Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance).


Requests for adminship sections
Main page
edit | watch
Active nominations for adminship and bureaucratship		 Talk page
post | watch | archives
Bureaucrat noticeboard
Discussions related to RfA		 Past nominations
Successful RfAs
Unsuccessful RfAs
Successful RfBs
Unsuccessful RfBs
Nomination data
User rights log		 Nominate
To nominate an editor		 Related reading
Administrators
Bureaucrats
Guide to RfA
Arguments to avoid
Admin reading list
Admin how-to guide
Current admin count: 1,555 (list all)
Shortcuts:
WP:RFA
WP:RfA
WP:RFB
WP:RBAG
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

Contents

About administrators

Administrators gain access to privileged maintenance tools including page deletion, page protection, blocking and unblocking, and access to modify protected pages and the MediaWiki interface. See Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools for a full discussion of these tools and their use. Administrative actions are publicly logged just as any other changes are, and can, if necessary, be reverted.

About RfA

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this; for examples of what the community is looking for, look at some successful requests and some unsuccessful ones.
Decision process
Any user may nominate another user with an account. Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.
Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please don't close any requests that you have taken part in. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also de-list a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.
Expressing opinions
Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions.

Nominating

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 11:12:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Tinkleheimer

Voice your opinion (talk page) (10/3/1); Scheduled to end 04:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tinkleheimer (talk · contribs) - Hi there everyone, my name is Trevor, or Tinkleheimer. I am requesting adminship on myself because I am/or at least try to potray a level-headed user, which I feel there should be more of. I have been with Wikipedia for 2 years, but first actively edited starting in December 2006, but I took a Wikibreak that summer. I started again in August, and after 2 months of little editing thanks to school, I am back full time now. But I feel I've made some great contributions, some great friends, and have proven myself to be a good user. I try to look out for the best interest in everyone involved.

The reason I am requesting adminship is I would like to participate in areas could use another set of hands WP:DYK is something I recently got into with the Did You Know of Project Runway Australia. I would help there by checking all the proposed hooks on T:TDYK and possibly updating when need be.

WP:AIV is another area which I would like to participate in. Not much else to say here, I would give blocks to those who need blocking (Have continued vandalism past a level 4 warning and is currently active) and I would remove those who do not need blocking (Insufficiently warned, etc.)

WP:AN/I is an area I have been participating in recently, offering my 2 cents in where I think opinions are needed. I will not be able to fix every problem a user has, but I sure can try.

And lastly, WP:OVERSIGHT, even though I do not have Oversight, I still have the ability to email oversight of personal information. I would be able to delete diffs which show compromising information and send email with deleted diffs.

I do not feel an administrator is someone who is above anyone else on this project. I believe an administrator is like a team leader or a manager. Everyone directs their complaints to them, and it is their responsibility to fix it or make it better. In fact, it's their responsibility to not make the CEO angry. =D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: After taking a little bit to get used to everything, I would start being active in WP:DYK, WP:AIV, and WP:AN/I. I could possibly venture into WP:RFPP or WP:AFD, but I currently have no intentions to. :)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It is hard to point out specific contributions, because I feel I am spread out all over the place. Often times I contribute to reality show articles, such as Project Runway, Project Runway Australia, Top Design, Shear Genius, etc. A lot of my other areas are just random articles I've come across, including video games, anime, actors/actresses, movie, etc. I guess the one(s) I am currently most proud of are Cozy Dog Drive-in and Project Runway Australia. I particularly did a lot of work for Cozy Dog, learning how to use Google Books for the first time.
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 try to avoid conflicts, but at times I will voice my opinions. Whenever voicing my opinion, I try to keep a level head and a Neutral Point of View (wait, is that possible?) Whenever you talk about a user or make fun of someone, remember that there is someone on the other side of that screen, and it could really hurt. WP:AGF

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer before commenting.

Discussion

Tee hee glad you saw it cause I had to fix a mistake right after it :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Support
  1. Aww. Naerii - Talk 04:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support despite low edit count. What I saw showed me a low likelihood to abuse the tools. Talk page review raised no concerns. Dlohcierekim 04:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support User would make a good admin Juppiter (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support, no reason to believe candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 05:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support For sure. I've talked with Tinkleheimer before, and I've seen him around WP:AN/I all the time. What I haven't seen is a reason to oppose. If I had any balls I'd have nommed him myself, but you know me. My balls are always busy somewhere else.--Koji†Dude (C) 05:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Dear god! We don't want to know... :P —Dark talk 05:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Why the heck not? No reason to assume he might inadvertently misuse the tools, let alone intentionally. dorftrottel (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    But dude, seven piercings? dorftrottel (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    That's a one :). I only have my ear pierced right now, an Outer Conch Piercing. :D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oh. Right. Incidentally, I had just noticed the support above, which gave me a pause... dorftrottel (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Weak Support. After reviewing your work, I thought it was pretty good. You only have just over 2000 edits, so you don't have a ton of experience, but from what I've seen so far, I couldn't find any reason not to entrust you with the tools. I did find one recent error, here in a mistaken request for page protection, but if editors were required to be perfect, we wouldn't have any at all. I was also somewhat miffed by this edit in which you reverted yourself citing "reverting good faith edit". I also enjoyed your recent edit here accidentally congratulating yourself (before sending the congratulations to its intended target, Xenocidic). P.S. - I noticed two errors on your userpage you may want to fix: 1) You have "of" instead of "off" in this section; and 2) You have the Nintendo WikiProject userbox twice. Useight (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support. Edit count seems a little low relative to usual RfA standards but it doesn't bother me too much. Tinkleheimer seems to have a great attitude towards the project and after a look through his contribs I think he'd make a great addition. ~ mazca talk 06:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support After reading the Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions guidelines, it seems that Tinkleheimer fill the role of admin well. After reading the comments made by the other editors above, I was able to make my decision with more confidence. I only wish that those that didn't give their reasons would have. In the guidelines given in the afore mentioned Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions page, editors are strongly encouraged to give their opinion in addition to their vote. If it weren't for those who gave good arguments in their vote, I would not have been able to properly weigh Tinkleheimer's ability to mesh with the Wikipedia community, an important attribute for an admin. Leeboyge (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support He's taller than I typically like a prospective admin to be, but he's also a Project Runway fan, so they pretty much cancel each other out. In all seriousness, I haven't been this torn over an RfA in a while, and am close to going neutral. The bare minimum of edits that I can support is 2000, so he just barely clears that. Also, his userpage and the diffs from Daniel seem to suggest that Tinkleheimer is susceptible to Wiki-drama (for instance, the Giggy userbox, even if I agree with you, strikes me as inappropriate and not becoming of an admin candidate). Those being the negatives, now for the positives; Tinklehammer seems to be an extremely well-intentioned editor who is highly unlikely to abuse the tools. The edits he has made (though few in number) don't give me any particularly strong concerns. I will just say this: if and when you are given the mop (and I do think it's a 'when' if not this time around then in a few months), please take things slowly! All new admins should heed those words, but I think it's particularly true in your case due to a relatively low edit count. Before becoming active in admin tasks, make sure you know the relevant policies in and out. tl;dr I trust this user. faithless (speak) 08:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support, no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Assuming good faith. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Oppose
  1. Oppose per this and this. Revert-warring in userspace does not reflect very well on you at all. Even if you agree with what the userbox says, reverting multiple times while discussion is taking place over the issue (per your edit summary, you were aware of it) is not acceptable behaviour on your part. It only worsened the situation, given you were previously uninvolved, and you interjecting stalls discussion on the general issue of long-term inclusion/exclusion to deal with your reverts. This, coupled with this and this, which doesn't reflect too well on you per this, mean I cannot trust your judgement overall. You have not got terribly much experience here, especially in metaissues like the ones cited above, so the dubious-to-good ratio is not high enough to mitigate what I link to above. Sorry, Daniel (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    "[[WP:UP]] is a guideline, not a policy. It is not illegal to have the bar, but more generally frowned upon" suggests a lack of understanding about policies and guidelines, as well. Daniel (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I feel that Tinkleheimer has good intentions and I think he will be okay in the longterm so I don't wish to discourage him. However, some of the comments I've seen from him on the noticeboards have not inspired me with confidence and I think he is really lacking in general experience on Wikipedia. The diffs raised by Daniel are very problematic but again, I think it is a lack of experience rather than anything else. I'm really not at all confident in his understanding of or ability to apply policy and so must oppose this request. Sarah 08:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Also I must add that I completely disagree with the statement that it is an admin's "...responsibility to not make the CEO angry." With CEO linked to Jimbo. It's an admin's responsibility to do the right thing by the project, period, and whether or not it upsets Jimmy personally is really beside the point. It also isn't an admin's responsibility to fix or make better all complaints brought to them. A large amount of the time we make people who bring complaints to us *not* happy because the right thing to do for the project is not what the complainants want us to do. Sarah 08:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The diffs Daniel brings are very concerning, also the apparent lack of knowledge of policy and edit warring at user pages greatly concerns me as to how this user would act with the tools. Possibly after a long period of editing, I will be convinced that those were aberrant occurrences. MBisanz talk 08:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose on the basis that you view an admin as "a team leader or a manager", and per Daniel and Sarah. --Stephen 09:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Have a diff where he states that opinion on admins, Stephen? · AndonicO Engage. 10:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Last paragraph of nomination statement. giggy (:O) 10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ah right, thanks. · AndonicO Engage. 10:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose. Not sure I want to trust Trevor with the tools yet; he seems a bit unstable, to be honest. While his judgment usually seems good (note: I rarely see him outside of RFA, so my perspective is pretty limited), something worries me—not sure what, exactly, though. · AndonicO Engage. 10:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose. A very low edit count means i'm not comfortable with the idea that he has enough experience to make a good admin. Has only created two pages, and the area's he says he would be involved in aren't ones he has had particular experience in. Also seems to misunderstand the role of an administrator, first saying an admin isn't above anyone else on a project and then comparing them to a manager; if this was a job, you wouldn't hire someone who doesnt have a proper understanding of what the job is. Claiming to be a level-headed user is fair enough, but brings into question the message on his talk page "The content was deleted via MfDs. Please do not re-insert it. The content is an attack on other editors. You should not be participating in attacks on other editors. The content misrepresents the Foundation. You should not be making unsubstantiated claims about what the Foundation endorses". From your contributions you dont seem to have an accurate understanding of wikipedia guidelines and policies, and your edit history is slightly worrying; i dont think an admin who makes edits normally and then vanishes for 2-4 months at a time is really appropriate. You've only really scaled your editing up in the last month; keep that up for another 6 months, get to understand the policies and contribute to more varied area's and reapply; if you've done all that i'd be happy to support. Ironholds 11:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral
  1. Neutral. I do feel that Tinkleheimer would be a good admin, but it's the experience I'm worried about. Daniel's diffs are concerning, but a review of his last 500 edits brought up no concerns for me. I feel that Tinkleheimer should wait a few months just to ensure that he is absolutely ready, and won't make any obvious and avoidable mistakes. He is certainly on the right track though. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123

Voice your opinion (talk page) (130/2/1); Scheduled to end 17:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123 (talk · contribs) - Epbr123 has been active on this project since August 2006 and has made 65,000 edits in that time. His contributions to the project are not only numerous but they are also of a high quality: Epbr123 has made significant contributions to 7 featured articles, a featured list and 5 good articles. I particularly enjoyed reading the article on Birchington-on-Sea, which was virtually written by him alone.

Epbr123 has plenty of experience in the areas that administrators routinely deal with. He has a firm understanding of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and deletion policy. His deleted contributions show over 1000 pages deleted following being identified and tagged by him this year. He is an effective vandal reverter and has made over 600 reports to WP:AIV. Where I have come across his reports they have always been full and accurate, with vandals warned appropriately. His efficiency in these areas generates a lot of requests for admin action, and I think the project would benefit were he able to block vandals and delete obviously inappropriate content himself.

He had a previous unsuccessful RfA about 3 months ago, where most of the opposition stemmed from an RfC about him from October last year. Concerns were raised in that RfC that he had failed to assumed good faith and badgered opponents in deletion discussions. I have reviewed Epbr123's contributions over the last months and find no issues of civility or AGF. I believe Epbr123 has learned from the mistakes he made last year and has grown as a contributor. People should have the opportunity to learn and improve, and I believe that is what he has done. I have no reservations in putting him forwards as a candidate for adminship. WjBscribe 16:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Late co-nom by bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs): I nominated Epbr123 back in March, and I'm pleased to have seen that Epbr has changed his ways for a much better way. Some of you may recall his previous RFC, due to a perceived arrogance. This and his previous RFA has humbled him immensely. His great contributions still stand, and now he has added a new depth to them with his newfound maturity and humility. I believe that Epbr has shown a tremendous new strength to learn, an invaluable trait for an admin.

Yet another co-nom by OhanaUnited (talk · contribs): As I have nominated Epbr for adminship last time, this time will be no different. Epbr is a versatile editor and knowledgeable in all areas of Wikipedia. I have no reservations to nominate Epbr to become an admin.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am pleased to accept this nomination. Thank you, WJBscribe. Epbr123 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to be involved with vandal fighting and speedy deletion. As WJBscribe has said, I have made over 600 reports to WP:AIV and have tagged about 1,000 pages for speedy deletion; I can only recall one occassion when a speedy deletion request of mine was rejected. It would save other admins' time if I was able to block vandals and delete inappropriate pages myself, and it is sometimes frustrating not being able to block a rampant vandal or delete an attack page when there are no admins around.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think the best have been my contributions to seven featured articles, a featured list and five good articles, the most recent of which was Canterbury, which reached GA a few days ago. I am also honoured to have been the nominator of 19 successful RfA candidates. My other activities have included cleaning up Manual of Style issues with Featured Article candidates, handing out GAN Reviewer of the Week awards at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations for seven months, adding images to Kent settlement articles, assessing articles for WikiProject UK geography and WikiProject Kent, and participating in about 300 AfDs.
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 had a Requests for comment last October due to unfriendly comments I made during an AfD. During the RfC, I received some good constructive criticism about my behaviour from editors I had a high amount of respect for, and since then I have made a big effort to improve the way I deal with conflict. I feel my last RfA failed because I needed more time to demonstrate that my attitudes had changed. I think I have now achieved this, as I have remained civil throughout the time since my last RfA.

Optional questions from MrPrada:

4a. What is the difference between WP:AFD and WP:DRV?
A:
Comment from Maxim(talk): Do you seriously think that Epbr123 doesn't know the difference between AFD and DRV? Maxim(talk) 20:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have asked this question before, and you would be suprised by the answers I receive. I understand the candidate does not plan to take part in them, and the questions are optional, but when I see an RFA for a user whose previously had AFD-related concerns, I like to ask this one. MrPrada (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
AFD is where articles, which don't fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion or prodding, can be nominated for deletion. DRV is where users can request a deletion decision to be overturned. Epbr123 (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
4b. In your opinion, which of the two is more important to the process?
A: I think they're equally important. On the one hand, there wouldn't be a process without AfD. On the other hand, AfD needs DRV for the process to work well. It's similar to how the FA and GA processes wouldn't work without FAR and GAR. Epbr123 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have just voted to support you, but I do have a bone to pick with your answer here. Clearly, the AfD process is more important. The AfD process is, essentially, the main deletion mechanism on Wikipedia, while only a small fraction of deletion cases ever go to DRV. So it is much more important that the AfD process be designed and organized well and run smoothly, while DRV (which is basically a fail-safe mechanism) is allowed to have a few quirks and ad-hoc procedures. The GA/FA analogy is not really correct here. Rather AfD is like a car engine and DRV is like an airbag. Regarding the answer to 4a, let me also point out that DRV is for challenging any outcome of the deletion process, whether it was delete, keep or no consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It depends what he meant by important. They are both vital components of the process, so in a way they are equally important. Regarding your last point, I deliberately said deletion decision rather than deletion to take into account keeps and no consensuses, although I admit I could have made this clearer. Epbr123 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not looking to start an argument, but I agree with Epbr123's analogy, particularly with respect to GA/GAR. It too is for challenging any outcome of a GA review, whether a pass or a fail. Just wanted to clear up that misunderstanding. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Point taken regarding GA/FA, I had actually misread the original answer here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Epbr gave a fine answer. The insight I'm really looking to gain when I ask this one is does the potential administrator see DRV as AFD round 2 (which it is not), or do they understand it as a way for the community to evaluate if administrators are correctly evaluating consensus during AFD? I also like to see the candidate associate DRV with {{prod}} and CSD, which are the only means for the community to review unilateral decisions. In that sense, I think DRV can be more important then AFD. MrPrada (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Ddstretch:

5. If you had the power and means to change one policy or guideline of wikipedia to bring about an overall improvement in the quality of either the encyclopaedia or the working environment of its editors (or both, jointly), which one would you alter, what would be the alterations, and why?
A: I would like to improve the working environment by creating clearer guidelines on what constitutes incivility, and for more action to be taken against those who are incivil. I think the word incivility is currently meaningless on Wikipedia, as it's too subjective, and whether action is taken against a user who is uncivil often depends on who their friends are. Epbr123 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Malleus Fatuorum:

6. If successful in this RfA, would you be open to recall?
A: Yes, I would. I haven't decided what criteria I'd use yet though; probably something like if two admins requested it. Epbr123 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Apis:

7. There have been concerns about incivility in the past and it seems you agree with these concerns today. Why do you think civility is considered so important?
Because incivility can drive editors away from Wikipedia, and because people work better in a happy environment. Epbr123 (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
8. One of the policies on Wikipedia is WP:IAR, what is your opinion on it, how would you enforce it?
I would ignore a rule if by using common sense I can see it's clearly wrong. The policies and guidelines are still evolving, and there are exceptions to the rules that have yet to be discussed and written down. Whenever I've disagreed with a guideline, I've tried to change the guideline rather than blindly follow it. Epbr123 (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Nsk92:

9. Say you see an article where the deletion prod has expired but you personally disagree with the reason for deletion given by the user who added the prod. What do you do?
A: I wouldn't delete it, but if it was a borderline case I would send it to AfD. I would only delete articles that clearly deserved to be deleted. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Supposed there is an ongoing AfD for an article and during this AfD one of the participants tagged the article for speedy A7. Suppose also that during the AfD itself, but not in the article's text, someone presented verifiable evidence that the subject of the article may be notable or significant. Would it be appropriate to close the AfD as speedy A7?
A: No, it wouldn't be appropriate to close the AfD as speedy if there is any reasonable doubt that the article should be deleted, whether or not the evidence is presented in the article or at the AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Have you ever formally invoked WP:IAR and if yes, could you point to a few examples of this?
A: The most recent example is that when I check FACs for Manual of Style errors, I ignore the guidance given in the "Inside or outside" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks as the second example given there seems to be wrong. There's apparant consensus on the talk page that it's wrong, but nobody seems to have gotten around to changing the guideline yet. Epbr123 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Suppose there is an ongoing AfD where the nominator gave a very poor and even frivolous reason as a deletion rationale, but where some other AfD participants put forward valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Would you do a speedy close of the AfD as having been improperly filed?
A: No, I wouldn't speedy close an AfD due to a technicality like this. The AfD should be left to carry on as normal, whether or not the nominator is clearly wrong. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
13. What would you do if the article is nominated for an AfD but the nominator proposes a merge rather than deletion?
A: AfDs aren't the place to discuss merges, so I'd close the AfD and open a merge discussion on the relevent pages. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Are there any situations you can think of where it would be appropriate to delete an entire BLP article about some person even if the person is notable?
A: If the entire article is a copyvio or if the article is entirely unsourced negative or dubious information. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Avi

15. Your comments here imply that you are of the belief that there needs to be a minimum time between candidacies for various wikipedia janitorial positions, yet you are submitting your own candidacy after a break of a similar order of magnitude. What do you believe is an appropriate length of time. Does it depend on the reasons for the initial oppose, is there a fundamental difference between RfAs and RfBs, is the time between two months and three months significant, or is there another explanation? Thank you, and good luck. -- Avi (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A: I think about three months was an appropriate length of time for that particular RfB. Three months is 50% more than two months so there is a significant difference between the two. Although, if there weren't also other concerns, I wouldn't have opposed solely due to the time. Epbr123 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Hellboy2hell

16. If you become an Admin, would you eventually go for bureaucratship or will you stay as an Admin?
A: It's possible I would go for bureaucratship some day, but that would be a long long way off. Epbr123 (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
17. If your RfA Nomination was unsucessful, what will you do?
A: If this RfA was unsucessful, I would be surprised and disappointed, but I would take on board the criticisms and try again for adminship in a few months. Epbr123 (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Piotrus

18. According to WP:EDITS, you have been one of the most active Wikipedia editors in the past month, with about 15k edits. Why, and is it likely to last? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's because I've just started using Huggle. I intend to carry on using Huggle for a while, so it probably will stay at this level. Epbr123 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from SlimVirgin

19. Hi Epbr, I have a question about your approach to FACs. I've read elswhere that you're inclined to oppose on MoS grounds alone i.e. for non-compliance. This is one of my pet dislikes, so I'd like to ask whether it's true that you have opposed an article for FA simply because it doesn't fully comply with the MoS, and if not, how much weight you accord the MoS when you're reviewing an article SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever opposed just based on MoS grounds. Whenever I just have MoS concerns, I put comment instead of oppose, although I usually fix MoS problems myself without commenting at the FAC. However, I don't think an FAC should be promoted with MoS issues, unless someone's likely to clean them up soon after the promotion. MoS problems are quick and easy to fix, so there's no harm in insisting they're fixed. They're never likely to hold-up an FAC's promotion for long, or cause it to fail. Epbr123 (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. My issue with the MoS is that it's a guideline i.e. an advisory that no one is obliged to follow. Editors might disagree with what it says, and that's particularly likely to happen given that it changes so often. I feel that someone writing an FA should be allowed to ignore whatever the MoS says, and focus on the substantive content; and that, so long as the article is internally consistent regarding style (and I suppose also so long as it doesn't veer too far from the WP norm), then it should be able to pass without the MoS rearing its head. Do you disagree? SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Most of the guidelines in the MOS, such as adding non-breaking spaces and unit conversions, are the there to help the readers, so it is beneficial if these are followed. I do acknowledge however that the MOS possibly goes too far and includes guidelines that probably do not affect the reader, such as not allowing spaced em-dashes, and also that there are times when it is common sense to ignore the MOS. Regardless of my personal opinions towards the MOS, I know that an FAC will not pass unless it complies with the MOS, which it is obliged to do per the FAC criteria, and therefore I either let the editors know in FAC what needs to be fixed or fix it myself in order to help the FAC achieve promotion. When I do this, I am not necessarily endorsing that the guideline is right. Epbr123 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seem to be harping on about this, but the MoS itself says it need not be followed, and there is no guideline anywhere on Wikipedia that is allowed to say another guideline must be adhered to; if the FAC criteria say this, they are wrong. As you say yourself, the MoS often goes too far, and indeed recommends certain things where many, if not most, good editors do the opposite. FA reviewers on the MoS talk page have said it isn't true that an article would fail only because of MoS issues, so if you have an example of that happening, I'd appreciate a link. As I say, I'm sorry to be focusing on this one point — I can see that you're a good editor, of course — it's just that I've seen some articles questioned at FA for reasons that were entirely spurious, and the culprit is usually over-adherence to the MoS. All it achieves is to discourage people from writing FAs. SlimVirgin talk|edits 23:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do feel the MOS does more good than harm, but it is unfortunate if it discourages people from writing FAs. Epbr123 (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No, FACs do have to follow MOS, with very good reason (or a nominator needs to provide cogent reasons why MOS is not followed in a particular instance). If, overall, a MOS guideline does not help our readers or have another cogent reason for existence, it should be challenged at MOS. This discussion is occurring at the wrong place. And SV, discouraging people from writing FAs is not necessarily a bad thing; inflation in the number of FAs at the expense of standards would be a bad thing: there's always a risk of diluting the "currency". I suggest we discuss this elsewhere. TONY (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony, no one has to follow the MoS, because it's a guideline. If we want people to have to follow it, it needs to be promoted to policy, but that would never fly. I feel an over-reliance on it is bad for two reasons: first, because I've seen people object to very good articles because of MoS non-compliance; and secondly, because I've seen a couple of very badly written articles get promoted once the MoS objections were satisfied. What the MoS offers FA reviewers is a simple frame of reference through which they can view the articles, but it's simplistic and doesn't help them judge whether they're looking at a high-quality piece of work — though some reviewers seem to think it does. That's my main objection to it. Epbr, sorry for hijacking your RfA page with this. :-) SlimVirgin talk|edits 08:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, you are correct that nobody has to follow the MoS, in the same way that nobody has to follow anything. WP:IAR. However, if one is to make an action with the justification of "I did it because I don't have to follow the rules everyone else follows", this justification will be notably weaker. The rules apply to everyone, and people shouldn't bail out of abiding them because of personal preference or because they don't have to. To allow this would create a dangerous slippery slope. I fully support Epbr123's support of the MoS. giggy (:O) 08:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Epbr123 Requests for adminship/Epbr123 2

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Epbr123 before commenting.

Discussion

  • I don't see the fact that Epbr123 has made numerous machine-assisted edits as a bad thing. He has written a lot of recognized content, as well as reverted tons of vandalism. Epbr123 has the experience and abilities to be an effective administrator. Maxim(talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I concur. After 68457 edits, you eventually pick up something. bibliomaniac15 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • A headache? Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Nothing a pillbox of asprin can't help. bibliomaniac15 02:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support, quietly indispensable at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. ec I'm angry no users give me a chance, but I think you will make a good admin (like I would!). So definite support. StewieGriffin! • Talk 17:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support as nom. WjBscribe 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support as a good candidate unlikely to abuse the tools or the trust of the community. I'm seeing a lot of good work at FAC, as noted by SandyGeorgia, above, and the candidate's CSD tagging (on review of a random sampling) looks good. No objections. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support He is extremely active at WP:AIV, in an almost scary kind of way. Gary King (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Joke oppose which is actually a huge support since he's always so annoyingly quick at reverting vandalism, often beating me. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support I was one of the people who had doubts during the last RfA, and stated that I thought Epbr123 needed to spend more time showing that real changes in his behaviour had occurred. Since then, I have watched his contributions, and I think real changes are evident. Everyone should be allowed to demonstrate that they have learned, and Epbr123 seems to have done this. We still seem to have differences of opinion, but a healthy disagreement can lead to improvements in what it is one disagrees about, and I do not think this will jeopardise any administrative duties he will perform and learn to carry out. Consequently, I support this nomination.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support without hesitation. An excellent user who I've encountered a couple times, and I see him all over. His vandal fighting work is terrific. Per the reasons above, as well. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Nominator last time, I know Epbr will utilise the bit effectively. Rudget (Help?) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. I have had several run-ins with Epbr123 in the past – some may not find that altogether surprising – and I do not always find myself in agreement with him. Nevertheless it seems obvious that his outstanding work in dealing with vandalism and speedy deletions would be enhanced by his access to the administrator toolbelt. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. Impressive article work. There was some other interaction I had with him that I was impressed by, but I can't remember, so I decided to check out his contributions to see if I could find it...which was a mistake. There's so much there that I probably couldn't find it if I spent all day. Ah well, that's a plus. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support, thought he already was one. He beats me to the revert far, far too often :). FusionMix 18:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support I have had many, many run-ins with Epbr at AFD and I do have concerns over his (I think) overenthusiastic deletionism - but I do trust him not to delete anything he's not sure of, and a block button would obviously be useful to him. — iridescent 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support - Has my complete trust, seen editer on numerous times, very good. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support seen Epbr around vandal-fighting a lot. Will not misuse the buttons. --Rodhullandemu 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - of course! - Alison ❤ 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support This candidate would be a great asset to the project. Wikipedia would greatly benefit from Epbr123 having the extra buttons. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support. dorftrottel (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support All of my encounters with him and what I have read lead me to believe he is mop worthy Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Very impressive contribs. Thingg⊕⊗ 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support. Excellent article contribs balanced with excellent vandalism/protection efforts. And knowing a bit of the "history", if Malleus can support this, I would be daft not to. No hesitation on my part. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support I've watched Epbr123 in many FAC discussions. He has shown a solid knowledge of policy and an ability to keep calm in the face of the inevitable disgruntled comments from FAC nominators. I'm also highly impressed by his willingness to do tedious tasks (such as copyedit FAC candidates for MOS compliance) without seeking any recognition of his efforts at all. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support. Observations of and encounters with contributions at FAC have left only the impression that Epbr123 is helpful, knowledgeable and competent. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  24. Strong support as user has never been blocked, has contributed to 7 featured articles, 1 featured list, and 5 good articles, and makes good arguments as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support - Good guy, great article writer, deserving. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  26. A good, second RFA support. It's good, because this how a second RFA ought to be. At first, the editor got entangled in some brushfires, had a few arguments, and failed his first RFA attempt. OK, that happens. But he's continued to show his commitment, his cool, and his desire to help in editing. I don't doubt at this point that Epbr can be trusted with the tools. Marskell (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support, a dedicated encyclopedia builder who displays great judgment. I have seen this editor make the difference on countless FACs, sneaking in with a key copy-edit when it counts. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support - I've seen only good things from this user. Our Encyclopaedia would definitely profit from him gaining the tools. "Net positive" as some would say :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support Seen his name more times than anybody else's at AIV. As I said at the last RfA, his work at FAC is impressive and as Sandy said, indispensable. The project will benefit with Epbr123 armed with the sysop flag, and the issues brought up at the last RfA are evidently resolved. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  30. naerii - talk 21:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support A superb editor, and have had pleasant experiences with him at WP:GA. I trust him with the tools and believe he will be a great asset as an admin. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  32. Should've been an admin the first time around. Wizardman 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support just like last time. Trustworthy user, excellent content work. Woody (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support. You should've received the mop on your last RFA IMO, but all should be good this time around. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support, active and encouraging contributor to the GA and FA process. Trustworthy anti-vandalism work and a thorough understanding of what makes wiki-tick. The mop and bucket can only make him more effective. Kbthompson (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support - a good editor who is constructive in potentially confrontational situations. Warofdreams talk 23:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support Very useful against vandalism. Also support per the answers to the questions. Your mainspace edits are impressive and your deleted edit count is huge. Good luck! Razorflame 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support per ddstretch. Looks like this user has learned from his conflicts, and has continued to build on his considerable mainspace experience. GlassCobra 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  39. Edit-conflicted Support - Good vandalism reversions, good content creation, and I'm always encouraged to see newpage patrollers try to save pages from deletion, such as Epbr did with Kacey (porn star). It doesn't always work out (as in this case), but it speaks volumes about the editor. --jonny-mt 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support (Changed from neutral) Per discussion below and excellent contribution history despite excessive Mechanism. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support A pleasure to add my support, as this user's work in vandalism reverts on many articles I watch is outstanding. Worthy of being trusted with the mop. JGHowes talk - 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  42. Good user, though you will be running up that hill after this closes, won't you? Acalamari 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support A fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  44. Certainly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support a most prolific, vibrant contributor - a role model. Vishnava talk 04:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  46. Yep i said just yday i was going to do it and here it is Roadrunnerz45 (talk 2 me) 05:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support lotsa evidence of good 'pedia building. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support, per SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  49. A great editor. Al Tally talk 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  50. Strong support - great work with cleaning up articles as well as writing them. Strong in the fundamentals of Wikipedia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support Per nom. MBisanz talk 07:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  52. To be honest, I had already assumed he was an administrator, given his outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. Valtoras (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support A pleasure to as well. Good luck. Further - I've spent time today at WP:AIV and every report of Epbr's was spot on. Thanks you.Pedro :  Chat  08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support. Strong candidate. Johnfos (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  55. giggy (:O) 08:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support There is such thing as too much vandalism reverting, but your article work balances it off. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support I've worked with this guy many times and he's a great asset to the project. ——Ryan | t • c 10:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  58. —Dark talk 11:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  59. Super support An excellent contributor. If only others contributed so little, so thoughtlessly and mechanically to mainspace. Mind you, Sandy and Raul would be pretty busy. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support without hesitation George The Dragon (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  61. Strong Support without hesitation. Good editor. Has often edited articles which are not his own to save them from speedy deletion. Will be a strong asset to the project (I'm surprised he's not an admin already). Redfarmer (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  62. Strong Support Excellent article writer, great work in administrator-related tasks. This user is well qualified for adminship. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  63. Strong Support - Great content work both in article building and grooming. Having worked with this editor in GA, I was always impressed with professionalism that came across in his edits. Nothing I've seen from Epbr has ever given me pause. Will make a great administrator. Lara❤Love 15:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  64. Edit-conflicted Very Strong Support <--Can't let anyone beat me, now can I? :P I have seen Epbr around on vandal patrol, and I have actually opened his talk page a few times to ask him for "admin" help, only to realize (again) that he is not an admin. I have no reservations whatsoever to giving him the mop. J.delanoygabsanalyze 15:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support - Although I expect most AIV reports are automated with Huggle and things, there are lots of great contributions elsewhere in Wikipedia-space, and also some good article building. A good candidate. Lradrama 16:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support. Neıl 龱 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support per Dweller. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support — for sure! →Christian.И 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  69. Support. A very level-headed and experienced editor with a good track record both in main space and in project space and a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies. Will definitely be an asset in managing various disputes. Nsk92 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  70. Support, valuable contributor who will make good use of the tools. --MPerel 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  71. Support User has demonstrated behavior that at this point indicates that he would not abuse the tools, and thus may be trusted with them, even if we may disagree as to other minor points. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support An impressive record as an editor...Modernist (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  73. Strong support wonderful vandalfighter, brilliant contributer! Good luck! --Cameron (T|C) 19:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  74. Support. A paragon of adminship. Why aren't you an administrator already? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  75. Support Of course. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  76. Support. If he would be better about edit summaries, I'd vote for him in November. Tan | 39 21:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  77. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. WP:200? Don't bet against it. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  78. Support: per nom Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  79. Support Great, well-rounded user. SpencerT♦C 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  80. Support Looks like admin tools would come to good use, agree with the nomination by WjBscribe. —Apis (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  81. Support. He looks like a great editor and should make an excellent administrator. --Carioca (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  82. Support Just saw him in action on vandal-patrol. Good job! Yechiel (Shalom) 00:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  83. Support I think you are really useful, especially anti-vandalism and NPOV. I appreciate all your contributions. Best wishes to you, Epbr123.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  84. Support All things appear to be in order for this candidate! Best of luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 02:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  85. Support per nom. bibliomaniac15 02:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  86. Support. Hard working, trustworthy candidate. It's important to have well-rounded admins who know policy, have article-building experience, and have helped in admin areas like vandal-fighting. Majoreditor (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  87. Support - would do great use of the tools. macytalk 03:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  88. Support. Any concerns from the previous nom have since been addressed, and the candidate is well qualified. MrPrada (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  89. Support. Intelligent and thoughtful vandal fighter. Fairly good answers to questions and good article contributions. J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  90. Support Solid and helpful contrib history. Shows great judgement. Good, knowledgable answers to questions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  91. Support yeah, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  92. Support no reason to suspect he might misuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  93. Support as co-nom of this RfA and last RfA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  94. Yep. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  95. Support - Solid user who will use the tools wisely. --CapitalR (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  96. Support - Ok, I finally found the time after my experiments (graduate school) to go through the contributions, and you know what? Yes, they are great things to be found amid the ten of thousands of reversions :). I still maintain that my neutral stance was justified, and I don't appreciate the swipes taken, however, that is unrelated to the candidate's overall performance, which is pretty darn good. So yes, my support is extended. Good luck, this will surely pass and you'll make a good admin. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  97. Support - see no reason to suppose the candidate will misuse the tools. KTC (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  98. Support - Solid candidate. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  99. Support Great candidate. Midorihana みどりはな 03:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  100. Support - Looks good here. Tiptoety talk 04:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  101. Support Absolutely support; great editor. Ceoil (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  102. Support Of course. Besides, if he's kept busy with admin stuff maybe he finally stops beating me at reverting vandalism. ;-)  Channel ®   10:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  103. Support per gurch and nom's. — MaggotSyn 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  104. Support. Great amount of participation across Wikipedia, good answers to questions. ~AH1(TCU) 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  105. Support. Dedicated and valuable contributor to the project. Cla68 (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  106. Support. Great editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  107. Support Solid content contributor and hard worker, and meets all my criteria. The FAs are truly impressive. Orderinchaos 16:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  108. Support. Good luck. AfD hero (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  109. Time to return the favour. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  110. Support - Looks like a good editor who is unlikely to abuse tools. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  111. Strong Support. Excellent vandal fighter & editor; could really use the mop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  112. Support Great editor, and will be a great admin. --Chetblong (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  113. Support At the prior RFA, I cast a vote for oppose due to a RFC related matter, but I've watched him working very hard, especially fighting against vandalism, and giving great contributions to articles as well. I have no lingering feeling about his ability as an admin. He will be good. --Appletrees (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  114. Support Hard-working, conscientious and civil. He'll make a good admin. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  115. Support—Excellent candidate indeed. He will be an asset. TONY (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  116. Strong Support after answering My Questions 16&17 {Hellboy2hell (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)}
  117. Support Piling on support. Good recommendations above. Exceeds thresholds for experience, judgment and trust. For proficiency's sake, I'd like to see the candidate get more portal and image edits, but that should never be a deal killer. BusterD (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    Just to let you know, I have actually made about 200 image edits and 20 portal edits, but the Wannabe Kate tool only counts the past 45,000 edits. Epbr123 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  118. Support Well above the standards of most successful candidates - hard-working, impressive GA and FA contributions, can certainly be trusted with the tools. NSH001 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  119. Support great edits/work - going to use the tools wellTiggerjay (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  120. Support With all of the featured/good content, and the massive amount of vandalism reverts, he has shown he is here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Horologium (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  121. Support After reading the various comments on the page, I see no need to oppose a good candidate. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  122. Support: Can certainly be trusted, and that's enough for me!...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  123. Support We don't always agree, but Epbr is absolutely trustworthy. VanTucky 22:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  124. Support as per above. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  125. Support per lots of the above. Trebor (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  126. Support. Looking at all the discussion, and through the editor's contributions, I see no reason to oppose. JeanLatore (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  127. Support. I see no problems, and this is clearly a valuable contributor to the project. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  128. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC).
  129. Support I've done two thorough editor reviews of Epbr and have been pleased to see what progress he's made. I've looked closely and haven't seen a hint of incivility since the problem I brought up at the last RfA, and I've been impressed by his handling of several situations. Not to mention all the excellent work he does for the project. delldot talk 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  130. Support You are an exceptional candidate from what I can see, I see no other thing to do but support. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
Weak Oppose The answers to questions 5 and 8 demonstrate a mindset that "there ought to be a rule for everything, with only a set list of explicitly laid out exceptions". Quoting: there are exceptions to the rules that have yet to be discussed and written down. The implication is that all exceptions to the rules should be written down as new rules, and we just haven't thought of all the exceptions yet. This bureaucratic mindset is the source of instruction creep, and is contrary to the spirit of WP:IAR, WP:BURO, and the wiki philosophy in general. The answer to question 11 didn't help either - Epbr123's example of when he/she IAR'ed was a trivial quotation style issue. My oppose is softened somewhat by the good answer to question 12, but not enough to support. Edit: A conversation with Epbr123 on our talk pages has convinced me to change my vote to support. AfD hero (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Reluctant oppose Not as strong an oppose as last time, but an oppose nevertheless. I had intended to support Epbr123's second bid for Adminship, but this one comes before I see much improvement in some areas of concern left over from the previous RfA. There were several aspects to Epbr123's disruptions which I think need to be addressed before I would support an RfA. 1) Incivility. He appears to have shown that he can be civil when he wants to, so this concern is addressed. 2) An overly-strict and literalistic interpretation of Wiki Guidelines which all state right up front that they are to be "treated with common sense and the occasional exception". This concern remains as strong as ever. Even statements he has made here show that he thinks "Ignore All Rules"-- a policy, not a guideline-- applies when a guideline is clearly in error. This is an invalid application of "IAR" because a guideline which is clearly wrong should be changed and never followed. Epr123 continues to show hostility towards any interpretation of a guideline for any exceptional case, claiming that instead the guideline must be changed to accomidate that-- and every-- exception before he will consider it. (I notice AfD hero has changed his opposed based on conversation on this matter with Epbr123. Epbr123's claim that he does not think every exception need be written down, "to avoid instruction creep" does not satisfy me. It still seems a concern with the guidelines-- i.e., keeping them nice and tidy-- not with their common sense interpretation and application.) 3) Epbr123 combined concerns 1 and 2 with a bot-like, mechanical, repetitive editing technique which can be good or bad. This technique, when employed to create valid stubs or to fight vandalism, is good. When it is done to strictly and mechanically enforce guidelines, ignoring all exceptions, and ignoring continued complaint from multiple editors, it is disruptive, leads to time wasted in arguments, and, ultimately, good editors leaving this volunteer project. It needs to be remembered that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, which depends on its volunteers feeling welcomed and valued. A welcoming atmosphere is destroyed when "Rules" are strictly, coldly, and (because not all Admins behave in this manner) inconsistently enforced. Epbr123 and I have had many disagreements in the past, and he has characterized these as "Inclusionist" and "Deletionist" differences. I disagree with this characterization. Epbr123 has created by now probably tens of thousands of stubs, while I work very slowly, on few articles... I think our differences are in our concern with form and content. Epbr123 is an extreme formalist. The letter of the law must be followed exactly, without regard to real-world interpretations or outcomes. This is a tolerable attitude, perhaps, in an editor, but one that will lead to conflict, disruption and other trouble in the hands of an Administrator. Dekkappai (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Today I had or another editor had to revert changes you made to two articles which were to the detriment of the articles. Both articles are currently Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. This leads me to think that you do not have good editing judment. Reading the rest of your nomination, it seems like you should know better. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Why would you wikilink October 11 in this edit [1]? Plus you should know that in the beginning of a sentence you spell out a number. In this edit [2] the editor clearly states his objections to the edit and he is right. You just "happened" to edit two articles I was editing today but this reflects poorly on you in my opinion. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. A quick comment. Months and dates such as October 11 are, in fact, supposed to be Wikilinked, so the date will show up formated correctly per a user's specific preference. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, in the first case, Mattisse's reversion of Epbr's changes did not conform to MoS; there's a reason I trust Epbr123 at FAC. And the second diff is not a revert of Epbr, rather someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Just so I get the FAC rules, you support using a number instead of spelling out a number at the beginning of a sentence (in the first example) and you support using IMDB as a reliable source for the article subjects name (in the second example)? –Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Neither of your descriptions of the edits in question is accurate; it might be better to continue this on the talk page of this RfA, where this can be clarified in detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It was discussed [3] and noted as an incorrect edit on the part of this nominee. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I could probably think of a dozen better reasons to oppose Epbr123 than over a misunderstanding over date formatting, without even breaking sweat. For goodness sake, let's treat the RfA process with whatever respect it still has left. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) It was the three other lapses in judgment that I am concerned about. The date was not the overriding reason, and as you point out. was correct, but what about the stylistic changes and using IMDB as a major source for an FAC article. If I am wrong about IMDB, please correct me. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Well, to be honest I haven't looked at your diffs. As to IMDB, I wasn't aware that there was any doubt as to its unreliability. My primary concern though is your opposition to a candidate which is apparently based on some disagreement over a recent content dispute. Had you claimed that Epbr123 was abusive, or had in some other way behaved inappropriately during your disagreement, then I might have been inclined to take the trouble to follow your diffs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Using or spelling a number are both fine by WP:MOSNUM, and wikilinking the date was definitely correct. You are mistaken over the second edit, link to his diff [4] Trebor (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry! This is the second diff[5] –Mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Correct: a revert that had nothing to do with Epbr123's editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) You are still mistaken: Epbr13 did not introduce the IMDB reference. I linked above what he actually did (which was add a "The" in front of "New York Times"). Trebor (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This misunderstanding on the part of Mattisse is now disrupting both a FAC and an RfA; I hope someone will step in and clarify, as I need to step out now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral
Neutral - For now, but from taking a look at the last few thousand edits, all I see are huggle reverts. Mechanical. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Takes one to know one. Al Tally talk 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, Al Tally, I'm kind of ashamed to see that statement. RfA is not a place to lable people hipocrytes. All sorts of people have their own criteria, regardless of wether they themselves meet them. Does everyone in the U.S. fit the criteria to be the President? No. But they can still appoint one.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
They can indeed appoint one, but if they didn't fulfil the criteria they set for others, I wouldn't expect them to run three times. Al Tally talk 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Majorly actually makes a fairly good point here. naerii - talk 03:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
OUCH, considering whats gone on in recent days I thought people would be more willing to bite their lip and let things be. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 05:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind about the above comments. To be candid for a moment (and no offense to the candidate), comparing Epbr123's contributions to my own is absolutely laughable. There's no thought whatsoever in any of these edits. The only reason I'm not opposing is because I don't fault people for using Huggle. Unfortunately, this is even stretching it. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I also do not expect anything more or less from Majorly anyway. His participation at RfA is usually restricted to casting a short aspersion instead of...you know...actually putting any effort into judging a candidate or making a thoughtful !vote. If we're going immaturely play the blame game, be prepared to answer for your own foibles. Just some observations. The bottom line is this. Epbr's edits are perfunctory, mechanical, robotic, thoughtless, and seem to have nothing more to say rather than "I want my edit count as high as possible". If you do not like this opinion, please feel free to pout about it elsewhere. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"There's no thought whatsoever in any of these edits." I'm confused, by "these edits" do you also mean the page histories of Birchington-on-Sea and Canterbury? I agree the vandal reverts are mechanical - it's hard to revert vandalism in a creative manner - but wouldn't you agree that Epbr123 also has very significant non-mechanical content contributions? WjBscribe 11:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There's thought into vandal reverting as well you know ^_^ though not nearly as much as actually building up an article. If it was thoughtless, he could just set it going and go off and actually do some article work. But thought is required, and it's not "mechanical" and "thoughtless" as you put it. You are quite mistaken. In any case, he has 7 FAs and 5 GAs. So-called mechanical editing won't get you 12 top standard articles. Al Tally talk 15:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This reply is for Majorly and Scribe. Scribe, by "these edits", I was referring specifically (I should have chosen my words more carefully as to avoid ambiguity) to the huggle reverts, of which there are thousands upon thousands to sift through. However, as I've stated elsewhere (mostly at WT:RFA), I will never oppose for such a reason, in this case, the preference of using an app for mass revert automation. Besides, as you've pointed out, there is great article work to be found. However, I haven't had the time to properly go through the contributions, hence the "for now" part of my stance. The reason for this divergence in conversation stems from Majorly's swipe, which, I admit, I became defensive against. Majorly, I understand what you were trying to get at, but the tact just wasn't there. Secondly, yes, some thought goes into anti-vandalism, however, let's be realistic for a moment. If one uses, say, TWINKLE, and another Huggle. Who is giving more thought to their reversions? Now, I don't want to stray much further from the initial topic, and as a candidate's RfA really isn't the place to discuss the pitfalls of scripts, but the answer should be fairly obvious. Huggle does everything for you, scaling up the appropriate reports and even reporting the vandal (and extending the report with diffs) automatically. Twinkle, on the other hand, makes you stop and think about which rollback is appropriate, and more or less forces you to give an edit summary. Anyway, my point is this, there is little in the way of effort in anti-vandalism huggle edits. I will be revisiting later though. As per my userpage, I am busy with grad school. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutral - I'm with Wisdom here. Had to look through five days of Mechanized edits (several thousand as impressive as that is) to find any kind of actual mainspace work. I'm sure it must exist but I'm not seeing an inclination towards collaboration beyond vandal fighting. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to support Adam McCormick (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm still not a fan of the vast amount of mechanistic editing (4-10 edits/min) but the work on Canterbury has me considering support. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Since two of you have brought it up, here are some articles where Epbr123 demonstrated his dedication to mainspace collaboration and his edits helped attain FA status: USS Bridgeport (AD-10) FAC [6][7], Tyrone Wheatley FAC [8] [9] [10], Parallel computing FAC [11] [12] [13]. These are just random picks from FACs from the last few months. His edits might not seem "major" but they are crucial for an FA candidate. I can find few FACs in my watchlist where he didn't help out in a collaborative environment. --Laser brain (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, besides the seven FAs he's principle author on, I actually call on Epbr123 when an article at FAC is almost there but the editors need help bringing it over the hump; he's a jack of all trades type, and he does his work quietly, with little fanfare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing against Gnomism (I'd be a hypocrite if I did). It's the mechanistic nature of the edits that bothers me. I'm having issues finding real critical thinking or creative work. Point me to that and I'd support. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I 'spose you have a point; writing seven featured articles takes no critical thought or creative ability, and is a purely mechanistic undertaking ... so, will every other editor on Wiki please write a half dozen or so? I'd like to see the stats go up; thanks :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
All sarcasm aside, that he contributed to their success I don't doubt, but "wrote" them? how much of the content did he write? How much of it was truly new content and how much the work of a dedicated application of a grammatical/syntax algorithm? Just because someone edits an FA article doesn't show any more creativity than having edited a Start article. If he alone had brought the articles all the way from bare stub to FA I might say he wrote them but short of that I'm looking at the edits and aside from Canterbury which seems to be a standout, I don't see a lot. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Adam. The FAs, GAs and FLs I have been a main contributor to are Kate Bush, Sheerness, Herne Bay, Kent, Westgate-on-Sea, Whitstable, Birchington-on-Sea, Shaw and Crompton, List of U2 awards, Sale, Greater Manchester, Kent, Vanadinite‎, Jenna Haze, Canterbury. On the majority of these, I have been by far the biggest contributor. You can see this by either looking at their history pages or using this to find the number of edits by each user on each article. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Amazing that evidence is so much more convincing than sarcasm... I can support that level of article work. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize; I was aiming for funny, not sarcastic, and obviously I missed. (And I would have left this message on your talk page, but I can't figure out the weird coding there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Uses Huggle -- Gurch (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I ♥ irony :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    You'll note I'm not an administrator... -- Gurch (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yet — iridescent 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    "any more" would be more accurate [14] -- Gurch (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ouch, Irid. bibliomaniac15 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think I've more than used up my quota of Gurch-flattering this week... — iridescent 18:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas39

Voice your opinion (talk page) (71/6/2); Scheduled to end 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) - Well folks, here we are with Tan again. As I said in my first nomination, this editor astounds me in his high level of clue, his dedication to the improvement of the encyclopedia, his civility, and the breadth and depth of his contributions in his time here. Back in February, I was randomly paired with Tan as an "admin coach", and was hesitant partly because of my own newness as as admin, and partly because I'd never run across this particular user before being paired with him. It was within days of "coaching" that I realized that I had nothing to offer Tan, he was "already there". At my own insistence, not Tan's, we went live with RfA#1 in March, and frankly ran into a wall of good faith opposition, (including strong opposition by Balloonman - see co-nom #2!) stating that Tanthalas simply needed more time under his belt. I was devastated as his coach, I still believe he was ready for adminship in March. However, Tan proved his merits by taking the whole thing in stride, going right back to editing and improving Wikipedia in his superb way, both in articles and in talk. Tan is active in the deletion arena, he's active in the military history WikiProject, and if you've been living and breathing inside Wikipedia, you've likely seen him around. In fact, I'm willing to bet some of you thought he was an admin already, because he already has the level-headedness, composure, and skill of one! I'm thrilled to have the chance at nominating Tan again for adminship now that the arbitrary "3 months" have passed whilst Tan gained more experience. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Co-Nom by Balloonman I was one of the leading voices behind Tan's first failed attempt. At the time, I didn't believe that he was ready. I still don't believe that people with only 4 months of active experience should be admins, but during my subsequent coaching Tan challenged that belief. Tan is a phenomenal editor with a solid track record. He's done everything that's been asked of him and has shown a level of responsibility that we need in admins. While he does use Twinkle, he doesn't do so blindly. Interspersed in his automated edits are quality content edits or personalized comments to users. He also has a knack for constructively dealing with criticism. I think it's time to give this guy the mop. At one point Keeper and I considered noming Tan after only two months, but Tan responded in a very mature manner indicating that the previous RfA suggested waiting three months and that there was no rush to get the buttons---not the response one would expect from a power hungry coachee. Balloonman (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Tan | 39 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since my previous RfA, I have had some changes in attitude here. While I don't think that I would have made a bad administrator before, I am certainly more circumspect now and am more aware of the subtle aspects of Wikipedia. I am also less "chatty" on here than I was before - I feel some people, while perhaps not even realizing it, use Wiki as a social networking site. Content is first and foremost for me, and I have been much less active in RfAs and drama-laden AN/I discussions than I previously was. My deletionist/inclusionist tendencies have also evolved. While I have never put myself firmly in either camp, I think I now err more on the side of caution. If I can save an article by referencing, cleaning, tagging, or establishing notability, I will. Especially satisfying is turning around an AfD with new evidence or arguments (here, here). I don't have a perfect track record, as evidenced here. I'm still learning - and hopefully always will be.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to take part in any areas in which I feel experienced and comfortable. Right now this includes article deletion, RPP, AIV, dispute mediation, and the occasional AN/ANI thread where I feel I can help out. This particular question has always been odd to me, and I think I figured out why. When I read it, I have an image of someone sitting down at their keyboard, cracking a few knuckles, and jauntily embarking on admin-related activities. I plan to continue doing the same content building-interspersed-with-Wikignoming edits that I currently do, and as I feel completely comfortable with the admin tools, slowly working them into my edits. I assiduously avoid WikiDrama, and although I haven't been 100% successful in doing so, I believe it's the only way to stay sane on this project.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution is Landing at Kip's Bay (here's the difference) and a few other articles from the Revolutionary War Task Force. I have contributed significant content to articles from the Arizona Wikiproject also - Homolovi Ruins State Park, Oracle State Park, etc. Other contributions are on disambiguation projects, vandalism reversion, copyediting, and discussions on article deletion.
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: Although I try my best to avoid drama, sometimes it smacks you in the face. This discussion was a hard one for me, as I just couldn't understand the motives behind the belligerent (make sure to expand the archive). I had clashes with this particular user at several other pages, and occasionally thought about escalating the issue to RfC or something similar. However, I decided to just turn my energies elsewhere for awhile until the storm cleared, which worked well. While "taking a user to RfC" or other mediation forum might be a theoretical answer to a problem, they are usually predictably dramatic and even occasionally backfire. In this specific case, prudence ended up being the better part of valor, and I am back editing at the Revolutionary War Task Force with no problems. This isn't to say I will back down from every obstacle - I have no qualms about putting in my two cents or sticking up for what I think is right. However, my father taught me to pick and choose my battles, and being a history buff, I'd say it's an important lesson to learn. I "won" the Battle of Harlem Heights argument - it took a month of fortitude and patience, but it paid off. In the future, I expect I will deal with problems such as this in the same manner - always maintaining civility, assuming good faith wherever humanly possible, and knowing when to walk away.

Optional question(s) from Toddst1

4. What do you feel the role of an administrator is with respect to WP:Civil and how do you determine what is uncivil and what is not? -- Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
An interesting question. While I'm sure the short answer is that the role of a Wikipedia administrator is to "uphold WP:CIVIL", the longer answer is that I don't plan to put myself in situations where I am constantly required to do so. While I am careful to be very civil myself, other editors' incivility rarely bothers me - I have a thicker skin than some, I guess. That being said, if I were involved with, or pointed out to, a situation where an editor's incivility was disrupting Wikipedia to a point where it "crossed the line" (see below), I would act to warn the disrupter, and keep a watchful eye on the situation.
The second part of your question regarding what constitutes incivility is more nebulous. It's pretty cut-and-dry in WP:CIVIL regarding what is civil and what is not. However, one has to look at the motivation behind any alleged incivility - or accusation thereof. There are plenty of editors who come to AN/I with long, lively accusations of incivility, when the motivation behind it is merely that they do not like the POV/content-building/attitude/userpage of the accused. Every case has to be looked at and judged in its own context, and actions taken appropriately. I'm sorry this answer seems vague, but if you wish for more insight into this, perhaps giving a more specific scenario would be in order. Thank you for your question. Tan | 39 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
5. (folllowup from 4.) I've come across your edits on a number of occasions where you have tended to dismiss editors' acts where others have felt they were uncivil. As such, there's nothing wrong with this, and it attests to your statement above where you state you have thicker thin than some. However, as an administrator, you will have to understand that others may be deeply offended by actions that, were you in their shoes, you might have dismissed. Can you give an example of where you were involved in (or commenting on) a situation where the question of civility was raised and you took action identifying behavior and/or its consequences as uncivil rather than dismissing? -- Toddst1 (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
What you are saying, if I am correct, is that as an administrator I cannot assume that other editors will have the "thicker skin" that I possess, and that I will have to deal with some "deeply offended" editors - offended that I do not take action, I presume. Well, as a non-administrator, I shied away from responding to ANI complaints - particularly claims of incivility, especially since a lot of the time I feel the "offended" editor would be much better served by learning to deal with borderline cases of incivility. Saying I "dismiss" these events paints a picture of me brushing off the pleadings of another, when that's really not the case - I've been dismissive of people being uncivil to me. It's one thing to warn an editor about vandalism, WP:V violations, etc - and another thing to bring incivility to ANI, which rarely goes well. Or rarely goes anywhere, for that matter. Sensitivity to incivility is not a good quality to have.
However, you are correct that I will have a responsibility as administrator to uphold the WP:CIVIL policy. While I don't edit in arenas where there is much tension and strife, I'm sure I will encounter it occasionally. I am unable to give an example of the situation you requested, but I can comment that if I were to decide that an editor was indeed being uncivil and the situation warranted intervention, I would give the warnings as I would any other violation - commencing with a friendly reminder, and escalating as appropriate. Tan | 39 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from InDeBiz1

6. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

Optional Questions from Nsk92:

7. Say you see an article where the deletion prod has expired but you personally disagree with the reason for deletion given by the user who added the prod. What do you do?
A:
8. Supposed there is an ongoing AfD for an article and during this AfD one of the participants tagged the article for speedy A7. Suppose also that during the AfD itself, but not in the article's text, someone presented verifiable evidence that the subject of the article may be notable or significant. Would it be appropriate to close the AfD as speedy A7?
A:
9. Have you ever formally invoked WP:IAR and if yes, could you point to a few examples of this?
A:
10. Suppose there is an ongoing AfD where the nominator gave a very poor and even frivolous reason as a deletion rationale, but where some other AfD participants put forward valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Would you do a speedy close of the AfD as having been improperly filed?
A:
11. What would you do if the article is nominated for an AfD but the nominator proposes a merge rather than deletion?
A:
12. Are there any situations you can think of where it would be appropriate to delete an entire BLP article about some person even if the person is notable?
A:

Optional question from GO-PCHS-NJROTC

13 Suppose a user with a fairly decent reputation here wrote legal threats and/or loud insults on your user talk page. What would you do? Would your response be any different if it was a well known sockpuppeteer?
A

Optional Questions from User:Geo Swan:

14. I respect people who can remember we are all, occasionally, fallible. I respect people who can openly acknowledge having made an error. It is not always easy when another party has been nasty. Even in those cases however, I believe it is important to acknowledge our errors. I try my best to own up when I realize I have made a mistake. And I feel entitled to expect administrators to do their best to do the same. Unfortunately, some administrators simply blow off those with questions about their decisions. If you are chosen to be trusted with administrator authority can you commit yourself remember you are fallible; consider challenges in light of the possibility each challenge might be the instance when you made a mistake; and commit yourself to openly acknowledging when you recognize you made an error? Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Will you list yourself in the category for administrators open to recall? Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39 Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39 2
  • Links for Tanthalas39: Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)
  • Does anyone know why the nominee still has not answered questions 6-13 above? Sure, they are optional, but it is still good form and customary to answer RFA questions. The questions have been up for at least two days now... Nsk92 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tanthalas39 before commenting.

Discussion

For what it’s worth, I happen to agree with the general sentiment of Tan’s statements in some of the diffs in the oppose section. The world, and particularly The United States, is full of people who seem to take some pleasure from being offended. What would have been brushed-off 30 years ago is now grounds for a civil rights lawsuit and proscriptive legislation. As a member of the “lighten up!” crowd, I feel that way too much is being made of the candidate’s comments. 2¢ —Travistalk 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom support Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Aye. Won't abuse the tools, reservations from last AfD RfA were only really over experience. Black Kite 18:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Last AfD or RfA? Pedro :  Chat  19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    We can safely say RfA. :) Enigma message 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oops. Admins for deletion? Eek. Black Kite 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm with you there. Enigma message 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Seems sensible and knowledgeable enough. I've been impressed by his contributions to recent RFAs. Epbr123 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support Did so the first time, and nothing has changed!--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support I trust this candidate not to abuse the tools. The delay since the first RfA (see nom statements) is also an encouraging sign of maturity and patience. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Per more experience MBisanz talk 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Candidate is trustworthy, honest, reliable, competent, principled, and above all, approachable. An excellent administrator candidate then. Rudget (Help?) 19:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    That sounds vaguely familiar; if he's "a friend to animals" too, I'm in. Shocked to discover that after all this time (and it has been a very LOOOOOONG time) I still remembered the American version by heart. --barneca (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I can almost swear that it was Tanthalas39 I just saw petting a dog outside the hardware store a few minutes ago.--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 21:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Strong support - I have been waiting for this. And seeing as I would have nominated him if given the chance I know he will do a great job as a admin, now give 'em the mop. Tiptoety talk 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Absolutely. The candidate has worked hard on the experience issues form his last RfA, and every comment and edit he makes is thoughtful and unrushed. No hesitation is supporting round 2. A pleasure to support. Good Luck. Pedro :  Chat  19:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support wholeheartedly. I've had nothing but good experiences with this editor, he appears to be a real asset to the project that could benefit from the tools. ~ mazca talk 19:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support I don't usually (or ever) support this early on, but in this case, I know the candidate through seeing his interactions with Keeper and he impresses me with his civility and intelligence. Judgement looks good all around, I've done a deep review of his contribs and haven't found anything alarming. I can comfortably support. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support I've had interactions with Tan in various locations but the one that strikes me most is this one. While I wasn't new to Wikipedia I was new to that type of article and his willingness to help is typical of his contributions to Wikipedia. Good quality to have in an admin. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support - From personal encounters with the candidate. Tan has proven himself to me countless times via his contributions and comments. Will make a fine administrator. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. Seen this user around. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. Lately there has been a string of highly qualified candidates at RFA and this one is no different. Looking over the contributions and communication I see no cause for concern, and there were no real issues at the last RFA other then a lack of policy experience which seems to have been addressed. MrPrada (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support (ec) Would be an asset as an administrator. Please give him the tools. Enigma message 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. naerii - talk 20:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support. Seems like a sensible editor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support per this.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  20. I’ll go through and look through a sampling of his recent contributions before this closes, but in my limited experience with this user, I’ve been quite impressed with his demeanor and clue level, and am quite sure I’ll confirm this initial support. --barneca (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yep, just as I suspected. --barneca (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support Like last time. GlassCobra 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support No evidence to suggest that he would abuse the tools. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  23. I should be opposing; this user clearly has absolutely no clue where to address MOS concerns. :) But seriously, I've had positive interactions with this user; he's very hard working; a prolific vandal-fighter; and a sensible editor who will not abuse the tools. It is an unequivocal support. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  24. Good luck Tan. You were one of the good ones. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  25. Strong support. dorftrottel (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support per nom. Vishnava talk 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  27. Two Thumbs Up Well, everyone else is saying Support and I want to be different. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Just because I'm in a nit-picking kind of mood, not everyone said Support! :) Enigma message 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  28. Yep I've had a look at his contribs, and I must say I'm impressed. The answers to the questions don't concern me. I think he could certainly benefit from having the mop. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support. Nothing to indicate that the user would be less valuable or a problem with the tools. Celarnor Talk to me 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support without question —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  32. Weak Support. After sifting through his contribs, I must support. My reason for the weak support is that 307 of his last 500 contribs were automated (either Twinkle, Popups, or Friendly) and I'm not a big fan of automated edits, although I am warming up to the idea. Useight (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 04:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support - can't think of any reason not to and I trust both nominators' judgment. xenocidic (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support - roughly ten percent of the things I say are Chuck Klosterman references, and Tan is the only editor who's ever noticed. But seriously, very good answers to questions, good philosophies & attitude, and a good track record. --JayHenry (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support - anyone who uses my userpage design (well Phaedriel's actually) can't be all bad, but seriously, a net positive as long as you're careful with PRODs and AfD debates..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  37. Weak support per User talk:Tanthalas39/AC#Assignment 3 in which the candidate acknowledges one of the problematic AfDs I linked to below as one that he "could have handled...better". I still disagree with him in some AfDs, but he appears to be responding to feedback proactively and I greatly appreciate his response to the oppose section below, i.e. he responded both civily and respectfully and is being open-minded. So, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support. Deserving and ready. I see no red flags besides a few admitted mistakes here and there. No one is perfect all the time. — MaggotSyn 07:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support -- Thought this user already was one. I think I had a good experience with this user a while back. I will add the diffs if I find it. If not, I was just generally impressed by the user! Good luck! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support I have seen Tan do some good work with the more....awkward....members of our project and use the patience of a saint. This gives me faith in how he would use the tools, when needed and not before. Narson (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support - He's ready for it this time. Has lingered in all the right areas as well as doing some constructive article work. Lradrama 11:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  42. Yes! →Christian.И 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  43. ¡Sí! - Candidate is ready for the mop. —Travistalk 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support. I'm not changing my vote from last time, I still feel the same. It's time. Jmanigold (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support - trustworthy editor. Also, the answers to Q4 & 5 seem fine - under normal circumstances general incivility isn't blockable, while more severe personal attacks can result in a block. PhilKnight (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support This candidate is reasonably proficient in the running man dance. Keepscases (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support, looks good as far as I can see. Arkyan 16:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support, per Balloonman's link. I have a lot of respect for Tan, and he deserves the mop. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  49. Strongest Possible Support in the Universe Support Now it happens?!(the Rfa):)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 23:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support - no problems here, and anyone who uses the word "circumspect" properly is worthy of respect. --Rodhullandemu 01:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  51. Valtoras (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  52. PRO - Agathoclea (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support just like last time. And he's even better now. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support - I think Tan has shown growth and development since the last RfA. And I think that Tan's responses to the "civility" questions and my observation of Tan's responses in other fora show an understanding of the complexity of the concept. The candidate, I think, has shown good collaborative and communication skills which will serve us well. Risker (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support. This is my attempt to balance those who have opposed over the candidate's answers to questions 4 and 5, and their notion that incivility even can be simply identified. Per Geogre's Neutral, and per common sense, and to support a candidate who has given the question of civility and WP:CIVIL actual thought, as opposed to automatically disgorging the desired, and impossibly simplified, answer. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC).
  56. Support; everything looks good here. Including the answers to questions 4 and 5. Antandrus (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support Don't think the editor will abuse the tools and his clarification of his stance on civility.— Ѕandahl 21:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support Like last time. Also, I've seen the user since the last RFA and they've improved and always seemed good. SpencerT♦C 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support agree with support comment by Risker above. —Apis (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support. Intelligent and reasoned answers, worthwhile edit history, and I like the comments about civility; I look forward to working with this individual. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support done some checking over the last few days, and liked what I saw. Will be a good admin. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support No concerns. I spent some time looking at the civility issues raised and see more of a debate on the meaning of civility rather than uncivil behavior. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  63. Rettetast (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support, although I would like to see an answer to my question above, if at all possible. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support Including the debate on WP:CIVIL, I see no reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  66. Why not? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Support. I also support Tanthalas39's comments in the diffs linked in the first oppose. — Athaenara ✉ 04:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks, Athaenara - again ;-) (support #33) Tan | 39 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Whoops, I forgot I'd already supported! *doh* — Athaenara ✉ 06:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support. Seems to be capable of having admin tools. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support. I encountered this editor just a while ago [here]. I found him extremely conscientious and more importantly open to my point of view. He meets my requirement of 6 months or more tenure, and proved in my discussion with him and in the questions above that he meets my second requirement of a working and obvious knowledge of policy and guidelines. I'll keep an eye on this page to see the answers to his remaining questions, but at this point he definitely gets the Ferdia seal of approval. Good luck good sir. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  69. Tan39 will not abuse the tools and will not make rash decisions in areas that he is unfamiliar with. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  70. Support I trust Tan and think he'd make an excellent admin. Eahiv (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  71. Support per nom. Looking great! Tiggerjay (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support : The oppose reasons doesnt pull me into the other side. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Oppose: I very seldom oppose an RfA, but in this case, I must per answer to question 5. I cannot support a candidate that cannot identify uncivil behavior on Wikipedia. I've asked for examples of behavior that differ from what I have observed and the candidate states he/she is unable to provide any. I must conclude that my personal observations of this editor are consistent with behavior. Uncivil behavior is not hard to find on wikipedia and frankly, I think it should not be ignored. To be fair to the candidate, I am posting diffs of my observed dismissals, so it isn't just heresay:1 2 3 4 5 Toddst1 (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think I owe it to Tan to present this sleuthing and decent job of enforcing WP:Civil on his part here: 6. Toddst1 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, per questions 4 and 5. I'm not comfortable at all with the idea of admins that think that civility is no big deal and that editors should learn to 'deal with it' if they are the victim of it. Please don't take this oppose as a criticism of your record of contributions, or of your own civility, which as far as I can see are excellent. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC).
  3. Oppose pretty much for the same reason as Lankiveil, and Toddst's diffs. Adminship is no big deal, but civility is.--Koji†Dude (C) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: You are my first oppose, and it is based on the reasons Toddst1 listed. I looked at the diffs he posted and I cannot support a candidate who doesn't take civilty seriously. Nor can I support an editor who thinks one policy is more important than another. Policy is policy and wether you become an admin or not thats something your going to need to learn fast.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™ |l»  05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, I agree with the other opposers concerning the candidate's answers to questions 4 and 5. I regard WP:CIVIL as one of our most important policies; every admin should be ready and able to identify uncivilness and enforce the policy. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 14:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose per question 5, Toddst's diffs and Lankiveil. Civility is a real big deal.— Ѕandahl 20:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC) changing to support per candidate clarification of stance on civilty.
    I'm pretty sure Tanthalas agrees. I wouldn't nominate him otherwise. I'm abit baffled by this, as I've found Tan to be one of the most civil users here. Toddst1's diffs merely show an editor saying "can't we get along and not take offense to everything?" (very rough paraphrasing admittedly.). I won't harp on this, you are of course entitled to your opinion. Thanks for your participation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I am sure he is quite civil and didn't mean to imply otherwise. This diff in particular from ANI [15] tells me that he may be too quick to dismiss incivility and an administrator needs to be able to identify it and deal with it quite often. — Ѕandahl 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, it seems I should address this, as people seem to be jumping to conclusions regarding either my civility or my willingness to enforce it. As people have said, and a thorough examination of my contributions should show, I maintain civility at all times. If you look at Toddst1's diffs, these are not me being uncivil - these are me saying that other accusations of incivility are unfounded. Editors come into AN/I screaming "personal attack!" and citing WP:CIVIL, when in reality they are forum-shopping to try to get their way. Research of the actual situations of the diffs Toddst1 provided should show this clearly. I think my answers to 4 and 5 were also misread or misinterpreted (and possibly poorly written on my part). I do not condone incivility. Acceptable behavior is spelled out in WP:CIVIL - I didn't think Toddst1 needed me to rehash what constitutes uncivil behavior. As an administrator, when I encounter clear-cut incivility, I will act to warn the perpetrator and ensure it stops. I mentioned this in Q5, but I think that my expounding on cases of false incivility accusations sort of drowned out what these opposers wanted to see - that I would use these tools to enforce WP:CIVIL. And I will. Tan | 39 20:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Good luck finding those "clearcut" cases of incivility.  :-) Undefinable, by definition. (I'll also note that I'm very glad this discussion has remained "civil" :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    But how do you answer the real question, whether or not you trust Tanthalas39 with the tools? If he's not going to abuse the tools, by intent or accident, then I see no reason to oppose. I don't see any of the diffs above as indication that he might abuse the tools. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Let's not blow this out of proportion, guys. Like I said in the collapsed discussion below, these folks have the right to oppose. I said my piece, they can make their mind up as they will. Tan | 39 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose - I hate to do a per vote, but per Toddst1.  Asenine  07:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Neutral
neutral for the moment as I have to go out. Not thrilled about this - given there's alot of hits on google. I'll keep looking later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Not really switched as neutral is a non-vote.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, really? An editor with the same name as the article creates it. No less than four editors in good standing "endorse" the prod with "Prod2" templates. A disruptive user removes the prod (see ANI). And your faulting Tanthalas for this? You've done nothing here but bolster my support. I encourage you Casliber, as your an excellent editor and very thorough in your work and dedication to Wikipedia, to reconsider your neutral. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Google hits for a song does not make for a good test for notability, unless you're actually looking at the links themselves. The number itself is almost meaningless. The song has to chart, win an award, or be covered by reliable sources. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Keeper, did you deliberately link COI? Old Jabo is the name of a song, not the name of a person. Surely you're not suggesting that a personification of the song wrote the article? Or that a user name that is a reference to a song indicates that said user is the singer! Should we block User:Yllosubmarine from editing about the Beatles on the assumption that she's very likely Paul McCartney? --JayHenry (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the choice of name the user adopted was possibly not a prudent one. I have never encountered the other editors who indicated the PROD was a good idea, apart from Black Kite and I have a fair idea on the divergence between his and my ideas on deletion/notability etc. and took that into account. I am not saying the article is automatically notable, just that there is enough evidence to cast doubt that PRODding was hasty. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, yeah. Sorry JayHenry, I did link COI there. Probably a bit presumptuous, and inaccurate I agree. I see your point completely, I think I was thinking "single purpose", not COI. Stepping away from it, my apologies, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, is all continuing in nice, open, mature discourse so all good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Neutral: I cannot support, since I don't know the candidate, and I don't like very fast nominations, no matter how clued in a person may be. However, are you folks really opposing because someone recognizes what all of us old timers know to be true, that "Civil" is impossible for any single person to define, that it cannot be and should not be enforced unilaterally, that we cannot weigh the contents of an edit for their intentions? I've just written a very long winded essay on civility. It's not quite ready for prime time, but it should be enough to illustrate why, if it's hard to know exactly what to do with civility, it's blindingly obvious that what a person does not do is go around looking for bad words. Geogre (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    To answer your question directly, Tan has come down consistently on the side of "that is not a violation of WP:Civil" when he has commented on civility with zero exceptions. I'm concerned more that Tan is dismissing the diffs as "forum-shopping to try to get their way" rather than commenting on his judgement. That shows a lack of responsibility. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I do recommend my essay, then. In fact, isolating comments and trying to weigh them is a bad idea. Civility is an abstraction, and only a wide community can determine it or create it. I generally reject people coming with examples, too, because, while I don't support the teenaged, wedgie-giving, crudity of SomethingAwful or the like, I also recognize that impolite speech is sometimes necessary and sometimes actually salutary. Geogre (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Definitely inclined towards support, but I would like to see the remaining optional questions answered before committing. (And yes, I am aware that the questions are optional, before anyone jumps on me.) Horologium (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

About RfB

Shortcut:
WP:RFB

Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of any user and can set bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, generally requiring a clearer consensus. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfBs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{Rfb-notice}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Useight

Voice your opinion (talk page) (18/12/2); Scheduled to end 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Useight (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce myself. You probably know me from Wikipedia:Highly Active Users or have seen me around WP:RFA. I have been a Wikipedian since 2006 and an admin since late last year. Now, of course I am aware that being an admin for a year is often preferred before becoming a bureaucrat, a time span I have yet to reach (logging six months of service), but this comment by WJBscribe, stating that he was going to be unable to perform any bureaucrat functions for a month, along with the surrounding discussion, inspired me to employ my services to help offset the shortage of active bureaucrats.

Aside from that, I am an active regular at RFA, monitor the inappropriate username reports, and clerk at WP:CHU. In order to serve Wikipedia in another capacity, I present myself for scrutiny. Useight (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. As a regular at Wikipedia Talk:Requests for adminship, I read all discussions there and participate in most. The key decisive factor for promotion is consensus. This consensus is often, but not always, shown by the community demonstrating at least 70-75% in favor of the candidate becoming an administrator. However, RFA is more of an art than a science, hence this 70-75% range is usually considered the discretionary range. Since RFA is not a vote, but a pursuit for consensus, the words behind the numbers carry more weight than the numbers themselves. Similarly, an RFB also has a gray area for consensus, but this is closer to the 85%-90% range.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. In these cases, there are several options. A common one is to begin a discussion with other bureaucrats. Not a discussion as to the candidate's merits, but a discussion to gauge whether there exists a consensus to promote. Due to the sysopping of an editor being one of the few extremely difficult actions to reverse, there is no need to jump the gun on this process. Another option is extending the RFA in order to get more community input, but this option is rarely used.
If, in the hypothetical world posed by some optional questions, a 'crat chat is not an option, I tend to be conservative in nature and would take my time, cautiously weighing the discussion to ascertain whether a consensus to promote exists. I would rather err on the side of caution.
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy, and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I think that I have indeed demonstrated these traits. I have exhibited fairness and knowledge of policy throughout my interaction and communication with others, both resolving disputes and answering questions. My collaborative work at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users and, to a much lesser degree, WikiProject Bowling, both of which I started, are good examples of my ability to engage others. I've also always been quick to respond to messages left on my talk page, as I believe quick, civil, communication to be a key trait in an administrator, let alone a bureaucrat.
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. Definitely. I visit RFA and CHU many times daily. Obviously, there's not often a backlog of RFAs that need closing, but I've seen CHU get behind frequently and I'd like to help cut down on that wait time. As for flagging bot accounts, I must admit that bots are not my forte, but I'd be glad to help out any way I could if my assistance was needed.

Optional question from myself

5. Why are you starting this RFB right now?
A. Yes, I know it's a little strange to ask yourself an optional question, but I wanted to say something about this and here seemed to be the best place. As I mentioned above, a comment by WJBscribe here was my real motivation along with two discussions around that same time on WT:RFA, one regarding the shortage of active bureaucrats, and the other debunking the belief that all RFB candidates needed twelve months of experience as an admin. However, as you probably noticed, that comment was made on May 17th and now it is June 6th. There was no rush. I initially thought that Pedro was going to RFB, so I'd just wait. But then EVula submitted an RFB. Once that one ended, I created my RFB page with the intention of transcluding on Friday when I knew I had hours on end to be available to answer questions. Then, 28 hours after I created this page, Anthony's was created (I knew because I had it watchlisted for a while). This put me in a between a rock and a hard place, because I really didn't want to look like I was trying to daisy-chain or bandwagon jump. The timing just turned out the way it did.
Optional questions from Malinaccier (talk)
6. As shown in your "Associates" area on your userpage, you are a fairly active admin coach. As you are probably aware, (through multiple discussions on WT:RFA) there is a certain controversy over whether coaching should be allowed for reasons such as that it is a way to game the system and polish up a user's resume. What is your stance on this, and how will this affect your RFA closures as a bureaucrat?
A. An excellent question that brings up a sometimes controversial issue: coaching. My stance on whether coaching is "gaming the system" or not, is that it's not. I find it to be an effective way of learning what is required of an admin, how admins should act, what policies are what, etc, by interacting and learning directly from someone else. I can see where the opposite camp is coming from, though, in that the candidate may be trying to "fast track" to adminship. My personal stance on this issue won't come into play when closing RFAs because, as a bureaucrat, I won't be assessing the candidate nor the value of his/her coaching. I will instead be closing the RFA from a neutral perspective, focusing on the outcome of the community's consensus.
6a. How would you close the RFA if it was in the discretionary zone and most opposes were because of the user's participation in admin coaching?
A.I'd want to see the actual RFA for more details, but given only what I have, (and I hope I don't get demolished by the other of the two schools of thought regarding coaching), I would likely close the RFA as successful. Obviously there are going to be slightly differing opinions regarding what types of opposes carry more weight, but I don't feel that an oppose such as, "Oppose. Editor was admin coached." is on the same tier as "Oppose. Gross incivility." because opposing soley due to the candidate having been coached doesn't seem to be in regard to the candidate's merits as other possiple reasons for opposing, hence I wouldn't give it quite as much weight. However, if the community consensus shifts enough against coaching, I, as a bureaucrat would exact that consensus and would even cease admin coaching others. But now I've gone on longer than I wanted.
Optional question from EJF (talk · contribs)
7. How would you have closed this assuming that you had closed it at the time of withdrawal?
A. As this RFA was progressing, I knew it would join the likes of ^demon's and Danny's. Considering that I had opposed that particular RFA, I would not be the one to close it. However, let's assume for the sake of the question that I had not participated. At the time of the withdrawal, the tally was at 299-85-17, or just under 78%. While according to the numbers, this is higher than the typical discretionary range. However, the words behind the numbers mean much more than the numbers themselves. As I followed the RFA, near the time it was withdrawn, several editors were withdrawing their support and opposes were being added fairly quickly. Additionally, a fair number of the supporters comments were not exceedingly weighty, such as "One of my favorite contributors", "Duh", or said nothing besides "Support". Due to these factors, and again assuming I hadn't participated in this particular RFA, I would have closed it as "No consensus."

Question from Acalamari

8. What is the difference between an RfA closed as "no-consensus" versus an RfA closed as "failed"? Acalamari 01:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A. Sorry to have taken so long to answer, I was enjoying a rare round of golf (15 over after only nine holes, I'm a pretty bad golfer). A nice, simple question. "Failed" is for RFAs that garnered more opposes than supports (i.e., sub-50% in support of the candidate) while "No consensus" describes RFAs that finished with more supports than opposes (or an equal number, I believe), but did not reach a sufficient consensus to be considered "Successful" by the closing bureaucrat.

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

  • Overall a good candidate, but I have some concerns. Useight has been an administrator for about half a year; I think he'd make a more effective crats with a bit more experience. Secondly, Useight has quite stringent, number-bases RfA criteria. I worry that he will use such criteria to inadvertently close RfAs according to his beliefs and not the community's (ie I'm afraid he'll see an argument such as having only 100 edits to Wikipedia: namespace (in opposition) to be always stronger to having written 10 FAs (in support). I don't think Useight will make a poor bureaucrat in regards to clearing CHU, but I don't trust him yet to close close (verb, adjective ;-) ) RfAs. Maxim(talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that every editor is going to have a slight personal bias. Everyone will give reasons such as "Per nom", "Incivil", "Per WP:WTHN", "Not enough article writting", "Not enough experience", "Too deletionist", "Hard-working", etc., different weight. There's really no getting around that. Fortunately, few RFAs end between 70-75% (or close that that), making things a bit easier on the 'crats. Also, that's my criteria for supporting an RFA, not for closing one. Do I plan to jump on the first discretionary RFA I see? No way. Just like I said in my successful RFA, I'm conservative and will take things slowly. Useight (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, every user will have different biases and different reasons for supporting or opposing. It's part of life. The job of the 'crat isn't just to count them up, add them up, and divide them by comment length to find which side has the stronger argument—the job of the 'crat is to be truly familiar with the RfA process, to truly understand that a #~~~~ support from some users means a million times more than three paragraphs of waffle from others. I agree with Maxim—I don't believe you are acquainted enough with the real RfA process (the one you find outside WT:RFA and admin coaching) to be able to make these distinctions. giggy (:O) 10:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • About Q7. Can you add a bit more about, basically, your thought process when closing DHMO/Giggy's RfA? You made a very short explanation, simply discouting supports from friends of his. Can you elaborate, please? Maxim(talk) 14:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, sure. I knew I couldn't please everyone when I answered that particular question about a very recent, highly dramatic RFA. I also stated that I knew I was biased in that particular RFA, since I wrote a lengthy oppose in it, and would not close that RFA. However, I will go into more detail on my thought process. As I watched it make a run toward WP:300, it was kind of concerning that perhaps some were "drive-by" voters who had heard about this particular RFA elsewhere and had only come along to pile-on. As you stated above, the job of the 'crat is "to truly understand that a #~~~~ support from some users means a million times more than three paragraphs of waffle from others." I looked at the RFA commenting history of some of the participants and many hadn't participated in RFA in a long time. A fair number of the people just adding their names weren't the typical hard-hitting "support from some people", but some were. This was happening on both the support and oppose side, so it was kind of a balance. The primary factor in my hypothetical closing of "No consensus", again, which I would not have done since I opposed, was that near the end there was what appeared to be a dramatic swing as people were withdrawing their support and more and more opposers arrived. Perhaps the best thing to have done in DHMO/Giggy's RFA (if it had ended normally instead of via withdrawal and at the time of withdrawal), would have been to extend it a bit, but Q7 specifically mentions that I close it at the time of withdrawal. This is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer because the RFA was so dramatic and is still very fresh on people's minds. Also, in the end, no bureaucrat actually had to make the decision and it would've been a difficult one for any of them. I don't think I can give an answer that satisfies everyone; in a seemingly conflict of interest, five of my eight opposes here supported DHMO's RFA (and two others initially supported before striking it). I hope that's not the only reason, as I'm assuming good faith, but would I have more support if I said I'd have closed that contentious RFA as successful? I don't know. I do know that I would've avoided the conflict of interest and not closed the RFA, since I had opposed it. Useight (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I like the thought process. Q7 is quite impossible — an RfA with comments such as east718's were should not be closed. Things as dramatic as that should calm down before a 'crat makes his judgment. --Maxim(talk) 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you should assume good faith, as you mention, if you look I have not included the answer to question seven in my oppose statement, I find this assumption of 'conflict of interest' I may have had disappointing. Rudget (Help?) 11:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • My unfortunately lengthy reply to this comment can be found with my statement here in which I attempted to improve my word choice and give more enlightenment as to the thoughts I was trying to convey. Useight (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstaining from formally casting a vote, as I am also a current candidate for bureaucratship, but I think Useight would be a good bureaucrat, and I offer my informal support. Good luck, Anthøny 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support
  1. First to support! He looks like a good candidate to me. Would make a good bureaucrat. :) - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support I've seen Useight do many administrative actions around Wikipedia. Regarding his answers,his contributions, and his activity here at Wikipedia, I think he can be a very good bureaucrat.--RyRy5 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support - I see nothing in this user's history that would make me think he wouldn't be able to handle crat duties. He has a solid knowledge of UAA, WP:U and RfA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. Time does not really bother me in Useight's case; I've always seen him as an intelligent, polite, and smart editor who is looking out for the good of the project. I liked his answers to my questions, and I appreciated the honesty in the fact that he stated he would close the RFA mentioned successfully. Despite the fact that this will probably not pass, I will support this in hopes that others will realize that 1 year is not a requirement, but instead is what a few editors believe a candidate should have. Good luck, Useight. Malinaccier (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    The answer to number 7 was also good. Malinaccier (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support I've looked through Useight contribs, logs, talk page and such, and I see nothing that concerns me. He has a good balance of the various namespace edits and is a well-rounded editor. The only thing that confused me; why are most or all of your recent edits marked as minor? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
    To answer your question regarding minor edits, I've used Help:Minor edit, where it says, "A major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors." A lot of my edits have involved fixing grammar, spelling, or punctuation; issuing warnings; asking and answering questions; most of which I would consider "minor." Perhaps I have been too stringent, I'm always open to suggestions and I can easily change the way I use the "minor edit" checkbox. Useight (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, ok. It just seems to me that, for example, adding a comment isn't really a minor edit, but that's just my opinion. Not a big deal, no worries. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Hell, we really need to clear the CHU backlog so another crat even if purely for that would be great. (note: I'd say yes anyway) Sexy Sea Bassist 00:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support Dlohcierekim 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Whether or not I agree with another user is not a good metric for evaluating their ability to determine consensus. Determining consensus sometimes means setting aside one's own opinion, and I believe Useight can do this. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 12:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support. A highly active user who will help to clear the CHU backlog which I'm sure will only grow as more people jump on the SUL bandwagon. xenocidic (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support An excellent admin and I'm sure he'll be an excellent crat.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support Reliable and consistent in my observations, and answers to questions (including Q7) well considered and well thought out. Orderinchaos 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support - I supported this fellow on his RFA, as he is a very helpful guy I expect him to make a termendous Bureaucrat. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support per comments below and answer to Q7. I would have issues with any 'crat that would have closed DHMO 3 as successful. EJF (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Moving to Support. I still have concerns about his attitude to RFA, as per my comments in neutral, but I do trust him with everything else. He seems like someone with enough common sense not to get involved with a controversial RFA until he's sure he knows the best way to close it. — iridescent 18:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Even though I have not directly interact with you, I trust your judgement when becoming a b-crat. Best of luck. --PrestonH (t ♦ c) 01:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. I've been thinking hard on this one, but in the end, I've decided to support this request. First off, I'm not bothered by the fact that Useight hasn't been an admin for a year (after all, I went for RfB at nearly 8 months as an admin), as I don't think time as an admin is relevant to how qualified someone is for bureaucratship (see WJBscribe and The Rambling Man). My main concern, to be honest, is User:Useight/RFA Standards: my concern there only comes from the fact that some (note some, not all) of Useight's standards seem to be based on numbers (which can't always be relied on), such as Wikipedia-space edits or time spent here rather than a candidate's skill and experience; and I am somewhat concerned with how he would close RfAs with those sort of standards. However, Useight is not foolish, and I don't think that he would close RfAs in a biased manner, and that instead, he would separate his standards from his bureaucratship and close RfAs neutrally (like any good bureaucrat would do), and that he does do work at CHU (I've seen his name appear in my watchlist there a few times now). I would like to say that his work as an admin has been great, and I'm glad I supported him in his RfAs. Regarding my question, too many people refer to any unsuccessful RfA as a "failed" RfA, and I'm glad that Useight understands the difference between "no consensus" and "failed". Ultimately, Useight's been a good admin, his conduct is good, and his answers here are good too. I can support his RfB. Good luck. Acalamari 02:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - trustworthy admin. If this attempt doesn't work out, then I'm sure you'll pass next time around, especially if you take on board some of the constructive criticism. PhilKnight (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support - I first met this user when I asked for help. He got back to me right away (really helped too) and I have ran into him incresingly. He's very helpful and resourceful. He'd make a good bearcat. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 03:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Oppose. I'm very very sorry to do this. I'm only opposing you because I feel that you have the same level of experience as I do on Wikipedia, and I would oppose myself at the moment. You are an excellent editor, a conscientious admin, and overall, a superb contributor. But it's too soon (regardless of WJBscribe's diff). Sorry Useight, don't take it too personally, and try again in the future if 'cratship is what you are sincerely desiring. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Also per the time issue, sorry. - Dureo (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    And this is why I dislike some wiki rules. Does the candle that burns twice as brigh have to wait a whole year before it is allowed to burn out? (not that I am implying he will burn out. Bad analogy) Sexy Sea Bassist 00:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    How exactly does time play a factor here considering Useight's longevity? It's just an arbitrary ad hoc criteria. Look at the answers to the questions and the contributions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Nothing to do with time. Opposing because 1) our admin coaching philosophies clash strongly (note to self; update that esssay)—User:Red Thunder/Admin coaching is the best example of this. 2) answer to 6a; a 'crat heavily involved in admin coaching should never make a judgement call so related to the process. 3) Minor niggling; comments "such as "One of my favorite contributors", "Duh", or said nothing besides "Support"." are generally valid arguments in support; it's the AGF position and justification isn't inherently required.
    Sorry, just not ready yet. giggy (:O) 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I also disagree with numerous aspects of his User:Useight/RFA Standards. giggy (:O) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Iridescent's comments in neutral summarise my views, even though we have reached a different conclusion. Dean B (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Base on answer to Q7. Give (in my view) undue weight to the "not exceedingly weighty" opposes while at the same time against similar supports. The question in an RFA is whether an editor can be trusted with the extra buttons. A support without all the extra explanations should be assumed to agree with the nominator and that the user doesn't find any reason not to trust. If there's concern that new information towards the end of a RFA is negatively affecting the outcome, especially for one that is "higher than the typical discretionary range", then perhaps the answer should be to wait a little bit longer. KTC (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I wasn't going to say anything to any of the opposers, but I had to say something here. Please note that Q7 said "assuming that you had closed it at the time of withdrawal". According to the question, extending the RFA was not an option. Useight (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I would interpret the question (yes I know it's not me that's standing here) to mean the scheduled ending time is past and you're coming to the RFA at that point. Either way, the second part of my opinion doesn't affect the first part of what I stated, and I am still personally uncomfortable with the answer. KTC (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Reluctantly. I appreciate your work here, but I feel this may be a little too early for you and I don't see much participation at the BN, CHU, CHU/U or CHU/SUL pages. Rudget (Help?) 11:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    It may seem a little crude, but when I first seen that Useight was at requests for bureaucratship, there was a little alarm set off in the back of my mind saying "Isn't this a little early, especially considering the low amount of participation in bureaucrat related areas?" and I have opposed, if you see above. Then I saw there was the application of question seven which seems to have brought about some 'debate' here, for want of a better word. I would like to note that I probably would not have promoted the respective candidate also, so therefore I was in the same boat as Useight, so to speak. Personally, I don't think a so called 'crat-chat' would have been needed, not least if the RfA had fulfilled it seven day criterion for any chance of being successful; with a large (and ever increasing) number of supporters switching sides after a new situation was brought to light by east, I highly doubt that if the RfA were to 'go the whole hog' then the numbers and seriousness of opposes would made it near-certain it wouldn't have been a successful attempt. However, as asked in the question on AGKs RfB (if it was to be withdrawn at this point, before 718's point was raised), then I, inversely, think that the RfA may have had a slight chance of passing. Clearly there was arguments coming from both sides; both for and against why the candidate should/shouldn't be promoted. With most users in the support rarely writing a full explanation of why they think the user should be made admin, then we can draw some conclusion that they have evaluated past experiences with the nomineee, endorse others comments or just the nomination(s). On the other hand, the oppose section did bring up some very relevant points which were to be considered, were the RfA to close without the incident which was later brought up, of course claims of 'irresponsibility' and alleged corruption are to be looked at seriously, but with only a handful supplying diffs and giving real explanations based on others or on their gut feelings, the others were cast with some dubiousness, in my opinion. At that point in time, I think the RfA would have passed. Regardless of the fact the nominee obtained a new record for RfAs or garnered some very serious comments in the oppose section, I feel that at 304/72/15 (the tally supplied in the link above) the percentage was around 80%. This constituting a promotion in my opinion, were the supporters to increase at a larger rate than those of the opposers. Others will probably disagree with this particular commentary and probably prevent any RfB I ever do in the next twelve months, but this is just my opinion. Rudget (Help?) 17:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Giggy. I respect Useight, but from the comments here and answers to questions, it doesn't seem like he understands how to weigh !votes in an RfA correctly. The Support section is sort of the default category, where just your name being there is enough said. It means you trust the candidate. Wether you write up a 5 page essay on how much you like the guy, or just put Support, it means the same thing.--Koji†Dude (C) 13:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I guess I got my idea that comments with specific reasons listed instead of just a name would weigh more from the top of the main RFA page in the section called Expressing Opinions where it says, "Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence." I figured that applied to both the support and the oppose sections. Useight (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Switching to oppose per my neutral below and concern over the concept of assigning "weight" to comments made in RfAs. Ideas like that are maybe relevant in AFD and the like where we have applicable policies and guidelines, but RFA is completely subjective and people have the right to support and oppose as they please. Your analysis in that aspect seems a bit strange: What part of "One of my favourite users" (for example) indicates that the support is not based on sound reasoning? To me it implies they have prior positive experience with the candidate and thus are well placed to judge their abilities. Naerii - Talk 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I am pretty selective in who I "!vote" for cratship, and it is not so much that I find fault in Useight that I oppose, as it is that I am not tremendously impressed, which I feel I should be towards our bureaucrats. Prodego talk 04:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Weak Oppose Sorry Useight, I agree with Rudget here. Just a little too soon, and I'd like to see some more participation in crat-related areas. GlassCobra 13:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Per Rudget - I am impressed by his attitude, so with some more time and experience he could become a perfect bureaucrat. Vishnava talk 20:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. I was on the edge on this one, but this comment, in which Useight commented on the situation before he fully understood it, drove me over the edge. That's only minor, though, as I share DHMO (yes, I'll still call him that after the rename)'s concerns. Regretfully, I oppose. Sorry. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

I would oppose but I can't be bothered to dig around to find a few iffy looking diffs I could claim was evidence of bad judgement. I don't think you'd make a great crat for a number of reasons, including experience, level of clue, etc, but you're probably well intentioned enough that you won't make a bad one. I don't like that you advocate using "crat chats" which (as I've said before) are pointless and useless - you just end up having to "interpret" the "consensus" of those crats and really, if you have to sit around and discuss whether consensus exists - it doesn't. And the fact that you participate in coaching doesn't sit too well with me either. Yeah. Naerii - Talk 22:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can support this – I am somewhat worried that Useight may possibly be a little too "mathematical" and may be more interested in the numbers than the weight of the opinions. RfA should not be a vote and consensus is the key. What concerns me most is the gaming of RfA here, although it could be argued that Useight's knowing how "beat the system" means he is familiar with what the community expects and is in touch with current standards. From what I have seen elsewhere, he seems like a nice guy and there are no civility problems. He doesn't seem to be too much of a "social-networker sysop" or "career mandarin" and still contributes to improving the encyclopaedia. I'll sleep on this and hopefully will be able to support. Regards, EJF (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You are right on that first note, for sure. I'm definitely left-brained. I do love statistics and numbers. And that's great for figuring out how many games to bowl (by the way, I score the highest on my second game, statistically speaking), but isn't how I'd determine community consensus. I'm familiar enough with the inner workings of RFA to know that it's not a "Hey, you got 73% support, you pass!". However, I wasn't showing Razorflame how to "game RFA", but instead was sharing my knowledge of what kinds of experience levels are typically required at RFA. I'm fully aware that it's not the quantity, but the quality, as I was dinged many, many months ago on an unsuccessful RFA for having too many edits in which all I did was add a comma. Useight (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Wavering somewhat. Although I strongly disagree with setting editors number targets in order to become an admin, and indeed encouraging editing to become an admin (rather than to help build the encyclopaedia) by coaching those whose aims appear to be adminship, Useight would be useful at CHU and would be a very helpful bureaucrat. I'm not too keen on the support of 'crat chats, but I wouldn't oppose over it. I did like the answer to Q7 - to me, a no consensus close would have been correct and proper, after having given due weight to all the arguments made. EJF (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Move to support. RfA is a discussion, and Useight is correct to give less weight to # ~~~~ comments – comments should be weighed on substance, not reputation. A # ~~~~ support by Jimbo Wales should be given less weight than a well-worded oppose rationale that provides diffs and evidence. EJF (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo is a bad example. A # ~~~~ from someone with known high standards should be worth more than 3 paragraphs of "he has 299 wikipedia namespace edits, I demand 300" (another bad example, but do you get my drift?) giggy (:O) 01:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't mean the rambling "this guy doesn't have 690 talk, 475 wikipedia space and 1245 mainspace edits, he won't be a good admin because this means... he also didn't support my pet policy proposal..." opposes. I would suggest that comments that are based simply in personal opinion have less worth than rationales that show evidence of lack of understanding of policy (diffs of declined SDs and AIV reports, poor AfD comments) or rationales that show good interactions while working with the candidate on a talk page; and that evidence-based rationales should be given more weight by the 'crats. I'm not sure that comments (or simply, a signature) by those who have supposedly "high standards" should be given a higher weight when the 'crats assess at the end of the RfA. This brings more personal opinion into the close, which should be a assessment to see if there is consensus, not a "he's got high standards, his support means that this candidate must be good – I think I'll promote him"; I'm strongly against the idea of any sort of "hierarchy in commenting" in the RfX process – "all opinions are equal, but some opinions are more equal than others" is something that should be steered away from. In many cases, an editor with 2000 edits may have a better idea of what adminship should be than someone with 30000 edits who sees adminship as a power that gives more leverage in discussion. The 'crats cannot know and will never know how much research a commenter has put in when he/she gives simply a personal opinion based on arbitrary standards – for all they know, the !voter may just have looked at the edit count on the talk page, whether they have a "good or "bad" !voting reputation. Regards, EJF (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we can agree on some points, though I do find myself in disagreement on the "all opinions are equal, but some opinions are more equal than others" thing. I think that should be promoted, and while it doesn't form the basis of my vote in RfB (as opposing a candidate I ideologically disagree with, without any other justification, would fall under aspects of the above comment that I agree with—in short, my vote would have little value), it does play a part in it. Anyways, this was an interesting discussion, so thanks for that. :-) giggy (:O) 02:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I find myself in the (unique to me, I think) position of agreeing with Naerii. While I don't think at all that you'll make a bad crat, I don't at the moment think you'll make a particularly good one. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that the crat area you'll participate in the most is RFA, and that's the one crat area I don't really trust you yet in; I've seen you and me on the opposite sides in too many RFAs. (struck out per this conversation) As N says, "if you have to sit around and discuss whether consensus exists, it doesn't". I also don't really like the whole concept of admin coaching (as opposed to new admin training) - RFA is a test of trustworthiness, and I don't think that's something that can be taught. However, nothing I see is reason to oppose at the moment, and I'm more than willing to be persuaded either way. — iridescent 00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I, too, initially thought I'd spend more time at RFA, but after getting to know CHU, I think I'd be spending more time over there actually. How many times have I checked out RFA and saw some RFAs that had finished and needed 'crat closing? Not nearly as often as I see username requests waiting to be fulfilled. I'll definitely be available to help out on both sides, and I'm not going to disappear from WT:RFA or from participating in RFAs, and I do plan to close RFAs, but I think CHU could use my help more. Useight (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. I do not count experiance by number of vandals blocked, number of pages protected, or even how many months of service or contributions. I count experiance on a user's attitude to becoming a bureaucrat and trustworthiness as an admin, which this user evidently shows. I would support, but your attitude as an contributor, with IMO not enough contributions in the mainspace for your time at wikipedia, and as a coach and RFA voter, of which some of my views differ. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Good user, but too new in terms of administrative tools yet. Wizardman 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

AGK

AGK (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), aka Anthøny;
Voice your opinion (talk page) (43/20/7); Scheduled to end 22:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Anthony has been an admin for a year now. While he doesn't perhaps have a string of FAs to his name, he's a useful contributor to mainspace, but he is a widely experienced and devoted contributor to dispute resolution and administration.

Anthony's recent contribs in bureaucratty areas caught my eye - this bunch of recent edits looked like a good idea to me, working well with (and proving he's read!) the instructions.

In terms of practical Crat stuff, Anthony's been active in WP:RFA, WP:RENAME and is also involved in WP:BAG activities.

In full disclosure (well, it's hardly hidden - this page ends with a "2") Anthony ran a brief RfB last year, withdrawing his nomination when it quickly became clear (tally was 3/5/0) that his short tenure as an admin was considered a major drawback.

I'd like to draw attention to Anthony's desire to be helpful and improve the quality of Wikipedia. This is manifest in his work soothing disputes (he's on the Mediation Committee and is an Arbcom Clerk). He generally takes a detached rational view of matters and will be a useful, hard-working addition to the ranks of Crats. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Paranomia: Looks like Dweller beat me to the nom—I've been thinking of nominating Anthony for some time now, so here's an opportunity. As mentioned by Dweller; Anthony has been active in 'cratty areas (RFA, CHU, and other 3-letter acronyms), as well as demonstrating excellent skills when solving disputes—for example, being a mediator with the mediation committee, being active at ANI, and clerking at Arbcom. In short, Anthony has demonstrated the neutral, consensus-gathering attitude required by bureaucrats, and would make an excellent addition those we have now. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 00:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, Dweller; I'd be pleased to accept. :) As in my last RfB, I'm simply offering myself up to help out with 'crat tasks (although, of course, last time the <1 year expired time since sysopship proved to be an non-ignorable factor); I've the time and experience available to serve. One or two more additions to the 'crat team would be helpful at the present time (EVula has, of course, already filled one of those slots); I would, of course, be a pro-active (and, I'd imagine, quite busy!) bureaucrat, and hopefully could provide some relief to the existing team.
In my time as a sysop (over a year now), I've been heavily involved in a bunch of activities that involve working with votes and comments, interpretation of consensus, and weighing actions against policies (eg., comparing arbitrator votes on /Proposed_decision pages to the 'majority' figure; closing afd discussions, and other xfds). I've been pretty heavily involved in some discussions related to 'bureaucrat areas', such as: SUL-related CHU procedures (I assisted with the initial clerking of Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL, before it was forked); the widely-varying topics on WT:RFA and WP:bureaucrats' noticeboard; nominating various candidates on WP:requests for adminship, and commenting on discussions beyond count; and occasionlly dipping my toe in BAG matters (eg., here; the requests for BAG membership); and so on.
Dweller has kindly offered to nominate me for RfB (thanks for the flattering statement ;), and that, coupled with the urgings of a fair few RfA regulars and non-regulars, as well as the recent increase in task load (the introduction of single user login, and the creation of RfBAGmembership), have been deciding factors in my deciding to accept. There is, of course, the additional reason that I will be a thoughtful, careful, and transparent bureaucrat if the community voices its support; that should, of course, speak for itself in a bureaucrat candidate.
I am willing to receive any variety of probing questions. It'll be a busy week, I expect. :)
Anthøny 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. I have both read and been involved in the discussions regarding when and when not to promote. My understanding of the current, general criterion for promotion are that the community has expressed a consensus that the candidate should be promoted to administrator status: the task of a bureaucrat is to review the discussion at requests for adminship, weigh the arguments and comments in both directions, and implement the consensus of the community. The community has, of course, developed numerical guidelines which act as a 'measuring stick' for this consensus: for an administrator candidate, a candidate whose discussion receives 70-80% community support will fall into the area of bureaucrat discretion, with anything exceeding that range passing, and below that, not passing. The upper boundary seems to be pre-empted by something of a glass ceiling, however, with 75% generally dictating that an RfA pass. The standards for a bureaucrat candidate are generally higher, with 80-90% seeming to be RfB's equivalent 'grey area', and again, with candidates over that passing, and under that, not passing.
Anthøny 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Largely taking my first rfb's answer here, with a few changes; things are by-and-large the same as then.
There are two additional options open to borderline Requests for Adminship: firstly, extending the RfA (which, hopefully, will allow more comments to be posted, which (again, hopefully) will allow a larger difference between conflicting arguments to emerge, allowing consensus to become clearer). My actions in extending the rfa, would be to amend using a notice on the top of the rfa (as well as tweaking the closure time, with a signature + explanatory note), and notifying the candidate. However, quite often this may not be the best option: if activity at the RfA was fairly low, then extension of the discussion may be fruitless.
The second option is the system of "Bureaucrat Chat" that has been seen on a few 'close-call'; I believe that such public discussion between Bureaucrats is the way forward for close call nominations (by that I mean in the "grey area"), and I'd have no worries about calling that in for an RfA. My actions when hosting a bureaucrat chat would be to suspend the request using the templates here (I created that table a few days ago), and notifying the active bureaucrats as to the discussion's presence. Alternatively, a discussion at the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard could also be used.
However, at the end of the day: if there is a consensus amongst the community (that is, general agreement between users, in that the majority of well-thought-out arguments) to promote, then I'll promote; if there is consensus not to promote, then I won't. An increase in likelihood of criticism heading my way should not skew my judgement, nor stand in the way of consensus: as an administrator and fairly high-profile contributor, I'm well-rehearsed in being transparent in the face of scrutiny over actions; I'd simply apply my existing ethos, to my bureaucrat actions.
Anthøny 22:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I'm going to be brief here, as I think actions speak louder than words for questions like this: essentially, I'd say my editing history and contributions talk for themselves. Briefly, I'm an administrator of over a year (I've kept to the more difficult tasks, such as handling difficult unblock requests; closing more complex deletion discussions; etc.) and I'd like to say I've earned the community's respect as a clued-up, thoughtful chap. I've also served on the mediation committee for almost as long, and operated as a mediator of the somewhat far-developed disputes that are presented in that group's workload. I'm also an arbitration clerk, and a member of the arbcom's working group on ethnic edit warring. In each of these roles, communication, fairness, and knowledge of policy are critical and essential, as it an ability to be impartial and thoughtful. I would strive to apply the same ethos I have there, to my bureaucrat tasks, and I will ensure I remain easily accessible (I've been using user:AGK/Contact to allow any individual to contact me, via email, IRC, or skype).
Anthøny 22:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. Absolutely. I already spend a substantial period of time on each of those pages (RFA or CHU the most, and less so the Bot Approvals Group, although I have contributed in discussions with reflective comments where I can), and it would simply be a case of adjusting my contributions there, with the +bureaucrat bit. In fact, I've had a little play around with the figures on how long I spend at each of those areas: superseding my current contributions with ones from a bureaucrat angle, I would absolutely be able to accommodate the time demands required. Should the community select me as a bureaucrat, inactivity will not be a problem.
Anthøny 22:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from User:MBisanz

5. One of of the crats elected in 2004 has yet to use any of the crat tools and others have used them very rarely. Do you think the crat position should have a minimum level of activity? Would you trust a crat who hasn't looked at RFA in four years to close one?
A. I do indeed believe that there should be something of a minimum level of activity for the project's Bureaucrats. The staff has always been small, and it seems it will be for the foreseeable future: there is not an abundance of bureaucrats who are active. Whilst I'm not sure if or how this stance could transfer over to a bureaucrat having the tools, or not having them, but I do think that there are problems posed by a bureaucrat suddenly entering into an activity he or she has been absent from for some time. My personal attitude is that some sort of 're-education' (a chat over IRC, a discussion in a subpage) between an active, experienced bureaucrat, and between a bureaucrat who is coming out of activity after (to use your hypothetical, MBiszanz) 4 years, to bring him or her 'up to speed' may be an effective remedy to a bureaucrat who wished to become active again. Should they still have the tools after such a lengthy hiatus? Probably not. It's something to be handled on a case-by-case basis: some bureaucrats retain an excellent ability of consensus-gauging despite a lack of closing actual discussions, some don't (so it depends on what you say by 'not looked at': have they not closed a discussion, or have they totally stayed away from the page?).
Generally (and I say this both as a summary, and on a non-specific note: different situations involving inactive bureaucrats are different), to give a summary answer to your respective questions: yes, I do think the position should have a minimum level of activity; to the second question, I would offer my assistance to a bureaucrat who had not closed an RFA in 4 years, and if it was declined, I would only hope he or she would have retained the consensus-gauging abilities that are so vital–otherwise, we have a problem on our hands. Anthøny 08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Recently the first Bot-RFC was filed. How do you reconcile this process with the WT:BRFA process? How would you as a crat interpret a Bot-RFC in deciding whether or not to involuntarily deflag a bot?
A. Excellent question. It's important to remember that the standard method of approving a bot is to seek it from the Bot Approvals Group; approval from the BAG is but one method of affirming consensus amongst the community, that the bot is to be ran (in theory, at least). Theoretically, if the RFC closed with community consensus as 'bot is not to run', then the course of action to that end should be to de-flag. I would suggest here, however, that inter-bureaucrat discussion may be required, just to check that it's the right way to head: it's certainly not the orthodox / standard course of action, and it's probably best to get some second opinions. :)
How would I interpret a Bot-RFC? Generally, by gauging and reading the consensus expressed: textbook answer, but it holds firm. The discussion is simply a forum for the community to express its consensus over whether a bot should continue to run in the project. The closing bureaucrat should gague that consensus appropriately, and implement the decision of the community. As a personal preference, I would use the same techniques used in closing rfa's: the subject matter has changed, but the backbone (a consensus-building discussion) is still there.
Summary: a Bot-RFC ties in with the existing approvals system very well; it is simply another forum for expression of community consensus, over whether or not a bot should continue to run, and I would treat it accordingly (how to treat? implement the community's consensus therein). How to interpret the discussion? Just as a bureaucrat would interpret any other discussion; by gauging consensus and weighing the comments and arguments presented. The lack of numerical guidelines that are provided to 'crats for closing rfa's won't be a problem: the role of a bureaucrat is to interpret the consensus, and that's done just as well in a bot-RFC without the measuring stick.
Anthøny 08:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Currently, no editor has ever passed RfB with a % less than 85%. At the same time, four of the six Arbcommers elected in December 2007 had support %s below 80%. Do you see any potential role for crats, with their high level of community trust, in the Dispute Resolution processes? Would you accept or feel it appropriate to ask the crats as a group to assist in DR?
A. I think that the bureaucrat user group may be a useful 'recruiting ground' for identifying editors with a high level of community trust, excellent communication skills, and an ethos of transparency. Many bureaucrats are very savvy individuals, who, if they don't already slot naturally into the DR side of the project, could be targeted for drafting into there.
Having said that, different bureaucrats are different: not all of them would be suited to the specific demands of dispute resolution (which is itself a tricky area: diffusing heated disputes isn't anybody's idea of an easy day), and it's not wise to draft them in wholesale into dispute resolution. So I think it would be appropriate to ask the bureaucrats generally, to offer themselves into the DR process if they find they would be helpful there; however, I wouldn't suggest that somehow making involvement in DR part of the bureaucrats' "task list" is a good idea. Anthøny 22:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Question from Al Tally

8. How would you have closed this RfA, assuming it hadn't been withdrawn, and the final revision was the last before it was due to close? (PS bureaucrat chat is the likely answer, I'm mostly interested in your thought process. And if you voted in it, assume you didn't.)
A.
8a. Based on the above question, how would you have closed it at this point? (Same conditions as above; please don't say 'crat chat.) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A.

Optional questions from Syn

9. Assuming you are familiar with BOR: What are your thoughts about this category? Are you willing to add yourself upon this request being successful, and if no, why?
A: I am indeed familiar with the bureaucrats' recall category, having been briefly a party to the original discussion. I think it's a very good idea: bureaucrats require the community's trust in order to be able to implement their consensus, and the recall category facilitates continual assurance that they have that trust. I myself have recently became open to recall (see user:AGK/Recall) as an administrator; if my RfB is successful, I would be happy to become open to recall as a bureaucrat, and would build upon the existing sysop guideline there. I simply see it was a useful tool for ensuring that I remain trusted by the community, and that there is a mechanism in place to have me removed should I lose their trust. Anthøny 08:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
10. You've stated that you have nominated various candidates for adminship. Approximately how many do you think you have nominated and, more importantly, how many were successful?
A: I wouldn't like to put a number on how many I've nominated, but I'm not somebody who churns out countless nominations (I prefer to select a few, very good candidates :), so I'd say 10 or so in the course of my activity on RFA. The two most recent ones have been, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Canley (62/0/0, January 2008) and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VanTucky 2 (194/9/4, April 2008). More of my nominated candidates have been successful than unsuccessful; any that haven't been successful (for example) have been fairly 'close calls'. Anthøny 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
11a. Can you briefly explain your reasons for various requests here on wikipedia, and other sister projects in the past? How have these shaped your opinions and contributions?
A: When making a request, my guiding principle has been 'can I make a difference by requesting?'. I doubt anybody makes a request if they can't make a positive difference; that is, after all, the only way one will pass. In each request, whether successful or unsuccessful, constructive feedback is received, at least to some degree. I would say that my contributions have been shaped in some way by all of my requests: for example, in any successful requests, some areas of one's edits are recognised as been of excellent quality; my response has been to endeavour in upholding that area contribution to the encyclopedia. In any areas where the community points out problems, I have adjusted my contributions for the better.
As for opinions? Well, any request is a bare-bones submission to what can be a pretty rough ride. My opinion after all the requests in my time has been the growing of pretty thick skin. :) Anthøny 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
11b. What makes this request different than other requests you have made in the past?
A:

Question from User:Pedro

12 Why did you delete and then restore two days later your first RfB [100]? Why that edit summary? (please feel free to not answer the second part of my query if there's a personal reason you'd prefer not to go into) Pedro :  Chat  08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A:

Optional Question from User:PrestonH

13 How would you close your own RfB as of this diff? (Assume that diff is the last revision before it was due to close.) (I'm still going to support even if you don't answer this question. This is a serious question. :))
A:

General comments

RfBs for this user:
Requests for bureaucratship/AGK Requests for bureaucratship/AGK 2
  • There are a few outstanding questions which I intend to offer full responses to by Saturday 7 June 2008. I'm out all of tonight (Friday 6 June), and only have a little time available for Wikipedia tonight; I'd rather to the questions justice. Thanks to everybody who has offered questions, and supported / opposed the nomination. Everybody's input is appreciated: if this rfb is successful, I intend to live up to your standards; if it doesn't, then I will endeavour to take on board all constructive criticism (indeed, I do anyway :). Thanks, Anthøny 16:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support
  1. As nom. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support MBisanz talk 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Where on earth do I begin with Anthony. I think being one of the most respected editors on Wikipedia pretty much covers it. An editor who has been active with the Mediation Committee as a mediator, a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, regularly clerks for checkuser, WP:USURP, WP:SSP. His comments are held in high regard due to his clarity and thoughtfulness put into any answer. His experience with mediation place him in a situation where is used to being in difficult situation with editors with opposing views as can happen at RfA. He is dedicated in everything he does on Wikipedia and I don't think that I could ever support someone so fully in something. He knows his stuff, has proven he is dedicated to this project and will be a fine asset to the team of crats this project has. Seddσn talk Editor Review 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support 3rd "2nd time the charm" Hopefully.... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Support: (Switch to neutral #7) Seddon pretty much nailed it. Good luck, Anthony. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support. While I have not directly interacted with AGK, I have seen him around and have been impressed by his maturity and judgement skills. I would most definitely trust AGK with the extra buttons given to a 'crat, and I hope the community agrees. Best of luck, AGK—Malinaccier (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support Displays thoughtfulness and discretion, two important traits for a 'crat. GlassCobra 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Just as a quick note to the opposers: how is "too many hats" a bad thing? This doesn't really make sense to me; you're opposing because he wants to help out more and take on more responsibility? Where is the logic? GlassCobra 23:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support - very thoughtful and knowledgeable editor and probably one of the most respected editors here. Will be a fine 'crat. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support - AGK is a very thoughtful (ok, echoing Sephiroth unintentionally) administrator who has shown, in my opinion, excellent judgment in every situation where I have encountered him. Perhaps he is taking upon himself the mantle of the new NYB? :-P I'm happy to support him for bureaucrat, as I told him I would, and I'm sure that he will do a great job when this RfB has passed. AvruchT * ER 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Strongly support: AGK knows what he's doing, and is experienced enough to become a bureaucrat. I supported his last RfB, which, I have to agree was pre-mature; but he has done well since then, and he has been great in his time as an administrator: I am happy to support this one. Acalamari 23:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Strong support - I've gone to AGK many a time, when I needed counsel, and he's always been able to help me out. I respect AGK very highly, and I feel he would make an exceptional bureaucrat. I'm highly tempted to make a haggis joke here, but I think I'll refrain. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    To the no-doubt confused voters, Steve is one of a many band of folks from IRC and Skype, who like to coo at my accent and make tartan/haggis jokes. Don't ask... :) Anthøny 23:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. No reason not to. Sceptre (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. For being bold and raising his hand o/ when needed - --Cometstyles 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Seems to have common sense SQLQuery me! 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support as co-nom. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support Anthony, you are one of the editors on here that I respect the most on the English Wikipedia, and you've also proven to be a good friend to me over on the Simple English Wikipedia. You definitely have executed your job as an administrator with dazzling light effects :). You definitely have a good grasp of all relevant policies and you are definitely the one for the job. Good luck! Razorflame 01:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. I have encountered Anthony in a variety of areas during my time here, and I have been nothing but impressed. He handles situations with calm, intelligence and thoughtfulness. Just what I would like to see in a bureaucrat. Best of luck. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support per Seddon and the fact that he participates in BRFA discussions. Soxred 93 05:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support. I don't see a problem with "wearing too many hats", as Naerii and JayHenry put it, as long as the person does good work, which AGK certainly does. Oh yes, and definitely per Seddon and more appropriately SQL. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 05:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Edited by GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 05:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support. He is a member of medcom, an arbcom clerk, a participant of the working group, and hangs around medcab. All are evidence to my eyes that he is a fair Wikipedian who in no small part keeps the project smoothly running. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support He is definitely trustworthy and he has done excellent work as an admin. Alexfusco5 11:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support I take the view that holding a number of positions of skill and/or responsibility in wikipedia is a positive recommendation, being demonstrations of ability and commitment to the project. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  23. If this was an election for Arbitration Committee, or some other position involved in dispute resolution, I might agree with the "too many positions of power" agrument. But bureaucrats have nothing to do with dispute resolution, and try as I might I can't think of a serious or likely potential conflict of interest that could arise. He wants to help in another area, I trust him enough to do that carefully and wisely, and that's more than enough for me. --barneca (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support. AGK is highly respected, highly qualified, and has volunteered for the job. Of course he doesn't have a lot of mainspace edits, he's rather busy volunteering his time making sure Wikipedia runs smoothly enough (in many areas) so that those that choose to volunteer in that manner have the freedom, environment, and support to do so. To claim that by acting administratively in Wiki-space he is somehow "not building the encyclopedia" is ludicrous. In other words, per Avruch (below in the oppose #4 commentary). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Article writing is directly correlated to encyclopedia building. I don't consider clerking at CheckUser or CHU as having a strong relation to encyclopedia building (what exactly are you building by telling someone that their CheckUser code is invalid?). It's like claiming someone with an Erdos number of a 3 actually collaborated with Paul Erdos on a paper. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    We'll have to agree to disagree Nishkid64. I respect your position, your longstanding tenure, and your solid reputation as a Wikipedian. I think we are semantically disagreeing, and not actually philosophically disagreeing at all though. When I say "build an encyclopedia", my mind includes every positive contribution to wikipedia. "Building" includes clerking, granting rollback rights, closing RFAs, mentoring, adding welcome templates to user talk, blocking vandalistic accounts, discussing policy. To you it seems, "building an encyclopedia" means explicitly and exclusively "add content to articles". Again, I agree philosophically that "adding content" is the end all. Some extremely intelligent and talented editors are here to do just that. Some extremely intelligent and talented editors aren't so good at it, or in some way or another decide to focus on other areas of Wikipedia. AGK has volunteered to clerk things, close things, rename things, protect things. That, to me, is "building the encyclopedia", and if he never has another single "content contribution" outside of those minor edits, or 4% or whatever, I still find him highly skilled, highly valuable, and highly qualified to be a bureaucrat. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support - excellent interaction. We can't all write a featured article every week like some people. Different people have different interests on Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, but we aren't just an encyclopedia. Each bit of it helps our community (and anything that doesn't normally gets deleted). I can see no reason why AGK should be denied. The opposers have yet to come up with anything actually negative. Experience in CHU is a positive not a negative. This is not a request for editing articles. It's a request for bureaucratship, which really, doesn't have much to do with articles. Unless they can substantially say how he'll make a bad bureaucrat (other than "Not enough edits to articles" or "Too much power") then my vote is support. Al Tally talk 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  26. AGK has tremendous patience, is diligent and reliable. Bureaucrat material indeeed. Rudget (Help?) 18:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  27. Yes, this is going to be a long one, so feel free to stop here if you wish. Since me unbanning in October (the 28th, if I remember correvtly,) AGK was there, and still is, if I never need it, to assist me. I agree that AGK may not have the highest number of mainspace contributions, but as Al Tally noted above, not everyone has it in them to write an FA (and I'm sure AGK is more than capable of it, albeit such content contributions do take some time.) It is my opinion that you cannot please anyone in life, no matter what decision you make, you will always be letting someone down (I mean Dihydrogen Monoxide was criticised for announcing all his FAs, yet people want Anthony to write them, so you can't really please everyone, although I must that if I had 10 FAs like DHMO does, I'd be bloody proud of myself and bragging too, not that DHMO does, in my opinion.) One does not need any FAs/GAs or anything to display on their userpage, as long as they know how to do perform basic article skills such as using the cite web, albeit I do copy the code sometimes due to my laziness, and I know for a fact AGK knows how to do such things, even though he might not always be putting them into action. AGK is by far one of the friendliest and most helpful editors around (not to mention his really amusing Scottish accent ;)) and is always there to help you or support you in your time of need; this was clearly evident when I returned after my unbanning, as him, Ryan Postlethwaite (talk) and Moreschi (talk) were the three whom I knew I could trust and rely on. AGK is reliable, and definitely bureaucrat material, and has never lost his temper (I don't know how, but its nothing short of remarkable,) and this encyclopedia could definitely benefit from him being a 'crat. His selflessness throughout his time here is truly remarkable, and him being a bureaucrat would make the world a better place. Best of luck, Qst (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support -- per the need for more 'crats and WP:Bureaucratship_no_big_deal = ) --Cameron (T|C) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  29. Sim A bit of Luso input for a worthy candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support Re the opposing comments below...I disagree with the idea that somone can have too many jobs. Having a job does not mean one can not do other things. Even if an admin or bcat uses their tools sparingly, that still helps us out. We need more admins and bcats--just look at all the backlogs we have. AGK is a fine wikian, fine admin, and will make a fine bcat. We need to stop being so hard on ourselves, then we may have more people running for admin and bcat; many qualified people don't run (esp for bcat) because it's such a brutal process all too often. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support a solid, reliable worker. Every individual finds his/her own niche and balance of priorities and work; others can't do it for them. Won't he be balancing the equation himself if he decides to slow down on mediation, etc. to absorb bureaucratic functions? Where's the harm in that, if all it does is help the project? Vishnava talk 21:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support He has the experience, and his answers to questions 1 through 4 match what I'm looking for. I acknowledge the fact raised in the oppose section that more article writing would be commendable for AGK, but somehow I don't think restricting his access level is going to encourage him to write more if he just doesn't want to do that, and in his capacity as an administrator he is doing a fine job. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support, while I see evidence of "hat collecting" I don't really think it's a problem, and I do see potential for a hardworking bureaucrat. Many of us rose up the "wiki-ladder" in the same way, and AGK already has enough power to be able to do damage -- so I trust him not to abuse the bureaucrat powers. Andre (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support. Absolutely. AGK is one of the most hard-working admins we have here. I have always thought of him as level-headed and rational. I can't think of a better candidate. Trusilver 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support. Hardworking, spread out editor and admin. Would both benefit and help with the extra responsibility. (Also, is Scottish.) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support. One of the most hard working users out there, like the unfortunately retired Newyorkbrad. bibliomaniac15 00:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support for the simple reason that I trust him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support I've been impressed with him in the past and I trust him in the position. Though I do worry that his mainspace contributions will diminish even further were he promoted, I feel that the operations behind the scenes are often times just as important. And that's a place where I know he will serve well. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 03:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support While respecting the arguments made in the oppose section, the question to me is can we trust his judgement? I haven't seen anything to persuade me from the view that the user is a particularly mature and wise editor. Dean B (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support per Dean B I think we can trust him. Opposing arguments were not convincing enough. Some seem to be saying "he does to much already"? Also, we did not say adminship is no big deal, he did. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support. I have no reason to oppose AGK's being granted bureaucratship. Great editor. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support You are a great admin AGK, and I've see you worked on the bereaucrat stuff. I couldn't care less on "seperations of power" listed in the oppose section. Although you maybe a bit argumentive, I still believe you will become a great b-crat. Best of luck. --PrestonH (t ♦ c) 01:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support, trust Anthony completely. · AndonicO Engage. 10:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Oh well, obviously I'm going to be all on my lonesome down here but I can't in good conscience support. Too much time spent filing paperwork, not enough time spent on the bits that matter. Oppose the promotion of people here to play the career ladder MMORPG. You're already an admin, a mediator, an arbcom clerk and seemingly part of this, as well as clerking at the checkuser and name changing requests boards. That's quite enough hats, seperation of powers and all that. I don't recall ever seeing you around RFA, although a review of your contribs indicates that you do vote here but usually not with anything much to say - not that there's anything wrong with that, at least half of my rfa contribs are me signing my name in a column, but I'm not seeing anything that makes me think "wow this guy would be a great crat" or even anything that indicates much of an interest in the process (though I guess that's not entirely a bad thing...). After reviewing your contribs I'm just thinking "why?" and cratship isn't a "why the hell not" process for me I'm afraid. I'm also a bit concerned by your support of "crat chats" which are usually either pointless or useless. I usually use AFD closures as a way of telling if a candidate can judge consensus well, but you haven't done much of that recently either so I'm at a bit of a loss - nearly all your time is spent in dispute resolution areas - I can't honestly believe you want this for any other reason than because it's the next "step" up the ladder. I'm a whiney bitch who assumes bad faith, I know. Sorry. You're obviously going to pass so good luck, don't be too shit with it, etc. Have a nice day. naerii - talk 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Of course, I respect your oppose; thanks for commenting. Having just came out of an IRC discussion regarding the mainspace and how many administrators tend to forget about it when their rfa passes, I can relate to your view. I've often said, I'm no wordsmith: my edits are here-and-there, and generally one-edit rewrites to make the article more encyclopedic. I would consider it my weak spot, and, although it's obviously not related to my ability to be a bureaucrat, I am working on the matter. One mainspace for every three talk page edits is my goal; whether I'll reach it, is another matter. Incidentally, bureaucrat is something that I'd say to be a very unremarkable role; if it helps, it's something of a 'dead end' job. :) No career prospects lie at the end of a successful RfB: I simply know I can do a good job. Anthøny 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    If I could quote from the candidate statements of two prior successful RfBs

    I would like to request my bureaucratship. I have (hopefully) avoided annoying most of you, and... I guess that's it. Ugen64

    ...I'd like to request bureaucrat status so that I can help out if it ever becomes necessary. Pakaran

    Maybe we've all made RfB too big of a deal if we are opposing for the same reasons other people once passed. MBisanz talk 23:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Two crats who rarely, if ever, use their abilities. The standards of 2004 are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia today; in 2004 we werent a top 10 website with over 2 million articles that appear as #1 in Google for a search of almost anything. naerii - talk 01:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Actually one isn't even a bureaucrat anymore. But how are your comments about how well Wikipedia ranks in Google anything to do with bureaucratship? Al Tally talk 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Because adminship is now a BigDeal and it's almost impossible to get it revoked from someone who uses it badly. naerii - talk 01:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Simply to get as much constructive feedback from this discussion as possible, could you explain how that relates to my ability to carry out 'crat tasks, and how I could improve on those problems therein? Anthøny 07:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    It doesn't necessarily, I was just responding to MBisanz's fanciful notion that we should somehow behave as though Wikipedia is what is was in 2004 and promote people willy nilly. The point I was trying to make (obviously very badly) is that I need to have 100% confidence in a crat because when they make decisions I don't like I have no recourse to reverse them - whereas when admins delete, block, etc, I have DRV and the various noticeboards to complain at. As I said above, you don't seem to have closed that many AFDs lately so I can't really judge your closing skills and I've never seen you get involved in any discussions about RFA so I have no idea what your stances are on most RFA hot topics. When I'm judging 'crat noms I only consider how they would deal with contentious rfas because all the other 'crat tasks are so boring and mundane I couldn't care less who does them. Yeah. That's all. This is really sidetracking o_O naerii - talk 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I can understand your reservations. I think we all would like to have 100% or even 110% confidence in crats. Might I suggest asking AGK an optional question then? Perhaps one that asks him his stance on a number of issues you currently see as topic appropriate? — MaggotSyn 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    God no, no offence, but I don't trust anything anyone says whilst under the spotlight like this. naerii - talk 07:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. With some regret (as I personally like AGK) I share Naerii's concerns. Wearing too many hats is both bad governance and bad fashion. When will we learn? A class of superusers has not served us well, and it's best to keep these things more compartmentalized than we currently do. "The reward for a job well done is three more jobs" is a philosophy that has served our community terribly, in my perspective. And while it's long in the past and I don't know if WJBscribe or Ral315 still feels this way, I actually still have concerns along the lines of those expressed in your second RFA about too much focus on pursuing "positions of status". --JayHenry (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yep, fair comments here too. As I observed above, 'crat is something of a dead-end job... I've accepted as I was nominated; I doubt I would be going for a self-nom. here. Anthøny 00:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Just as a point of order - is this really correct? It's just I don't believe you'd have only run if you were nominated given this thread at WP:BN. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Nope, that's correct: I wouldn't go in for another self-nom. The point of that thread was to test the waters outside of those who want to nominate me: a spread of opinions are essential, I think, and it's important to see what those outside think. Generally, people will approach and say 'you'll be a great bureaucrat' but not say 'you'd be rubbish'. :) Anthøny 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm going to repost the following as I don't think people understand the scope of what we're talking about here.
    • December 27, 2006: adds himself to the standby list for CheckUser clerks. At the time, not granted.
    • December 29, 2006: requests to join the mediation committee. Denied.
    • December 31, 2006: requests OTRS access. Not granted.
    • January 9, 2007: requests CheckUser access. Denied.
    • January 16, 2007: attempts to gain access to the Bot Approvals Group. Denied.
    • February 9, 2007: requests adminship on the English Wikipedia. Not granted.
    • March 3, 2007: requests to join the Mediation Committee again. Denied.
    • March 6, 2007: requests to become an administrator at the Simple English Wikipedia. Denied.
    • March 9, 2007: Adds self as CheckUser clerk.
    • April 4, 2007: requests OTRS access again; request withdrawn.
    • April 19, 2007: requests to become a coordinator of the Mediation Cabal via e-mail. Not granted.
    • April 27, 2007: requests adminship on the English Wikipedia for a second time.
    • May 18, 2007: requests to join the Mediation Committee for a third time.
    • May 23, 2007: becomes a VandalProof moderator.
    • May 24, 2007: Just a day later, removed as moderator by AmiDaniel, "due to complaints from a variety of sources".
    • July 24, 2007: requests OTRS access for a third time. Denied.
    • December 27, 2007: Named an Arbitration Committee Clerk
    • February 6, 2008: Named an observer to the Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.
    • February 11, 2008: requests OTRS access for a fourth time. Denied.
    • March 8, 2008: requests an account on the Foundation wiki. Request not yet acted upon.
    • April 10, 2008: Requests adminship on Meta. Not granted.
    I find that the claim that this is going to be a dead-end job to strain credulity. This is 20 applications for positions of status in not even as many months. What would be the definition of a career WikiMandarin if not this? --JayHenry (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I'm understanding. You are opposing because he is a hard working who is not afraid to take on additional responsibility? Trusilver 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. I do still have concerns about the positions that AGK has tried to attain over the last few years. It's certainly happening less often; however, AGK asked for temporary adminship on Meta just a few months ago, and withdrew. But in general, I look at the reasons expressed above, and they just don't convince me. I'd also echo concerns about too many roles, in general. Events over the last year or so have convinced me that separation of roles is a good thing. Ral315 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    This is a general response to the three over the positions that AGK "holds" and although i assume you are all versed in their roles, i wanna go through them. Being a member of the mediation committee holds no power and is nothing special. Being a member of the mediation committee is almost recognition that you are good at solving disputes something which is something we should not be putting down. There is no limit to the people that can be on the committee you just need to be good at what you do and in this sense, WJBscribe is also on the committee as its chair so i see this as no problem. Now i shall discuss the clerking of the clerking at usurpations and checkuser and suspected sockpuppet. This is in fact an open area of which ANY admin can come in and clerk and especially in the usurpations instance this is an instance where is vital for a crat to have an understanding of the system. Being on the Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars is an extension of his abilities as a mediator. Being in this role is vital to wikipedia, just as being an article writer is another vital role. Are we suddenly going to started not accepting people as bureaucrats because they have written too many FA's and are too good a writer. In fact the only role which AGK has that has been "given" to him is as an ARBCOM clerk which is a role that can be easily left aside if and when it becomes a problem. I think we need to actually look at the facts and not generalize. Seddσn talk Editor Review 12:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Anthony is a great guy, but I too have an issue with the number of positions he holds here. His last 5,000 edits, dating back to January 3, 2008, include 1956 in the Wikipedia namespace, 1477 in user talk, 564 in userspace, 278 in template namespace, and just 201 in the mainspace. 4% of his edits in the last 5 months have been in the mainspace. To me, that shows that either he's deliberately not editing the mainspace or he's got too much on his plate to have any time for encyclopedia writing. Adding bureaucratship will essentially reduce AGK's encyclopedic contributions to nil. Some is better than none, IMO. If AGK could balance clerking, MedCom, adminship with encyclopedia writing, then I would have no problem supporting this RfB. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    For comparison User:WJBscribe has made only 250 article edits since 5 January of which as you can see has pretty much been administrative work . Seddσn talk Editor Review 13:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    True, my contributions to the mainspace have taken a huge hit since I became a bureaucrat - one of the more selfish reasons I would like to see more bureaucrats being appointed is that it might free up some of time for editing. Anthony's mainspace edits are already very low before becoming a bureaucrat, so I think it is fair of Nishkid to ask where the extra time for performing bureaucrat tasks will come from... WjBscribe 13:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    It is a fair question, and i also apologise for you using you as an example, there was nothing personal in that. It was just an example and having looked more into it, there are 6 other active bureaucrats who all made less than 150 edits since january and in one instance making only 8 article space edits. You must remember that AGK will not be clerking in the username change areas as he will be actually doing the name changes and we are all assuming that he wont change his editor pattern on wikipedia. As you have said yourself, the way you contributed to this project changed when you became a bureaucrat. I would hypothetically assume something similar would occur with AGK's editting. Prehaps a question should be asked how will his time on wikipedia adapt to becoming a 'crat. Seddσn talk Editor Review 14:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    WJB's article contributions sharply decreased after he became a bureaucrat. Like AGK, he was involved in CHU clerking in his pre-bureuacrat days. As WJB stated, Anthony doesn't edit the encyclopedia much to begin with (remember, they account for only 4% of his last 5,000 edits). Regarding Dweller's comments on my talk page, I take an editor's mainspace editing very seriously. We should all be here to edit the encyclopedia. When you find most of your time on Wikipedia being spent replying to posts on WP talk pages or commenting on WP pages, then it's pretty evident that you're either involved in too many non-article related activities or you've totally lost focus of why we're here in the first place. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Not all editors are created equal. By that I mean that folks have different strengths, different interests. There are many functions that contribute to the encyclopedia that aren't writing text into articles. Developers, bot operators, ArbCom, folks performing other administrative tasks and, of course, bureaucrats. Crats perform a role that is widely recognized as important despite the fact that it isn't content editing, and I think the question of this request isn't "is AGK a good content writer?" - it is "Will AGK make a good bureaucrat? Can we trust him to perform its duties appropriately?" It's unfortunate that you question his understanding of "why we are here" because he chooses to spend his volunteer effort in ways that, while important in their own right, are different than what you appear to value most. Personally, I am happy to see that he volunteers readily in many areas and has roles that demonstrate how well he is trusted and how much we rely upon his contributions. Wikipedia isn't a government, "power" from various positions isn't cumulative, and volunteers shouldn't be chastised for volunteering in some areas but not others. AvruchT * ER 15:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    My main concern with these opposes is that, while acknowledging that the candidate holds many positions, it is not acknowledged how he has handled them. While there is no doubt that mainspace contributions are the most important part of the project, I'm concerned that the folks behind the scenes may not be given their due credit. Good mediation requires knowledge of content policy, at least, and research and editing. A tremendous load of work is given to those who have taken the choice not to edit articles as much as others and have instead chosen to keep the edits coming through other means. Whether this is mediation, which can have a tremendous impact on the quality of an article; or checkuser, which has a tremendous impact on keeping those editors who've decided to use WP for less-than-noble purposes away from WP; to usurpations and name-changes, which help those who've made a career out of this happy and contented. And the bevy of other admin-related tasks. All of these contribute to the encyclopedia, and the record shows AGK has done that well; if he hasn't, that's what the majority of opposes would (should?) be about. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'll give you mediation, but I hardly think usurpation and checkuser clerking have such a big impact on the encyclopedia. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    They are tasks that have to be done somewhere along the line. Someone has to do it and if no one did it we would have chaos in the technical areas of wikipedia, of which without them there would be no encyclopedia for us to contribute to. It all adds up. Seddσn talk Editor Review 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    (e/c) CU and usurp certainly are important to those being usurped/usurping, and those being CU'd. Losing/gaining editors has a huge impact on the encyclopedia, and we need trusted, dedicated volunteers to do that too. AGK is volunteering and is qualified. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Again, this is just clerking. You have to make quite a stretch to connect CheckUser and CHU to article editing (and it's a loose relationship).Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    To turn the argument presented by Nishkid around, if AGK had 50% of his edits in the mainspace then there would be an argument that we would be losing enyclopedic contribution by asking him to take on other work. Fortunately, AGK has made slender contributions to the mainspace, so if that 5% dives to nothing at all then the net effect to the encyclopedia content is not particularly concerning. Pedro :  Chat  15:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Editing is editing. Every positive contribution helps build the encyclopedia. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I understand why this may be relevant at a RfA, but not at an RfB. With potential administrators they've got to know how to handle content disputes etc. Anthony has clearly demonstrated he can do that, and the 'toolset' that comes as a long as part of bureaucratship doesn't involve any additional editing abilities. AGK has some featured contributions which is more than some other successful admins and bureaucrats. Rudget (Help?) 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's relevant to me because I believe that people should engage in Wikipedia namespace activities as a side project to article editing. For Anthony, it seems he's only here to help out with Wikipedia-related tasks rather than editing. As I said in my oppose rationale, he's either got too much on his plate or he's lost focus of why we're here to begin with (seriously, no one comes to Wikipedia with the intent of clerking at WP:CHU). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    No one came here to open/close AFDs either (if I knew what an AFD was when I came here, I wouldn't be named "keeper"). Most of us came here in one way or another because we saw something valuable, or we saw something that needed fixin'. Some of us went right about adding FAs. Some of us went right about reverting vandalism. Some of us, after getting "hooked in" to the idea of Wikipedia, decided that the best place to be useful is by clerking at CHU. Again, AGK is volunteering to do this. The fact that he chooses 'cratship over content is not a detriment to him and is undeserving of an oppose. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Furthermore, I share JayHenry and Ral315's concerns, which were a topic of discussion at Anthony's second RfA. This post by Ral315 at Anthony's unsuccessful Meta RfA should explain my point. My prior interactions with this user might cloud my judgment, but to me, this just looks like another request for a position. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree with the idea that somone can have too many jobs. Having a job does not mean one can not do other things. Even if an admin or bcat uses their tools sparingly, that still helps us out. We need more admins and bcats--just look at all the backlogs we have. AGK is a fine wikian, fine admin, and will make a fine bcat. We need to stop being so hard on ourselves, then we may have more people running for admin and bcat; many qualified people don't run (esp for bcat) because it's such a brutal process all too often. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. — CharlotteWebb 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose It was a dark day when we started throwing adminship around like a barnstar, saying it's no big deal. Now we've moved on to chuck Crat-ship towards people, like its a "good-job Steve!" Becoming a Bureaucrat isn't a substitute for a pat on the back, or a Participation Trophy. It's a responsibility.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Hello Koji. I don't believe I've had the pleasure of interacting you, so I'm Ryan - very pleased to meet you :-) Just a quick comment about your oppose. I respect that bureaucratship isn't a pat on the back, it's a big responsibility. I don't think Anthony is seeing this as a reward - he's been working hard in bureaucrat areas for a long time now, and I think he wants the tools to simply help the project because he can do more in the areas that he already participates in. Anyway, it's just something to think about. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I wanted to be able to say "support" but there were some worrisome issues already here on the page by the time I checked it today, so I started off reviewing AGK/Anthony by going back to his earliest edits, to find out what brought him here. Those first edits are to train-related articles, which to me is usually a good sign, as I tend to like a lot of the "train" editors; however, two weeks into his editorship, this is his 16th edit. AGK has been pursuing the path to "hall monitorship" pretty well since he started here. Less than 15% of his total edits are to the mainspace—only 4% in the past 5 months; even an hour a week of RC patrolling or wiki-gnoming would impress me more than these numbers, as at least he would be getting his hands into the meat of the project. But tonight he is working on a featured article candidate instead of answering the questions on this page. This raises questions about his ability to set priorities and to correctly interpret the community's needs and opinions. I share the concerns that JayHenry, Ral315, and naerii have raised, particularly the paucity of recent edits that would give us evidence of how Anthony interprets consensus. I don't think much of the response to Question #2: I want to know how Anthony would address these situations, not how he expects the community to assume his responsibility (by extending a contentious RfA—a horrifying idea for any candidate to face) or how the bureaucrats as a group will make a difficult decision (by 'crat chats). Granting adminship is a bigger deal than being granted adminship, but only a small number of RfAs require any real decision-making. We !elect bureaucrats who are willing and able to make difficult but well-reasoned decisions and who have the personal credibility for the community to accept those decisions. I'm just not seeing the evidence for Anthony being able to pull that off, based on what he's done to date. Risker (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Hi there Risker. If you aren't convinced by my ability to weigh community opinions and arguments, and assess the presence of a basic consensus in a discussion, then there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise: my years on Wikipedia, and >1year as an administrator, would, I hope, speak for themselves in my ability to weigh up contentious decisions. I've certainly plunged into my fair share of them. I recognise that you want a response on how to assess the decision made in 'crat chats: to be very brief, the same way as one would close any discussion with a reasonably small participation. In any contentious case, a rationale of the factors taken into consideration when performing the close is expected: the factors for each case could be any number of things: strength of comment, "strong"/"weak" oppose, and whether the comments have ever been downgraded (strong oppose => oppose); previous involvement as an administrator, which may attract some ill-feelings; the list goes on. The same strategy will be applied to inter-bureaucrat consensus: weighing up the different opinions on either side of the fence, comparing the traits amongst the community consensus, and factoring in relevant influences. I suppose the most effective way of demonstrating that ability is really in being able to carry out such decisions: if you can think of any other ways I can convince you, please do let me know. Thanks for your comments, Anthøny 10:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per above. miranda 02:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Opppose per JayHenry. I appreciate AGK's work in dispute resolution, but I don't think expanding into (or formally accruing tools from) other areas is the right way to go. Nothing personal here, just a "not too many hats" principle. Instead of people holding all these tools and positions at once, a system of working in one area for a bit, then moving on, and eventually returning a few months or a year later, would seem better to me. Anything beyond being an editor and an admin should be handled this way, I feel. Sequential work and formally resigning various roles (or officially going inactive as, say, arbcom clerk), rather than a few people doing too much and individuals spreading themselves too thin, would be a better approach. Sorry for opposing on a philosophical point of principle. Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I agree with Naerii's and Ral315's concerns over the candidate's scaling of the ladder of WikiMandarinship (well put and computed by JayHenry), and balancing a whole hat shop on the top of his head. I also have a comment on the tone of this page (that part is in no way the candidate's fault, but I still want to say it). How about letting the opposers express their opinions—opinions which have been extremely civil, reasoned, and peaceable, mind you—without all the argufying? Each of you candidature enthusiasts may, separately, be justified in threading protests beneath the Opposes, but the collected weight of your posts is getting quite disagreeable. Even intimidating. Let the people oppose! Please! Bishonen | talk 14:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC).
  11. Oppose essentially per Naerii. I don't see the nom and candidate's statement as adequate explanation why the candidate deserves bureaucratship, and I don't recall seeing the user exercising his discretion and good judgement in terribly difficult circumstances on English Wikipedia, either. Cannot support at this time, sorry.--PeaceNT (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Of course, that's definitely not the case, if I may be so brash. :) Firstly, it's really a case of being able to help out as a bureaucrat, rather than "deserving it": it's an extra responsibility / duty, not a trophy. Secondly, I've been active in a rather large spread of bureaucrat activities over my time on Wikipedia: I absolutely have the experience necessary, if that's your concern. Lastly, I really don't think it's the case, that I rarely use good judgement or discretion on Wikipedia: I'm a very active administrator, and regularly tackle some pretty difficult decisions. It's simply not the case for either of your points, I'm afraid; I do, however, respect your opinion. Anthøny 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think you're brash :), and actually I believe we may have closer viewpoints than we sound. I certainly do not consider bureaucratship a trophy, either; it is precisely an extra duty, but a high duty where one must show their exceptional ability to be deserving of such job. This leads us to your second and third point; I have no doubt that you are a respected admin with wonderful experience in various areas, but perhaps you missed the last part of my sentence, I want you to show your good judgement and discretion in "terribly difficult circumstances". I don't think admins (even active ones) encounter tough enough circumstances everyday that show true character and prove them suited for bureaucratship. (To draw an anology, having wonderful article writing skills as an editor does not necessarily make a user excellent as an admin. Some decisions made by admins, no matter how difficult, are not relevant to bureaucratship, there are other factors involved.) And to expand upon what I think is relevant, I'd say I prefer to see admins with (already demonstrated) ability to give an accepted verdict in consensus-building discussions. This ability can be shown before one becomes a bureaucrat; there are discussions at XfDs and noticeboards and talk pages etc everyday! :) That said, considering that I have limited knowledge, would you convince me by citing incidents where you feel you have closed a difficult debate and exercised your ability to judge consensus? --PeaceNT (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Check out your talk page. ;) Anthøny 17:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - Wikipedia is not a hierarchy, bureaucracy or mandarin. This user appears to think oppositely. Per JayHenry and Naeri. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose as per lack of featured content experience and concerns about "mandarinship" by previous posters. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. I've thought about this a long while, and decided I really do have to oppose, per JayHenry. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per JayHenry. Additionally, in my experience, the candidate does not display the level of dispassion and circumspection that I expect in b'crats. He is much too likely to engage in partisan activity (a failing I also possess, and which also disqualifies me -- by my admission -- from the b'cratship.) Xoloz (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per JayHenry. Prodego talk 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Naerii and JayHenry, as well as per R.Baley comments in the Neutral section. Nsk92 (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Personally I like AGK but I find his approach to be to mechanistic and perhaps too process bound to match my ideal profile for a 'crat. And before anyone asks I'm not going to provide diffs because its my impression. Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    Interesting concern, Spartaz, and one that has never came up before. Thanks for raising this; I'll try and bear it in mind in the future. Anthøny 19:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Although I highly regard the admin, Rlevse's opinion in general, I can't share his supporting comment for AGK at this time. Wikipedia needs more admins, but I also see many problems regarding the urge. Wiki has a lot of retired or semi-retired editors from their admin position, however, they do not retired from Wikipedia though. I'm not saying that AGK has been lazy at one time, but he often was absent and had a lot of break. Besides, he already has a lot of jobs in his hand, so I also doubt whether he can handle all of things with his promotion. I have a higher expectation toward bureaucrats than admins but to me, AGK is just OKay as an admin. He seems to do good at his clerking for ArbCom, but the answers above doesn't sound like he could be humble. The beaurocrat template is really good (I think his ability as a Wiki designer is good), but it is like a planed preparation for his election campaign. Any of the answers do not give a deep impact on me. Especially, his mention of RFA regular/non-regulars is like "RFB is not really a big deal.--Appletrees (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose unfortunately per many of the concerns above. krimpet✽ 05:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral
  1. I have concerns at the moment. While they are not enough to make me want to oppose, I don't feel I can support at this moment, at least not until giving this further thought. My primary concerns are after looking at your contributions breakdown as compared to my own, and then looking at the "promises" you made on your RfA.
    1. You wrote quite a lot about planning to help with WP:AIV. According to your edit stats, you have made only 55 edits to that page (I've made 158, and I only really pay attention to that page when poked at it in IRC). Considering that this includes edits from before you were an admin, I tend to think something is afoot.
      1. A: I suppose the only explanation of why there the number of edits are somewhat lacking on AIV is that the robot now clears blocked users. The only edits required to that pages are minor tidy-ups, and removing of requests that do not warrant a block. As most posts to that page do require further administrator action, I've not had to make hundreds of edits there. I would like to say, however, that I've lived up to that promise there. Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    2. You noted that you wished to help out at WP:RM, due to a backlog. You have made 107 moves, compared to my 99, and I have hardly been involved at that page. A few of these indeed seem to have been part of your "Operation Capatalise All My SubPages", back in Feb 2007. The backlog at WP:RM still exists by the way.
      1. A: it seems this has been somewhat missed out from my post-RfA contributions. In fact, until your comment here, Martin, I hadn't given it any thought. The majority of my mainspace moves have been further to deletion discussion moves, so it is fair to say here that I've not followed through on my willingness to help out at WP:RM. Point taken on board, with no objections. Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    3. CAT:CSD rarely reaches the levels of backlog that we saw in the past, but it still needs a helping hand. That said, you have made 1251 deletions altogether. Looking at your RfA nom I think I'd expect this to be much higher, given that you express a great desire to help at XfD and in the "speedy arena". naerii notes that you have made very few XfD closures. I don't know what to say.
      1. A: with some responsibilities elsewhere, I believe that XfD has not received as much of my attention as it has in the past. I don't make any apologies for that, as different editors are required in different areas, but I do now realise that this has reduced the material reviewers of this RfB have with regards to my ability to gauge consensus. I am willing to undertake a refocus there; in fact, I feel that would be warranted. Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    4. You also make a deal of wanting to cut the wait times at WP:RFPP down from 10-15 minutes. In a week where I've seen a user complaining about having to wait six hours for a protection via that page, an eyebrow is raised. You have made 201 page protections.
      1. A: my contributions to RFPP have been quite useful, I'd suggest. Whilst I am no longer the 'regular' there that I once used to be (sort of!), I do handle requests there when I have time left over, and I'm well-rehearsed in the art of weighing recent activity on an article, against the effects of locking it down to non-vandalism contributions. I wouldn't say my page protections have been lacking, and they aren't going to stop at 201: I'm here to stay. Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    5. Under question 6, you say "I've successfully made edits a-plenty with AWB", while the stats suggest you've made only one. Is this mistake yours or the tools? (even if you were running a bot account I'd expect higher than that!)
      1. A: I have shared your question here, since I noticed SQL's tool returned a hit of 1 on AWB when I ran it recently (results, here). I think it's a mistake on the tools: I previously used AWB a lot (before I made the migration over to Mac, a system which does not support the program). I'm not familiar with how the tool tallies edits in such a way, however, and can't offer any further explanation. Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    6. Question 12 was left unanswered. I'm certainly interested as to what was going on there. It is with regards to you getting a rename (Anthony_cfc to AGK) days(?) before your RfA, claiming that it was for standarisation with your nicks across other projects, which seemed to be untrue given that on the projects you cited you were in fact using "Anthony_cfc".
    7. Now onto other stuff - you made 4 edits to your RfA after it closed... Why?! I'm slightly uncomfortable that you kept coming back to it when you should/could have been doing other, useful, things. One of those edits was to answer the question I asked above, regarding question 12. I shall leave the question to give you an opportunity to answer here if you so wish.
    8. Looking at your logs:
      1. I see masses of admin actions in the May you were promoted. Contributions were mixed - a little bit of everything.
      2. Then nothing in June - exams, I guess?
      3. In July, what jumps out at me is 3RR blocks and admin actions on some of your user subpages. There's an unremarkable amount of XfD work.
      4. More of the same in August, but I see a massive blitz against temporary user subpages. I'll note here that this number contributes to your deletions count (obviously), but that this means that your participation has been smaller in XfD and CSD than I originally thought.
      5. September nothing, but then that's commonly a busy time IRL.
      6. October reminds me of May.
      7. November: nice load of CSD deletions, but quite a few of these were in your own userspace.
      8. December: activity levels high in various areas.
      9. This year, though there have been bursts of activity in various areas, I tend to feel that most of your admin work has been in your own "areas of specialty" - MedCom, ArbCom, Checkuser. Yes, this is to be expected, and I can't compare you to anyone because I'm much more guilty of this (but then I'm not in an RfB! :p). Backlogs still exist though.
      10. From my privileged position as being on the medcom list, I can see that you're active in mailings there and are generally very involved in the bureaucratic nonsense that can spring up there. However there's been little mediation from recently. I also get the feeling that you're after WJBscribe's job as chair of medcom, but this may be me seeing things that aren't there... (other medcommers - thoughts?).
        1. Absolutely not the case. Check out my response to Daniel, below. Anthøny 11:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      11. Recently, your energy seems to be quite focused on 'crat areas: CHU, etc. Very little that's insightful on RfA or with bots. You also still seem to have fairly high activity levels with Arbcom clerking duties and Checkuser, though little in terms of actual mediation with MedCom I feel (looking relatively over the past few months - I think CU edits have dropped off since then). I know that we users have different strengths, but an ability to know when you're doing too much, or when you should drop positions, is important.
    I shall now stop waffling and make my real concern clear. I fear that you will be active as a crat only until the next opportunity for "promotion" pops around, after which you will crank up activity in the relevant area(s) (eg around ArbCom, if you were to go for the next AC election). My real feeling is that, seeing as you're active and enthusiastic, you should be fulfilling your "RfA promises" to fight the backlogs before seeking another position. I think that although you could perhaps be a help with crat tools, your time is better spent elsewhere where there is a greater need. Thanks, Martinp23 01:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per Martin, and concerns I have been holding since this question (asked on November 28, 2007), having only started expressing an interest one month prior. Rather than articulate my concerns, I'll allow others to join the dots which I believe connect to demonstrate what is becoming an evident pattern. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    "However there's been little mediation from recently. I also get the feeling that you're after WJBscribe's job as chair of medcom, but this may be me seeing things that aren't there... (other medcommers - thoughts?)" — interesting comment. I'd like to hear AGK's thoughts. AGK, should a discussion regarding the position of Chair be initiated in the next month-or-so regarding the second half of 2008, would you nominate yourself for it? If yes, do you agree that this is further evidence to what Martin is suggesting? I'd prefer to get your direct input before going off on tangents discussing what could be a moot point. Daniel (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    To offer a short answer: I won't be running for medcom chair in the coming elections, and don't ever plan to (I think there are folks more able to do it than myself). True, I've recently helped out at requests for mediation; that has simply been because of the recent backlog, and Will's busyness elsewhere (as a point of observation: he's a very active bureaucrat, and that's had at least some effect on his balance of time demands across the board; I have taken that into account, and factored it into my consideration of accepting Dweller's nomination). Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. I want to support (my inbuilt desires to trust people unless something made me take a different view), but some of the comments and opinions are pushing me towards oppose. So I'll wait here for a few more answers. KTC (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral leaning oppose. In addition to the concerns expressed in the oppose section above, I am concerned about AGK's recent unblock of User:Bsrboy as discussed in this ANI thread. The unblock was based on conversations that occurred on IRC. These same arguments, "extensive and exhaustive" as they were, should have been made at ANI, so that everyone could have input on-wiki. Not only did the discussion take place off-wiki, but the result went against the apparent consensus at WP:ANI. R. Baley (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    To be fair, my unblock was separate from the discussion at ANI, and wasn't based on a consensus anywhere (blocks and unblocks are technical measures, not bans) but rather my opinion as a reviewing administrator. Of course, I can't really offer any other explanation: the unblock has been working perfectly thus far (I've received no complaints as-yet), and furthermore, isn't directly related to my potential to be a productive bureaucrat. I appreciate your concern on the unblock, however, and am willing to discuss it with you in a more appropriate forum if you wish. Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. As with R. Baley, I was initially unhappy about the unilateral decision to unblock when a wider discussion was going on and the consensus was not to unblock. Upon seeing your reply here, I think it speaks of your judgement and consideration of other people's opinions; I'm not sure if you're bcrat material. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    That's the thing: I wasn't aware of an unblock discussion. :) There was no notification on his talk page (if there was, I apologise: I didn't follow the link), and Bsrboy (perhaps incorrectly) didn't point me to it in our extensive discussions. Either way, the unblock appears to be working a charm: I'm not seeing anything that could be labelled questionable edits, and all his contributions since my unblock have been constructive. I have always been an approachable administrator who is open to extensive discussion, and I always will be. Anthøny 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. JayHenry makes great points, but you are an amazing editor, and I can't oppose. That being said, I see you months from now as an arbitrator or Medcom chair if WJB leaves it rather than a bureaucrat. I might end up supporting, but make sure you take both sides to heart if this is something you want to do. Wizardman 14:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    As above; I won't be medcom chair, and I don't plan to be an arbitrator (especially not this year or next), either. I will, as you point out, endeavour to take on board the genuine concerns, so you can rest assured on that side of the boat. ;) Anthøny 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral: (From support): Sorry Anthony; but the things pointed out above are quite concerning. I think you do a great job with the stuff you're already doing, and I like to see the motivation you have to do more, but this seems rather extreme. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    Understandable, Rjd; no problem. ;) As I said to Wizardman, this is definitely a learning experience (all 'requests' are), and I'll be taking the concerns on-board. Anthøny 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Related pages