Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

Nomination statement for Matt Britt (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Candidate acceptance and statement

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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

Questions for the candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optional question by Húsönd

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

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

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

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

Your point is well-taken, but I could have just as well ignored your question altogether. I merely wanted to get across that I do not quickly form opinions about matters in which I have no previous involvement. -- mattb @ 2007-04-16T23:31Z

Optional question by Black Falcon

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

---

• 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 [11][12][13][14] shows he knows how to use warnings appropriately and would not block inappropriately without warning users beforehand.

Nominee response to this view

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Editors 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)

Discussion regarding this view

• 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)

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) [15].

Nominee response to this view

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Editors 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)

Nominee appears to be trustable

---

Matt has never been blocked [16]. Further, the last (and only) time he was ever warned about anything about his editing behavior that could lead to a block was in January of 2006, more than a year ago. Lastly, despite being confronted with sometimes very contentious users, he has kept his cool. This, combined with his previously noted willingness to warn users of improper behavior before acting seems to indicate he would not act rashly with the admin tools and would use them appropriately for the betterment of the project.

Nominee response to this view

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Editors 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)

Nominee has no experience with XfDs

---

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

Nominee response to this view

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section

Editors who endorse this view

1. Pascal.Tesson 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors opposed to this view

1. See rationale in discussion section below --Durin 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion regarding this view

• Matt Britt has nominated a number of articles for deletion [17][18][19][20][21]. 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)

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

---

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

Nominee response to this view

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

Editors 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)

View template

---

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

Nominee response to this view

The nominee may optionally respond to this view in this section