everybody else's) to avoid turning this RfA into another debate about the value of the experimental format. Pascal.Tesson 19:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to debate the format of RfA here. The only point which I sought to defend is the integrity of my comment, and the fact that it should never be ignored. My reply to Matt's question (and yours too, I think, Pascal Tesson) is at Matt's talk page. Xoloz 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So he's going to abuse the tools ... why? Or are you saying he won't? Please be clearer - David Gerard 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Intentionally abuse? No. Misuse because of inexperience? Possibly... that's my concern.  For future reference, whenever I oppose for inexperience, my worry is accidental misuse, unless I say otherwise.  Very few people who submit an RfA are potential deliberate abusers. Xoloz 01:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, sorry. I didn't find this user's tone and communicative skills particularly praiseworthy in his previous RfA.-- Hús  ö  nd  03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I object. The nomination explains at length how Matt contributes to project pages, but over the past year the only project page he has made sizeable contributions to is the reference desk. So I have my doubts about experience.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea what your definition of "sizeable" is. But, let's say it's a dozen contribs. Well let's see, in the last year there's edits to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (13), Articles for deletion (15), Featured article candidates (12), Featured article review (33), Featured picture candidates (33), Requests for page protection (15). He's also touched on Administrator intervention against vandalism (4), Administrators' noticeboard (3), Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (7). I think this demonstrates he knows his way around the project pages. --Durin 12:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this demonstrates you're going by editcountitis, which I do not consider a compelling argument. If we're going into that kind of reasoning, I should note that Matt has not been endorsed by a Wikiproject :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going by editcountitis. I asked you what you considered "sizeable". Since so many people do use editcountitis, it seemed reasonable to suppose you meant edit counts, and thus responded. What do you mean by sizeable? --Durin 14:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If I had a strict definition, that would make it editcountitis. Using a board for a single issue does not imply any familiarity, and neither does "touching on" something.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose. This user has used ad hominem, directed attacks against the person rather than attacking the subtance of an argument, which shows a lack of good faith and manners. Fnagaton 11:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to provide some diffs to back up this accusation? Pascal.Tesson 12:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I suspect he means my comment here. While I admit that this remark was a lapse in judgement, I encourage you to read the surrounding context wherein I have, at numerous times, tried to be very understanding of this user's point of view , tried to facilitate productive discussions , tried to keep the conversation on track , encouraged other editors to be civil to him , etc.  I'm a little offended that he chooses to ignore all of this, but that's his prerogative.  I am admittedly a bit fed up at dealing with the massive cyclical argument that led to these remarks, but my borderline ad hom. remark wasn't helpful.  However, it is my personal opinion that this oppose argument is simply on the basis that I strongly disagree with this user's reasoning on the whole binary prefixes issue, and not on the basis of my overall behavior in that debate or others.  I'm not at all ashamed of how I've conducted myself in this latest binary prefixes debate, and I'd be happy for any of the RfA reviewers to read all of my comments on that page. -- mattb 14:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument is cyclical because you refuse to answer valid questions and instead attacked the person. If you had simply kept quiet or apologised then I may not have added my strong oppose. However it's not just towards me that you demonstrate "lapses of judgement" (to put it nicely), it is also for those times that I added my oppose. I also have to oppose on the grounds that you are re-applying too quickly. Fnagaton 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to respond, but there's no point in extending that debate into RfA. I'm just disappointed that you've ignored my concerted efforts to be accommodating. -- mattb 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. - If you are going to suggest that I've made multiple attacks against you or anyone else, please do provide diffs. The instance I linked is the only place I can recall where I should have held my tongue. -- mattb 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've not ignored your attempts "to be accommodating" and don't try to second guess what I'm thinking. I don't think your efforts are as concerted as you think and as I stated before you lack of apology with your general style leads me to think you are not admin material. There are examples of what I mean on the page you linked above and the other recent example I can think of is here Fnagaton 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your cited example is obvious sarcasm. Read Centrx's post that I was responding to.  P.S. - I apologize for the borderline ad hom. remark; it had no place in the discussion.  I do not apologize for my general behavior.  -- mattb 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Radiant. His contributions to the project space are very limited outside of the reference desk, so I worry about experience.  Also, he seems to spend a lot of time editing the reference desk, something I hope he won't do too much of as an admin, when this RFA passes.  Mango juice talk 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *Why does it matter if he continues working at the reference desk as an admin? Admins are not required to do anything. It's just extra buttons. --Durin 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) **It doesn't matter if he does, I just hope that with the admin buttons he'd do something more useful, because those priveleges are needed badly in many places, and I've always considered the reference desk a distraction. My opposition is based on lack of experience with admin areas in project space.  Matt's participation on the Reference desk (which I looked over) is down-to-earth and doesn't encourage meaningless chatter, so I saw no reason to oppose based on those contributions.  I just hope adminship will draw some of his attention towards other areas.  Mango juice talk 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) ***I know I won't change any minds as to lack of experience, but believe it or not I've seen almost every major and many many minor guidelines come my way in the process of editing articles over the past two plus years. I reject the notion that one has to be embroiled in constant policy debates (which I often am anyway) or help run the XfDs to have adequate experience in how Wikipedia functions.  There are plenty of people who like running XfDs and I have never had any desire to be one of them. -- mattb 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral.  While the nominee seems a good candidate, I have trouble supporting a nomination so close on the heals of his last nomination (whatever the reason that it closed the way that it did).  -- Pastordavid 18:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral.  Too close to last RfA, I'd hate to see this nomination be repeated over and over and over and over....  —  xaosflux  Talk  04:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes you think it would be? After the first experiment and the suggestions of the closing bureaucrat et. al., I asked Durin to use the conventional format when he wanted to re-nominate me.  While I see nothing wrong with experimentation, I figured it was time to give things a break for awhile to let people cool off a bit. -- mattb 04:36, 27 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.