Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt

=Regarding this RfA experiment=

The nominator's requested instructions for how to contribute to this RfA

 * 1) Read the views that have been expressed in the summaries at the beginning of each "view" section.
 * 2) After reading them, feel free to add endorsement or opposition to each view. You are not restricted to endorsing or opposing only one view. Further, feel free to discuss each view in the appropriate section of that view.
 * 3) Sign all endorsements, oppositions and comments you make.
 * 4) If you wish to create a new view, please be careful; do not create a view that is substantially similar to a view that already exists. To create a new view, see the instructions located in the view template at the bottom of the RfA.

Regarding this format of the RfA
This format of the request for adminship is an experiment. It is a legitimate, valid request for adminship and should be treated as such. Those contributing to this experiment should not hold the format of this request for adminship against the nominee; he has simply agreed to be a guinea pig. This is a useful and constructive thing for the project: Please, if you disagree with the format do not hold it against the nominee. Comments regarding this format should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.
 * It causes no harm to the project, which is writing a free encyclopedia.
 * It helps foster discussion on this form of RfA reform, as well as others.
 * Even if it is an unsuccessful experiment, considerable insight into how to reform RfA can be gained.

Yes, there really is no place to vote for the nominee
It is intentional that there is no place to vote support or oppose for the nominee. This RfA is not a yes/no up/down vote. It is a consensus building mechanism only. Contributors are expected to evaluate the views put forth, agree with those views or disagree with them, and perhaps offer discussion regarding points raised.

One or more bureaucrats will evaluate these views and discussions in keeping with evaluating consensus regarding the nominee.

=Other discussion=

Edit count table
From User:Matt_Britt run at Mon Apr 16 20:05:23 2007 GMT

Edit summary usage
From Edit summary usage for Matt Britt: 99% for major edits and 90% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Regarding the format of this RfA
Let me first state that the comments that follow ought not in any way to be taken as a reflection on the nominee, Matt Britt. That said, I wish to express my utter distaste at seeing the format of this RfA, especially as it was introduced in the absence of consensus. I reject the notion that editors should be required to endorse or oppose a candidacy based on a canned set of standards which they may or may not share.

The format of Moralis's RfA, though convoluted, still allowed editors to state their opinions without being forced into three neat little boxes. The fact that the three standards of judgment first noted in this RfA – "Demonstrated need for tools", "Nominee has long, consistent history at Wikipedia", and "Nominee appears to be trustable" – are ones I happen to share (as long as "trustable" is interpreted broadly to include civility) is irrelevant. Creating new subsections via the view template only degrades the appearance and accessibility of the RfA. I will make additional comments at WT:RFA.

The notice at the top of the page states that this format was implemented with the "consent" but "not necessarily support" of the candidate. I ask that a "diff" be provided to demonstrate that the candidate had indeed consented as I could find no evidence of such consent following a review of the candidate's contributions made on April 15 and 16. -- Black Falcon 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "I agreed to this format" Haukur 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. -- Black Falcon 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon, do you really think I'd create this RfA, nominating the candidate, add that notice, and then LIE about it? Come on. --Durin 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on! I wanted to see what comments, if any, the nominee had about this proposed format. If you, or anyone else, was going to lie, I hardly think it'd be about something this controversial and that's bound to draw the attention of several dozen editors. -- Black Falcon 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Harakiri
Oh great! Instead of just one vote, we now have several and, indeed an unlimited number. Discussion may occur within each voting section, but that's blatantly the case with current, sensibly-arranged RFAs. So would both i)the nominator and ii) the nominee please explain to me how this is better than before?

Once they've done that, I'd like them both to tell me how they think that presenting a series of leading questions for people to vote on (oh hush, they're discussions like its snowing in Africa) is in some way going to demonstrate consensus. Would they have people i) oppose the leading questions, ii) write opposing leading question or iii) do both? If not i) alone, then ii) is just comedic since people will oppose and support with opposite meanings both of them.

If you're going to wail at the altar of consensus, and whip yourselves on the back with a nine-tailed whip called "RfA is broken", please try not to put entertaining make-up on before you do so. Splash - tk 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, apparently whoever invented the rules for this discussion doesn't want any discussion about the RfA on its discussion page. Naturally, see WT:RFA instead, then. Splash - tk 23:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's terribly silly to expect people to engage in a centralized discussion rather than scatter shotting the discussion all over the place, don't you? Adding pounds of makeup to my face, (I think I need to add that to my 'blithering idiot' badge) --Durin 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Supportive
Durin, I am very supportive of the general structure of this RfA. The structure allows easy editing by section, is formatted so as to allow for consistent vote counting, and forces the editor to consider the candidate much more carefully than the current style of RfA. However I do have the following comments/suggestions: As you are probably aware I will be critical where I consider RfA manipulation inappropriate and unfair HOWEVER this is a very worthwhile experiment in my view and it shows clear thinking on your part and those others behind the scenes.-- VS talk 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) A strong (bold) request notice should be placed at the top of the page asking editors not to personally rebut the views of other editors directly under their endorsement or no endorsement nomination.  I have commented before that this always appears to be a form of Wiki-Bullying and it is IMHO inappropriate.
 * 2) Endorsement questions need re-wording/re-working in some areas (I have made other notes at each endorsement request).
 * 3) Once they are created those standardised questions should be used as the starting questions on an equal (similar) basis for all future RfA's.
 * Thank you very much for your kind words!
 * Yeah, I was kinda thinking that we could have a standard set of views per RfA, if this became the accepted form. Not that other views couldn't be added, but just that there would always be some default ones. --Durin 12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome
Hahaha, I don't even know what to say about the structure of this RFA. Just ... awesome. Talk about rocking the boat. -- Cyde Weys 02:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There are instructions not to downgrade the candidate because of this format. However, he DID consent to it. For now, I won't hold it against him for it. I'm concerned that you may agree with many of the statements but there is no way to register overall opposition.

As an extreme example (just for illustration), the statements may read: Candidate is against murder, do you agree? Candidate is against acid rain, do you agree? I may agree to both of these, but if Hitler is running, I would still be opposed.UTAFA 04:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is an experiment, there should still be voting at the end unless the process is finalized and changed over.UTAFA 04:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would there be voting? There's never been before. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I fully understand that some people are finding it very hard to get their heads around the concept of this RfA. There isn't any place to directly vote on the candidate. That's intentional. Consensus is not and never was supposed to be a vote. Look up the definition of consensus ; "Unanimity". The idea that a vote could express consensus in anything other than 100% support is false on the face of it. People need to separate themselves from the concept of voting; it's not about voting. --Durin 12:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the bit where it says "endorse" or "oppose" repeatedly? If RfA is a vote, then those are too. If they are not, then neither is RfA. Splash - tk 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need 4 subheadings in the table of contents for every view. I propose changing them to ; and getting rid of all the s around those.

Since a number of editors haven't added their view sections properly, how about creating a temporary template for it? –Pomte 05:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If we don't have the noinclude, then the sections get mapped to the table of contents at WP:RFA. If we remove the section heads altogether, the RfA becomes impossible to navigate once you're on the page. I'm open to suggestions, because I believe it is a bit cumbersome as well. --Durin 12:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to transclude a tag from a template? If not, we can still get rid of the ==== level headings and manually insert the [edit] links. The endorse/oppose comments can be organized in a 2-column format using col-begin col-2 col-end. Or a bunch of collapsible NavFrames in subpages using navigation since edit links come with those. The table of contents is getting unweildly and I doubt anyone is using that for navigation. –Pomte 21:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A cause for confusion is people trying to edit the entire RfA from WP:RFA. This can be avoided by just linking there to here and not transcluding anything else. –Pomte 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, this problem can now be solved by using TOClimit on the TOC and ordinary 4th-level headings for headings (which this RfA prompted me to create, although it's useful in other situations too). --ais523 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation regarding promotion
I have decided not to participate in this RfA in the format specified as I strongly oppose its basic premise (see my comments above). I wrote that I felt "utter distate" at seeing this format, but "revulsion" is a more descriptive term. The inaccessibility of the format also prevents me from participating. There are some views I'd oppose based on wording, others I'd support, and some I find to be completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. As I've spent nearly an hour examining the candidate's contribution history, I don't want it to go to waste and will provide a comment here. I have no idea how a bureaucrat will close this discussion and am aware that my comment, posted here, may well be ignored (although, given the format of this RfA, comments made on the project page may also be overlooked).

I support the candidacy of Matt Britt. My review of his contributions history has revealed him to be a valuable and civil editor who I doubt will misuse the tools. The issues regarding edit summary usage are not significant enough that I would consider opposing him on that basis alone, especially after he has stated a willingness to experiment with the "force edit summaries" feature. Overall, Matt Britt seems an exceptional editor and a fine user. My only concern is this edit made to this 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. Given his history, I believe it was only a poor choice of words. -- Black Falcon 07:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The candidate seems like a reasonable guy, will probably make a good admin
I'm writing this here because I couldn't be bothered to figure out how to use the very confusing and anti-newbie "template" style on the RfA itself. The format seems to be more suitable for discussion of individual points and whether they should be valid objections or not than to stating my interpretation of the relevant data at Special:Contributions/Matt Britt. Good luck, Kusma (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anywhere...
... to just oppose this guy for this nonsense? For "no big deal", this is a monumental waste of time. Grace Note 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going to ask if there's a place to just say "I support him because I believe he'd make a good admin". The consensus already says that the rfa format is horrible, but it really won't change the fundamental issue. - Bobet 13:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This RFA is a travesty
First of all, user RFC is one of the worst processes on Wikipedia, and is a horrible model for RFA, or anything else. Secondly, the primary purpose of this seems to be not to achieve consensus, but rather to cloud the issue so much that the bureaucrats can make any decision they want and then point to certain specific comments to justify it. In other words, it's a power grab. Sorry, but we already have too much cozy cabalism on Wikipedia and we don't need more. The Wikipedia community needs to be taken seriously on these matters, not just paid lip service to. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a travesty, because it gives too much prominence to minority opinions, it doesn't allow for wide variety of opinions (lest there be 25 different subsections on the RfA) and there isn't much of a way to tell which editors support the candidate overall. What sort of consensus are the bureaucrats supposed to judge? Grand  master  ka  10:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, if the format means that the submission becomes too long for the WP:RfA page, this just cannot be a good idea. --Anthony.bradbury 21:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This RfA is uncivil
This RfA is clearly dividing the community and rapidly becoming a battleground. The harsh language against participants is also rapidly increasing. Please be respectful and observe WP:CIVIL, this discussion is a hot topic but there's no need to create grudges among users. Think about it. Thank you.-- Hús  ö  nd  13:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it be reasonable at this point to ask for a support - oppose - neutral vote on this format, or would that be seen as against the spirit of the format we would be voting on?--Anthony.bradbury 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone created one, and Durin removed it. diff of removal.  GRBerry 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Transparency
Am I the only one who finds this behavior by Durin totally unacceptable? I referred to the ordinary vote section in my comment, which existed at the time, with at least one vote in it, and now not only has the section been removed, the vote has been removed, and the note GRBerry left mentioning that the debate had been altered was also removed. I'm restoring that note, and adding the note about this removal as well. Durin says he'll inform the bureaucrats himself, but that isn't enough: (1) other participants in the RFA should not be kept in the dark that this has happened and (2) the note should remain there for the future, especially if this "experiment" in RFA format is going to have any positive worth at all. Mango juice talk 04:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You aren't the only one, but I was waiting to see if after a reasonable period of time I could find a diff of Durin actually notifying the 'crats before I took any action, and work kept me busy enough last night that I didn't get back to check his contribs a second time. GRBerry 12:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not the right set of assertions
I just commented on every assertion (and my fingers have not yet forgiven me)... and I am left with the feeling that the set of assertions misses the mark. They do not, even taken as a whole, get to the root questions: 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?

If some set of assertions tested that, this process might work better. But of course, that would require that we agree on what a candidate requires to be a good Admin. Or how one tests for that. Or heck, what a good Admin actually IS. Or something. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you add these particular views and see whether others endorse or oppose them? –Pomte 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are those the root questions? I don't know, myself. I sort of think they sort of are... "-ish." anyway. ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, what the heck. Added them. No opinion offered myself, as they are a bit deeper than "does he use edit summaries" and I haven't done the research. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this was productive.
Count me among the many people who think that this format totally sucks (or a least mostly sucks) and should never be used. But I remember there being people who wanted something like this, and it's a good thing to have something to point to to show why the RfC-esque RfA is a bad idea. Kudos to the sacrificial candidate who stuck out his neck on the chopping block. Grand master  ka  10:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I used to think the format had redeeming qualities. I now think this format sucks big-time primarily because of the lack of restrictions on assertions to be made for comment.  I think that the format could work if the number of assertions was kept low (i.e. <8) and also if assertions that were similar were merged into one.  The ability to add assertions willy-nilly has turned this RFA format from a difficult but informative format to a total mess.  I mean, really, "Not likely to go on a spree"?  What the hell kind of assertion is that?  And, how would you know whether he was likely to do so or not?


 * --Richard 16:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know. I can think of some candidates that I opposed, basically because I had a very strong hunch or belief that they might well do just that, go on a spree, based on my observation of their behaviour, in IRC or on wiki or whereever. I think some of us are good readers of that sort of thing, and some aren't. As I said, the three key factors for me are the ones I added (gets the idea of what we are doing here (some candidates just do not, they are POV pushers, or MySpacers or Social Experimenters rather than encyclopedists), has a deft hand so as not to piss people off a lot, and isn't going to go postal on us)... Edit summaries and suchlike... not very important. Whether one can VALIDATE those things well is another matter. But edit summary usage and age and time and count and mix of contribs all measure not much that is very important, compared to not likely to go on a spree. :) IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The format of this RfA was unworkable, but it did bring out some interesting discussion about what people are really looking for in an admin candidate. I think we could get the benefits of this style without so many drawbacks by including it as a small part of another RfA format. If there will be more experiments, I'd like to see something that's been proposed before: two days or so of topic-based discussion, followed by the usual RfA period of up-or-down consensus voting*.
 * You know, what people call "!voting" these days. I wish that term would go away.
 *  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  17:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Time to move on towards determining consensus
I guess the question is "Who owns this RFA?" Apparently, Matt Britt has delegated control of the format to Durin and Durin now thinks he owns it to the point of allowing Matt Britt to be rejected in his RFA in order to maintain control of the experiment. I agree that it is time to say "Interesting experiment. Learned some things.  Now let's get on to the business of !voting on the RFA."

Or, put another way, if this proposed format was a way of forming consensus via discussion, it is now time to determine if a consensus exists by moving to a yes/no up/down !vote in the traditional RFA format. Failing to do so wastes all the time and effort that went into discussing the qualifications of the candidate.

--Richard 16:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus can not be determined by an up/down vote. There's a flawed notion, due to history at RfA, that we can do so. You can't. Consensus gathering is in many ways the antithesis of voting. --Durin 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Unless a crat or two stepped up and said "we're prepared to judge consensus on this one and take the heat from the community"... because if the crats can judge it, and make the call, an up/down isn't needed. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That assumes that the community believes that consensus should be judged from this if possible, which is not necessarily the case. -Amarkov moo! 05:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's part of what the 'crat(s) would need to determine, isn't it?... if they felt the community did not feel that way then they shouldn't step up. ++Lar: t/c 09:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me (gasp!) defend Durin here: there's no irreparable harm done to Matt Britt here. A sensible bureaucrat could simply decide that this format definitely sucks and that consensus is impossible to judge but there's no reason to close it as a failed RfA. I can see restarting the RfA under a standard format tomorrow and I don't think anybody will say "oppose, last RfA was yesterday." Pascal.Tesson 10:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pascal defending me? Did I just warp into an alternate universe? *boggle* :) Agree with Pascal; there's no apparent harm to Matt Britt being done. He agreed to the format, and stuck with the experiment and repeatedly said he wanted to see it through to conclusion. I leave it up to the bureaucrats to decide if they can judge consensus from this RfA. Personally, I think they can. Rather, I think it's blatantly obvious that you can. Of course, people have to divorce themselves from the idea that voting=consensus as a first step to understand why this format does a wonderful job of indicating consensus. Though, I recognize that voting has become so entrenched people can't imagine doing anything other than voting. It's simply beyond conceptualization. --Durin 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why this RFA experiment should be terminated without a decision
I have read the responses to my last posting and have re-considered my position. I actually think there are a lot of good things about Durin's format and that it represents an improvement on the current RFA format although there are flaws in the process which need to be ironed out (e.g. the unrestricted addition of assertions).

I disagree with Durin when he(she?) says that "Consensus can not be determined by an up/down vote". Consensus formation can not be accomplished by an up/down vote. Consensus formation is conducted by discussion. With RFA and xfD discussions, it's discussion during a !vote but the key here is that people are open to changing their minds based on discussion. Consensus determination, however, can be done via a vote and this is often the best way to determine consensus. Think of the election of the Pope. Why do they have so many votes? It's because each vote determines if they have a consensus. In between, they have prayer and discussions to try to form the consensus. Votes are the easiest and fairest way to determine if there is consensus. Discussion isn't a good way to determine consensus because you never know if people have changed their minds unless you ask them to commit one way or another.

That said, I agree with Durin that a b'crat could easily determine consensus from the discussion that went on during this format and I retract the assertion that it is time for an up/down vote. Doing so would destroy Durin's experiment.

But, after thinking about this further, I now have a different set of concerns which is around the policy implications of promoting Matt based on this RFA format.

It will be interesting to see whether any b'crat is willing to promote Matt Britt on the basis of the current format. The problem, as I see it, is not whether or not Matt Britt is qualified. As Durin points out, the discussion shows clearly that there has been no reason advanced why Matt should not be given the sysop bit. However, a b'crat that decides to promote Matt on the basis of this RFA format would have to be careful because doing so might be construed as blessing the format which runs two risks:
 * 1) It opens the door for using this format again when there is clearly no consensus among RFA voters for using it. This, in essence, would result in a change in the RFA process without consensus of the RFA community or the Wikipedia community at large.  Seems like a bad idea to me.
 * 2) The experiment opens the door for further experiments of any number of formats on the premise that if Durin/Britt could do it, then why can't I? In effect, every subsequent RFA could be in a different format.  In the past, experimentation with RFA formats has drawn fire for "changing the format without consensus".  As I said, I like Durin's format.  However, the policy/process implications of opening this door are huge.

For these reasons, I recommend that a b'crat make a "hypothetical decision" that runs along the lines of "IF this were an RFA format sanctioned by policy, I would decide that Matt is/is not qualified for adminship. HOWEVER, because it is NOT an RFA format sanctioned by policy, I will not promote Matt at this time."

I think it is good to experiment with the RFA format. However, I think future experimentation needs to be better controlled. One possibility is to set up an RFA process workgroup whose task will be to propose and experiment with RFA formats. One of their mandates will be to restrict proposed experiments so that they do not disrupt the RFA process. One experiment a week or one a month would be about right. I would hope that there not be more than one experimental format a week. That would be confusing and disruptive.

--Richard 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)