↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfB candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Wugapodes 121 28 3 81 Open 00:09, 16 June 2022 1 day, 21 hours no report
Lee Vilenski 140 6 2 96 Open 16:25, 15 June 2022 1 day, 13 hours no report
Current time is 02:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfB candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Wugapodes 121 28 3 81 Open 00:09, 16 June 2022 1 day, 21 hours no report
Lee Vilenski 140 6 2 96 Open 16:25, 15 June 2022 1 day, 13 hours no report
Current time is 02:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC). — Purge this page

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Tamzin RfA Successful 3 May 2022 340 112 16 75
Colin M RfA Successful 9 Apr 2022 178 0 3 100
Sdrqaz RfA Successful 25 Mar 2022 202 5 5 98

The community grants administrator access 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, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an account on Wikipedia. However, editing the RfA page is limited to extended confirmed users, so editors without an extended confirmed account may have their RfA subpage transcluded by someone who is. This is due to the community deeming that editors without the requisite experience (500 edits and 30 days of experience) are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship.[1] The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll. If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.


To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the ((RfX-notice)) on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA, but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters". There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). 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, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting, or responding to comments, in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like "baiting") consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[2] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[3] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 02:31:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

There are no current nominations.

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove 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, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. 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 candidate. ~~~~))

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 often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded ((RfX-notice|b)) on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship


Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (121/28/3); Scheduled to end 00:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


Wugapodes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – I am nominating myself for the bureaucrat role for two reasons. First, I believe I am qualified for what the role currently is: a group tasked with evaluating consensus at RfA. Second, I believe that the bureaucrat role can be a way to improve RfA, and I would use the role to implement the 2015 RfA clerking consensus which is a task currently lacking crats.

I have closed various large, project-wide discussions including those on RfA and its reform. I have the experience needed to evaluate consensus at RfA. Relevant closures include the 2022 discussion on Bureaucrat activity requirements and phase 1 of the 2021 RfA reform process. I have also commented on how to read consensus in RfAs including my assessment of consensus on the talk page of the most recent crat chat and my 2020 essay on the use of trend lines in assessing RfA consensus. Both have been discussed with current bureaucrats, and I believe my perspective on consensus would be a benefit to the current crat corps.

I believe bureaucrats can be more useful than they currently are, and that by electing more bureaucrats we can improve RfA. The prime example is the 2015 RfC consensus that crats should "deal with the 'hostility' problem" at RfA. When the community was asked how to prevent RfA from being a free-for-all of hostility and incivility, the community only trusted the crat corps to moderate discussions. Because many of our crats are semi-active, there are few crats available when an RfA happens. Those who are around need to maintain neutrality in case of a crat chat, and so are hesitant to clerk until after things get out-of-hand. In the vacuum of crat clerking, other editors have had to step in which caused further conflict. We have a consensus solution, but the problem remains because we do not have enough bureaucrats to cover the workload. With the community's agreement, I would like to take on the crat workload. Wug·a·po·des 21:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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: An RfA with 75%+1 support generally passes, and an RfA with 65%-1 support generally fails. In those ranges, crats should promote (or not) unless there is an unusual and compelling reason to doubt the integrity of the discussion (high-volume sock-puppetry or canvassing are clear examples). Inside that range, bureaucrats have discretion depending on their evaluation of consensus. If consensus is sufficiently clear, an individual bureaucrat may close a discussion in that discretionary range (Amanda did so in the 2019 Greenman RfA). More often though, a bureaucrat will hold a crat chat where they ask their colleagues to evaluate consensus and then close the RfA based upon the group evaluation.
I have written about how to evaluate consensus at RfA on the talk pages of crat chats and in an essay. My evaluation of consensus in the Tamzin RfA generated significant discussion and prompted two bureaucrats to engage with the community regarding their rationales. After the crat chat, my evaluation was reviewed positively by a current bureaucrat. Further down on that talk page, I discussed with Avi his method of reading consensus which led to a better understanding of different viewpoints on how much weight bureaucrats ought to give to changes in voting patterns. This is a pet issue of mine, and voting trend lines are the subject of my 2020 essay reading consensus at RfA. That essay likewise prompted discussion among the mathematicians at the crat chat, and Avi provided a thorough review on its talk page.
This is all to say, my views on the promotion criteria are well documented and I think that is more valuable than whatever I could say here. In general, I view the criteria for promotion when in the discretionary range to be general agreement that the candidate will not misuse the tools. If support is luke-warm and opposition is fierce, it is hard to view that as a consensus to promote. If support is enthusiastic while opposition is hesitant, there is an argument that promotion is correct. In cases where both sides are polarized, we'd need to look more closely to see how the discussion unfolded, and the links above are a better example of how I would do so. Wug·a·po·des 21:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A: The community appoints bureaucrats to make decisions on RfAs even when that decision might be contentious. That's the duty that comes with the tools. If the correct decision is to promote, I would promote (and the opposite for failed nominations). A good example of how to do this would be Amanda's close of the 2019 Greenman RfA. She closed it more like an RfC and provided the community with an extended rationale of what she saw as a clear consensus. I think that approach struck a good balance between bureaucrat accountability, respect for the candidate's time, and community oversight.
Of course, the reality is that the correct decision doesn't just jump out at us. The benefit of the crat corps is that I could ask other crats for their opinions. By thinking through the issue together we not only are likely to come to the right decision, but it also makes the decision harder to challenge. Having a crat chat is not harmless though, and should not be a tool of first resort. Candidates have pointed out that crat chats can be very stressful and the ordeal distracts editors from other parts of the encyclopedia. It's not straightforward how to weigh these, but I would prefer to ask other crats for opinions unless I was confident that the consensus was clear. Wug·a·po·des 21:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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: Generally I try my best to be fair, and engaging the community is an ideal way to make sure that everyone is on-board with a policy. While I could write an answer detailing how fair and smart I think I am, I doubt that would be very useful. Instead, I think examples of my decision-making and community engagement are more useful:
  • I started the discussion which increased minimum time for site ban discussions from 24 to 72 hours. This was motivated by a desire to increase procedural fairness and engage the community in making changes to policy that were being discussed in a less prominent venue. Similarly, I asked the community for its sentiment on binding administrator recall in 2019 to give everyone a chance to talk about the idea and hopefully serve as a spring-board for future policy development.
  • When I close discussions, I usually try to summarize arguments and relate them to documented policies. This not only helps justify the closure, but the cross-referencing makes the close more useful for future discussions and further policy development. In closing a 2021 RfC on how to cover a US mass shooting I took into account previous discussions on the issues from 2017 and 2018, considered policies such as WP:NOT, precedent from how other articles solve the issue, changes in how news organizations cover mass casualty events, scholarly literature, and the potential impacts our coverage has on the rest of the world. These were all topics debated by participants and led to a well informed debate with a strong consensus. I gave suggestions for how this might inform future policy changes, and it has been useful in more recent discussions on how our articles cover mass shootings. In my closure of a "straight pride" userbox MFD, I explained the main arguments of participants and how they connected our WP:POLEMIC policy with the social and historical context of the userbox. The debate was partly about how we can best articulate our community values, and my summary took into account how editors with the same principles might come to opposing conclusions. Framing the discussion in that way helped to explain the consensus that exists even among those who did not get their preferred outcome.
  • Sometimes editors are in heated agreement and while they may be going back and forth, there is actually a robust consensus underlying the dispute. My closure of a 2021 discussion on interwiki links to commons is an example of how paying serious attention to all sides' concerns can result in a stronger consensus than might appear at first glance. Having to summarize the major concerns, it becomes obvious that participants generally agree on the main principles but disagree on various specifics that are already part of our bot policy. The outcome is stronger and more fair as everyone's concerns are considered and given effect.
Wug·a·po·des 21:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Self-asked question
4. Since renaming was taken from bureaucrats and given to global renamers, the tasks of bureaucrats have been substantially reduced. At the moment, bureaucrats are primarily tasked with closing the rare RfA, participating in even rarer bureaucrat chats, and removing or readding sysop rights on request at the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. Some editors believe that these tasks are currently done with sufficient speed. If this is the case, why should we elect more bureacrats?
A: This is a question I've asked myself a lot, and my answer for the longest time has been "we shouldn't". Clearly my answer has changed. Over the last few weeks thinking about this question, I have three answers: (1) the bureaucrat corps as a whole is not particularly active in community governance and is not representative of the current editorial community; (2) Crat Chats prolongue the stress of RfA and should be as short as possible, so the more active crats we have, the faster crats can come to a consensus and close the RfA; (3) the current crat corps, with all due respect, has failed to implement the 2015 consensus that crats "deal with the 'hostility' problem" at RfA.
  • Crats are not representative of the community Many crats have served in that role longer than some editors have been alive. 3 of our 20 crats have served in the role for 18 years, and 12 of the 20 have served for over a decade. Active editors peaked in 2007 and fell until 2014 where it has remained stable since; 7 of our 20 crats have been elected since the start of that stability period. This most recent period however marks increasing gender, racial, and geographical diversity in Wikipedia editors. These editors bring valuable insight and new perspectives to all of our discussions, and have generally helped to move the project forward through participation in discussions and most recently through increasing diversity in our administrator corps. The benefits of these perspectives are not gained in crat chats. With few exceptions, participation is currently limited to editors who represent the community of 10 years ago. Additionally, this means that current editors feel that crats are some special class of editors, a senate or priesthood who we only dust off for crat chats. A crat corps which represents the community ensures that they are responsive to our needs and viewpoints which will reduce conflict when crats do get dusted off.
  • More crats mean crat chats can be closed faster Candidates who have recently gone through crat chats have spoken negatively of the experience. There are structural reforms that have been considered, but until they find consensus and are implemented, the community and crats should take steps where we can to reduce pain points. One way is to be expedient about closing crat chats, but this is hard when the group comprises 20 people half of whom are semi-active at best. There is additional functional problem: active crats are likely to participate in the RfA. Of the 7 crats elected since 2017, 3 were able to weigh in while 3 others had to recuse. this means that, to come to a consensus, we had to rely on our "reserve" of long-term, semi-active crats. The more active crats we have, the more we have available for crat chats, and the faster they get closed even after accounting for the crats that choose to participate in the RfA. This is currently a rare use case, but reducing the stress of a crat chat is one way the community can make RfA look less daunting and more appealing for candidates who might not get unanimous approval.
  • 2015 RfA reforms have not been adequately implemented and the problem is arguably getting worse. RfA sucks. In 2015 the community had a multi-phase discussion on how to reform RfA. Last year we had another round of reform discussions. I closed the first phase of the 2021 reform where the community proposed and discussed what issues need resolved. Despite the 2015 reforms, hostility remained a top concern of the community. The effects of this are dire: since the 2015 reform proposals, RfAs have continued to fall reaching an all-time low in 2021.
    The community identified the hostile atmosphere in 2015 and found consensus for a plan to address it: uninvolved bureaucrats should clerk RfAs. Despite this consensus RfAs are still hostile with little to no crat clerking. Few crats are active enough to watch RfAs day-to-day; those who are often participate in RfAs making them ineligible to clerk; contentious RfAs are likely to go to crat chat and so crats are faced with the choice of recusing from the crat chat or not clerking. Because of our limited number of bureaucrats, the pool of editors available to maintain decorum is small. The effects of this are not simply theoretical: two recent RfAs have led to widely-discussed incivility. Bureaucrats could have (and by community consensus should have) intervened more readily. Instead issues were resolved in ways that arguably led to more problems. In one RfA I attempted to try and maintain decorum, taking an admin action by revision deleting a comment (later upheld by oversighters at AN). In a more recent instance, an uncivil comment was eventually struck after 4 days of discussion, including escalation to ANI (and this RfA was being clerked by our youngest-by-RfA crat).
None of this is to say that I distrust our current crat corps. Quite the opposite. The point I am making is that our community has problems that could be resolved if the community elected more crats who represent our current ideas of how to make RfA a better place. If the community doesn't want me to take on some of that work, I'll be happy without it, but given the evidence I do not believe "no need for new crats" is a sustainable position. Until we pass RfA reforms that actually work, we need to elect more crats who are willing to be engaged in the day-to-day project of making RfA suck less. I believe RfB can be used to expand the role of crats if the community were to elect candidates who state a desire to do things that the community wants. In doing so, those crats can try new ideas, subject to community review at noticeboards or ratified through RfCs. If I'm going to ask others to do that work, I should at least offer to do some of it myself. Wug·a·po·des 21:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Self-asked question
5. How should bureaucrats clerking RfA weigh the need to maintain decorum with the need to encourage free and open debate?
A: I believe RfA is a discussion, not a vote, which in my estimation is a diminishing perspective among editors. I have no problem being in the minority on that issue, but it does inform my perspective on this question; because I believe RfA is a discussion, I also believe that interfering in the discussion is not a something to be done lightly. Editors should have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion and be fully informed as to their colleagues' views. With that said, personal attacks and incivility are corrosive to free and open debate. Editors are unlikely to voice their opinion if they feel they will be harassed or belittled because of it, and so like any large venue for discussion, maintaining decorum is an important aspect of protecting everyone's ability to participate. Having presented and participated in academic conferences, this is not a new debate for me as some senior academics are known for their uncivil or demeaning remarks, and conference organizers have worked to address the chilling effect this has on scholarship. I would use my experience in that area to inform my approach to balancing the need for decorum with the need for free debate:
  • In most cases, a formal comment reminding the editor of decorum is sufficient. This can be done by a bureaucrat in reply to the comment along the lines of Crat comment: Please remember to keep feedback constructive. Feedback which is unconstructive, needlessly personal, or incivil discourages both the candidate and other editors from considering a future RfA. ~~~~ This makes clear that the comment contributes to a structural problem. It's not just bad for the candidate, it's bad for everyone because it makes it less likely that others will want to try an RfA. It also provides guidance to other editors afterwards so that they consider their words more carefully, hopefully avoiding further problems.
  • In rare cases where there are significant concerns about the comment but it contributes some value to the discussion regardless, I would build upon our current practice of "moving discussion to the talk page." As it stands, we only move the threaded discussion to the talk page, but the original, sometimes polemic, comment remains. This is generally appropriate where the discussion gets long but the original comment is benign ("oppose: candidate doesn't like the color blue" followed by 75 comments saying that's not a good rationale). When the original comment is not benign, it actually obscures the community's efforts to resolve incivility (see meatball:DefendEachOther). In cases where the original comment has serious problems, I would move the whole thread to the talk page, including the rationale, and leave behind a numbered !vote with the editor's signature followed by a statement that the rationale and discussion was moved to talk. In contrast to straight-up removal, this preserve's the editor's !vote, and other editors can view the rationale in context if they want to without leaving comments lacking in decorum visible on the page.
  • In the rarest of cases where an editor's comment clearly violates policy, consisting of personal attacks, criminal accusations, or incivil rants unrelated to the candidate, I would remove the comment completely and leave the editor a talk page message warning them about decorum and inviting them to rephrase. I don't anticipate this being used often; ideally never.
These three tools, used appropriately, are concrete ways that bureaucrats can improve the decorum and atmosphere at RfA. They generally maintain the editor's participation in the numerical counts, and generally allow editors to continue discussion without interference. Only in the most severe cases would those principles be compromised. They also leave open the ability for the community to provide adequate oversight for bureaucrat actions in these situations. Editors can raise concerns (like they always do) in reply to a comment, bringing it to the attention of a bureaucrat. Similarly, if a crat moves a comment to talk, editors can review whether that was an appropriate action. Generally we would hope that crats are already in touch with community norms, but in the instances where their judgment turns out to not be perfect it helps to provide guideposts through editorial consensus. Wug·a·po·des 21:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Self-asked question
6. Will you be open to recall?
A: I plan to use a system modified from steward confirmations. Given recent community input at the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard, 5 years seems to be a reasonable term limit for crats. Every 5 years I will have a community consultation on whether I should retain bureaucrat rights with notifications at AN, BN, and the RFA talk page. Following 7 days of discussion, the discussion will close and I will ask other bureacrats to determine consensus through a crat chat. My bureaucrat rights will be removed if a majority of crats believe there is no consensus for me to retain the tools. Ideally other crats would participate as well, and the community may wish to consider making this a binding policy requirement. Wug·a·po·des 21:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Barkeep49
7. Only seems fair to ask what do you think of the thoughts Tony and I have expressed about the same person being an arb and a crat? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm not convinced by the arguments but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable. There was a discussion at BN in May that touched on arb-crats, and around that time I recall you sharing the same position you do in the comments here (I can't seem to find it at the moment). It was something I certainly considered before deciding to run, but since we're here I obviously didn't view it as a blocker. I'm trying to avoid my usual tendency to be long-winded, but since you asked for my thoughts I may as well give you what you asked for.
The question to start with is why might arb-crats be a problem? You and Tony give slightly different answers but the gist of both seems to be concentration of power in a small number of people. That's a real problem to consider and largely the reason why I don't think the concern should be dismissed out-of-hand. That's not the only consideration, so we need to consider the practical implications.
Let's start with the arguments on their own terms and assume that you're right about arb-crats being a problem that should be resolved. Tamzin, in her comment below, points out what I think is the critical problem I have with that line of argument: if we elect more crats the magnitude of the problem tends to diminish. The number of arbitrators is strictly bounded, but the number of crats is not. So if we accept, for the sake of argument, that arbcrats are a problem, then there is an upper limit to how bad the problem can get. When considering the arbcrat-to-crat ratio, if the focus is on limiting the numerator (arbcrats) we have to accept a new problem: either we lose qualified crats or we lose qualified arbs. The alternative, focusing on increasing the denominator (crats), resolves the problem without introducing collateral effects on the quality of the arbitration committee or crat corps.
This all assumes that arb-crats are a problem to be solved which I'm not convinced of. For example, consider Tony's argument: Regardless of whether or not the individual is trusted, being part of a small group in frequent communication encourages group think in discussion. This discussion between you and me is already a counter-example: we are both on the committee and manage to disagree just fine. I would say that of the members of the Arbitration Committee, you are the on I am most frequently in contact with, and despite that we still manage to disagree rather profoundly on various issues. The potential for group-think should be acknowledged, but clearly it is not so strong a tendency that an arbcrat would be unable to think independently; I manage to do so right now without the crat bit.
To your point, Arbs also being crats is bad for the social fabric of our project in how it concentrates high level permissions into a small group of people. I prefer a far more egalitarian version of Wikipedia. I'm also not moved to consider this a problem as you've framed it. To be up front, I also share an egalitarian view of Wikipedia and have successfully unbundled a niche admin tool, reviewed and reversed old protections so that non-autoconfirmed editors can improve pages, and was the one who added unprotection reasons to the protection interface drop-down. I point these out because those are the areas that I believe present the greatest threat of centralized power. The number of arb-crats is not a coincidence: the cursus honorum to RfB or ACE is incredibly selective and at various points brutal. It is a leaky pipeline, and by the time we get to RfB or ACE we are only left with a handful of editors willing to put up with it all. Arb-crats are the result of a system that actively discourages users from seeking advanced permissions. My explicit goal in requesting RfB is to make RfA suck less, and I believe that will do more to resolve the problem of power centralization than not electing arb-crats would.
With all that in mind, I considered the potential opposition due to concerns around arb-crats and did not see them as blockers. I still don't, but I can understand why someone would. Ultimately that just means it is something for the community to decide. Wug·a·po·des 04:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Dolotta
8. What consensus assessment are you proudest of?
A: I put my "best" in my answer to question 5, but while I'm proud of all of my closes, I think I'm proudest of the 2020 Kyiv move discussion. I have a minor fascination with WP:COMMONNAME and it was a really interesting discussion to read because of the debate over that guideline. I think I did a good job summarizing the debate, and I'm particularly proud of how I managed to explain the commonname guideline. It also sticks out in my mind for what happened afterwards. It was endorsed at move review which is always a nice confirmation, but it apparently also made the news in Ukraine making it my most noticed close. It also came to mind following the Russian invasion of Ukraine this year; given the coverage from English-language sources, I think it confirms we made the right decision. Wug·a·po·des 04:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Nosebagbear
9. As Crat Chats traditionally continue until all 'crats who have said they will render an opinion have done so, rather than when there is 50%+1 of all crats in agreement - why do you think your presence would lead to a CratChat being closed faster?
A: Crats who are semi-active tend to have meatspace reasons for that. Because of the limited number of crats there is a pressure to participate even if you can't get to it immediately due to other obligations. Who else would do it otherwise? And so they indicate they will opine and we wait. More (active) crats helps relieve that. If we get, say, 10 crats to opine in the first few hours of a crat chat and the outcome is clear, then there's no need to chime in and the chat gets closed faster.
Additionally, while tradition and professional courtesy are important aspects of collegial respect, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and there's no need for crat chats to be days-long affairs. Crat chats are a last resort and an exception to the typical practice of a bureaucrat closing the RfX alone. The point of a chat is for a closing bureaucrat to consult with colleagues before making a decision. Once that feedback is received and the outcome clear, the discussion should be closed per WP:CRATCHAT: Past experience has shown that bureaucrat discussions usually work best when they operate over a short time frame. Once several bureaucrats have participated, if agreement arises, the RFA or RFB is closed as usual. I already prod crats along when mired in endless agreement (see my recent close at BN), and would continue to do so in crat chats to prevent them from dragging on when the outcome is already clear. Wug·a·po·des 18:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Nosebagbear
10. I think the biggest effect your presence would have will be on clerking. What are the core specific focuses on this, are there some non-obvious examples you can give? Is your focus more on questions, opposes, comments etc?
A: So I'm a little unclear on "core specific focuses" and feel stupid for not asking for clarification sooner. I'm going to assume you meant for a comma to be in there, and that you want to know my main focuses in specific rather than general terms. My focus would likely be on comments and opposes because questions and support sections tend to avoid the kinds of discussions and conflict that can spiral out of control. That said, I think it's worth considering why those areas tend to be where unhealthy conflict occurs.
The policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Avoiding personal attacks gives a good explanation of the general kinds of comments that I think wind up creating a particularly harsh atmosphere, and these are what I would imagine the "formal comment reminding the editor of decorum" strategy would be most useful for. At RfX we consider candidates, so it's hard to avoid talking about a person's actions, but we can avoid personalizing concerns. Consider the opposition to this RfB. It's personal in the sense that it's about me, but it's not personalizing; the focus is on articulating criteria for the position and evaluating whether I meet those criteria. The feedback is constructive and provides clear guidance on what would get them to support should I request crat again. Unfortunately that is not always the kind of comment that gets made at RfX. Compare the opposition here with the opposition at 1997kB's RfA. Editors characterized 1997kB's content as not "meaningful"; while perhaps not up to our standards we should consider that it was meaningful to him. Consider alternative ways that we often raise this concern, "insufficient" content creation or "not enough experience with XYZ process". These are less personal, more constructive, and avoid discouraging an otherwise productive editor. Advising participants of this early before it takes off can not only improve the atmosphere but actually improve the advice given to candidates.
The conflict in the oppose and comments section is not solely on the shoulders of opposers; we often see concerns of "badgering" opposition in ways that supporters don't face. This encourages combativeness and defensiveness while discouraging editors who would oppose if the environment were less hostile. RfX is a discussion, so we should be open to going back-and-forth, but we don't need to make it a battleground or a show of force. An example to consider is CASSIOPEIA's RfA. I opposed (number 26) and there was some threaded discussion that got me to be more specific; an example of a productive discussion. Compare that to the threaded discussion over TonyBallioni's oppose (moved to talk). It immediately became a debate over policy rather than the candidate, and was correctly moved to the talk page where the meta-discussion was more useful. A more complicated example to consider is Sdrqaz's RfA where all 5 opposes had threaded discussion. Of the 5, three were moved to talk (and not even by bureaucrats who ought to be the ones doing it). I'm not going to say the opposition is a shining example of constructive feedback, but these are the kinds of situations where my second strategy from A5 (leave number and signature, move whole thing to talk) would be useful. The opposition was not particularly reasonable and vaguely polemic, and the community objected quite vocally to it...but only one of those things gets moved to the talk page. The kinds of threaded discussion that arise are quite different but we so far only have a blunt tool to deal with it. In some cases it works well, in others it does not. One focus would be using more nuanced strategies that can accommodate variation in the "heat-to-light ratio" of threaded discussion.
I hope those are specific enough examples which give you insight on the kinds of issues I would focus on and how I would read and approach discussions. Feel free to ask a follow-up question as well. Wug·a·po·des 02:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from RoySmith
11. You are listed as an "Inactive" arb. I assume that means other things in your life have eaten into the time you have to work on wikipedia. If that's the case (and please correct me if my assumption is incorrect) why does it make sense to be taking on additional responsibilities at this time?
A: It's a fair assumption but incorrect. In May a series of personal issues took me away from the encyclopedia: my sister was graduating, I was traveling back home to see her and my family, a white supremacist murdered multiple people in my hometown. My attention was elsewhere, and I was marked inactive. Those are not recurring demands on my time or emotional energy, and I've returned to the encyclopedia having just finished an update to the DYK technical infrastructure and facilitating an edit-a-thon last weekend. I was on the last monthly ArbCom call so I'm keeping up with the discussions. It's nothing about my currently available time, I just haven'thadn't seen a need to move my name to the other column.I'll do so if you feel strongly about it.
To your question on time commitments, I don't see crat being a significant demand on my time. RfAs are still rare, and pushing buttons at BN won't take long should I be first on the scene. Wug·a·po·des 18:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now; there were two case requests made around the time I posted this RfB. I check most noticeboards manually, including Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, so I'm just seeing them now. I take back what I said, I hadn't seen a reason, but a case request is something I feel obliged to participate in. I've moved myself back to active. The rest of my answer still holds. Wug·a·po·des 00:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
12. Do crats have the right to use their discretion – or rather, WP:IAR – in their decision making, or do they have to compulsorily follow policy in each and every decision?
Comment: I've taken a crack at copyediting this question for clarity; the pre-copyedit version was Do Crats have the right to use there discretion rather WP:IAR in there decision making or have to compulsory follow policy in each and very decision ?. Hope this helps! I couldn't figure out if by "do", they meant "should"... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 18:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: WP:IAR is policy, so the answer is yes! That's not helpful and misses the point of your question, but it points out a very real tension in how decisions get made. I actually asked a similar question of WereSpielChequers in his 2020 RfB (see Q5) so it's a question that's been on myind a while.
The crat bit is dangerous. In Lee's RfB, Izno and other techies outline in the general comments some of the very serious vulnerabilities that it introduces. The bit represents a high level of trust, and with that trust comes duties. It should be used with restraint, to effect community consensus, and always for the betterment of the project. These are usually documented in our policies which is why it is critically important for bureaucrats to follow them closely. But our policies cannot forsee everything, and sometimes they are vague or only exist in tradition. This is why we have IAR, to cover those times where finite policy fails to cover the infinite space of possibilities. For Crats these should be rare but not forbidden. Part of the trust is that IAR will be used judiciously and only with good and well-explained reasons. It's not an either-or but a yes-and. Wug·a·po·des 19:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from The Most Comfortable Chair
13. Under which "exceptional circumstances" will you support extending an RfX beyond its usual seven day period?
A: I can't really think of any particularly realistic situations. 7 days is a long time, and there's only so many editors interested in commenting on an RfX. Given that we advertise these things on watchlists, if consensus hasn't been reached in 7 days, it's hard to imagine how an additional day or more will be a net positive choice. It's not impossible, but the comment pattern and turnout would really need to be exceptional. If there's abnormally low participation after 7 days (maybe it ran over a popular holiday weekend and we were all busy) then giving more time might be useful. If on day 6 or 7 there was some crucial information that editors could not have known from reviewing contributions, then that might warrant an extension or restart. To be clear I distinguish this from a controversial diff; we should assume editors are capable enough to review contributions themselves. I'm thinking something like the candidate admits to having engaged in undisclosed paid editing; that's something no one could have reasonably discovered from on-wiki information alone, but would be information they would probably want to consider. These aren't exactly realistic, but they're the kind of "exceptional" situations where 7 days would not be enough time for editors to have participated and reviewed all information. In general we should respect editors' intelligence and assume they make informed decisions; only in exceptional circumstances should we second guess that and change the RfX timeline. Wug·a·po·des 01:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Hawkeye7
14. Experience has shown that precipitous and controversial bureaucrat action is more likely to be taken by the oldest and most experienced bureaucrats rather than the newest ones. Given that the bureaucrats have resisted attempts by the community to restrain them with procedures, what are your thoughts on how to go about addressing this?
A: I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that "precipitous and controversial" actions are more likely from older crats. I'm also not sure that I agree bureaucrats have resisted attempts to restraint them; I share the sense that bureaucrats like their autonomy and resist roles they were not elected for, but I'm not sure that's exclusive to the group. I guess to share my experience, and part of why I was interested in an RfB at all, is that when we consider adding new roles to crats, I recall seeing claims that it's outside the scope of what they were selected for. So if we want crats to do more than show up to a crat chat once every few months we either need to force new roles on them (and likely have the already small number shrink further) or we elect more crats who are willing to do new tasks as assigned (selected from a vanishingly small pool of applicants).
While I think the second option is better, I also think the community has been somewhat shy in asking for more from crats. When we consider how to improve the encyclopedia, crats usually just get forgotten about crats. Most RfB templates only got updated because Lee and I ran RfBs, the WP:CRAT page is at best a technical manual, and WP:CRATCHAT is remarkably vague if you don't already know what a crat chat is. At best crats get given a vague task like "assess consensus" or "clerk RfA", and then given little community oversight as to what that actually means. This combination means it's hard to see crat actions as predicatble or transparent, but we only consider the problems once every few months at best before it fades away and nothing meaningfully changes.
If the community ratifies expectations for bureaucrats which are clear about what, when, and how we want crats to perform actions, I think it would go a long way in developing a crat corps whose actions are more predictable and transparent. This is what I tried to do in answers 5 and 6: be clear about what, when, and how a particular consensus can be implemented. I think these would be useful restraints on what is currently poorly limited discretion regardless of whether I am a bureaucrat or not. Wug·a·po·des 08:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Mhawk10
15. A number of editors who oppose granting you the bureaucrat user right indicate general opposition to making another member of the Arbitration Committee a bureaucrat. If you become a bureaucrat, would you continue to serve as a member of the Arbitration Committee through the completion of your current term and/or consider seeking re-election after your term expires?
A: Arbcom hasn't been as bad as I feared, but it's still not something that I'm interested in doing long term. With that said, I committed to a two-year term and intent to fulfill that commitment as best as I can. If there is a consensus to promote I would serve on ArbCom until the end of my term, but I don't plan to have a second term unless there's really no one who runs that year. If there is no consensus to promote, I'll probably request bureaucratship at the end of my ArbCom term given the comments, though that depends on things like whether I still see a need or whether it's a task I still would want to do. Wug·a·po·des 07:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from Robert McClenon
16 What in particular (if anything) do you think that you as a bureaucrat, or bureaucrats in general, can do to facilitate an increase in the number of administrators and/or to reduce the toxicity of RFA?


RfBs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

  1. Support – delighted to see this RfB happening. Wugapodes has a solid record of assessing consensus prudently even in difficult discussions, and I'm confident they'll be a great crat. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support without hesitation! Very well-suited to this position, and I absolutely love their insights into RfA. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 00:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support heck yeah! He deserves it 100%. A great editor. Sea Cow (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I encouraged Wugapodes to run as a bureaucrat four months ago, highlighting why their perspective was needed despite the general lack of RfAs (I said 'crat chats, and one happened a couple of months later). I am pleased to see them make a strong, positive case for the role, highlighting other deficiencies they see. While I may regularly disagree with Wugapodes, I trust in their judgement and intellectual rigour. I do not believe that they will express opinions unless they truly believe in them. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm of the opinion that we need to throw RfA out and start over. I am deeply pessimistic for any attempt to fix the system as it is. However, if there is one thing that stands maybe some chance of helping, it is increased bureaucrat engagement in the process. Primefac did a good job of that in my RfA, but was one bureaucrat trying to keep the peace among 450+ voters. At the end of my RfA, it was a huge relief seeing the 'crat team restore order during the 'crat chat—well worth the extra 35 hours—but I wish there had been more of that even-keeled institutional wisdom throughout the seven days. Wugapodes is nothing if not even-keeled and wise, and so they have my enthusiastic support. While I understand the general concern about arb-'crats, I think the solution is to elect more non-arb 'crats, not to vote against qualified arbs who run. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Firm Support – I have come to know Wugapodes primarily through their technical work at DYK. He has really been beneficial to DYK for getting processes in order. He has demonstrated to me to be a good, solid, reliable, level-headed individual. And when we need him, he shows up pretty soon after being pinged. Those are qualities we need in a bureaucrat. I think he'd be good at this. — Maile (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Thank you for volunteering. Levivich 01:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are hundreds of active admins but in 2021, 11 people ran for arb, and no one ran for crat. In 2020, 12 people ran for arb and 3 ran for crat. I don't think it's realistic to expect separate candidates for the two perms. I would be concerned about the concentration of power if there were any actual power involved. There are so few people interested in volunteering for these tasks that barring some disqualifying reason, pretty much anyone who wants to sign up should be welcomed and thanked. Levivich 22:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Leijurv (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I've no concerns at all. -- ferret (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I offered to nominate Wugapodes a while back; glad to see he's come out with the self-nom. bibliomaniac15 01:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I believe that most arbitrators are capable of exercising enough independent judgment that this will not jeopardize the fairness of the crat chat process. With respect to the impact on the egalitarianism of the project, I see it as minimal: the role of bureaucrats in particular is relatively tiny within the broader administration of the project (so much so that Barkeep49, you recently proposed merging the role into CUOS). In my view, Wugapodes will bring an insightful new voice to the bureaucrats team, so I support. Mz7 (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I think Wugapodes is eminently qualified for the role, and particularly agree with Extraordinary Writ's and Maile66's comments above. DanCherek (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Disgraced Former Crat Support but I knew a thing or two about consensus. Andrevan@ 02:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. SUPPORT. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeplissken10 (talkcontribs) 03:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I see no issues on why he shouldn't be a bureaucrat that are of concern to me, he is ready! Toad40 (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Why not? -FASTILY 03:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Despite my disagreement with his opinion on Tamzin's RFA where he dismissed the concerns of the Oppose position as "self defeating" when concerns are brought out, his multiple efforts to reform the RFA is to be very appreciated. He is very qualified for the role at hand.✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support with multiple attempts to reform the RfA process which is now too contentious and stressful now. Thingofme (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Volten001 05:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per Sdrqaz, and the interest in RfA process reform. Beccaynr (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support No concerns and we do need more crats. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Stephen 05:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 05:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. per noms and Sdrqaz. firefly ( t · c ) 07:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Sane --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. trusted, good interactions, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per nomination statement and trusted user .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support as I think the answers and nom show a clear understanding of the role as the wider wiki community sees it, but I note that I have similar issues as TonyBallioni with concentration of powers encouraging group think. However I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. SamWilson989 (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per the thoughtful and well-reasoned answers to questions (including his own). Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  31. While knowing little more about Wugapodes than that they are a highly competent, respected and long serving editor I applaud the widening of the 'crat experience base and support their nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support good answers and reasoning for the role. Terasail[✉️] 12:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support know the name and have had no issues in any interactions. I share a slight concern about 'crat/ArbCom overlap, but not enough that I think Wug shouldn't be a 'crat. Star Mississippi 13:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - I completely understand TonyBallioni's concerns, however I think they can be easily mitigated by Wuga abstaining from any RfAs that they may be involved with as an Arb. I do not consider it important enough to disbar them cratship. Anarchyte (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Has a well-thought out goal of improving RfA instead of ineffectual hand-wringing about its current problems, and is willing to take on that task. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per the extremely well-thought out reasoning for adding to the crat corps, and the significant expertise Wug in particular brings to the group. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support as he has been a strong and sensible voice for common sense in difficult discussions in the past. GenQuest "scribble" 15:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  38. SupportKurtis (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support An obvious choice for crat. I believe we do need a few more crats, per Tamzin's RfA and this contributor has demonstrated the judgement an arb or a crat requires, plus the trust and respect of the admin corps. BusterD (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Fully proven out, and did a through excellent job in the nomination. One quibble is that IMO the needed RFA fixes are not something bureaucrats can do. I thank the folks for their vigilance on the important issue of concentration of power, but feel that that is not a big issue with this particular appointment. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I had forgotten about the need for moderation during RfA, which is "assigned" to 'crats per current consensus. Given the need for enough 'crats to remain neutral and uninvolved in the case of a 'crat chat, that means not enough are willing to step in until the proverbial excrement strikes the rapidly rotating blades. Wugapodes also being on Arbcom is not an issue for me since the whole RfA/RfB/ACE process has become so toxic that not enough editors are willing to put up with it – the "concentration of power" is the result of our own shortsightedness. If Wugapodes can initiate change from within, then so much the better. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Exceptionally reasonable. – SD0001 (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Trustworthy editor. ~Swarm~ {sting} 17:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Wugs is a trusted, reliable user who is clearly qualified for the role, and in truth there is no "great power"that comes from being a 'crat. The vast majority of the modern 'crat workload is just acting on obvious consensus. It strikes me as deeply unfair to oppose just because some other 'crats already got elected to arbcom. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, eloquent and thoughtful around RfA. We probably don't agree on the best next steps for RfA, but that is fine. I don't see the "arbs shouldn't be crats" argument as particularly convincing: bureaucrat is for life, arb will stop in 18 months (subject to a new election giving the community another chance at deciding how many hats are ok to have). Also happy to see that self-nominations still exist. —Kusma (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support We need more active crats who can talk eloquently and put forward a good and persuasive argument. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I've not actually read any of this, but I've seen Wugapodes here and there and already have all the information I need. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support though I'd very much have preferred that this RfB had not happened while on Arbcom per Barkeep49. But that's not what happened and I think Wugapodes is highly qualified and clearly a net positive. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, I do not see why we need more crats at this point, but beyond this I do not see any other reason not to support--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support: my 2020 support for Wugapodes at RfA was somewhat understated. Wugapodes is one of the most trustworthy, skilled and accountable assessors of consensus on the project. Moreover, they demonstrate more clearly than I could why new bureaucrats who have joined us recently (if 7 years, a third of the project's age, is "recent"), who are up-to-date with current community norms and who change the demographic make-up of the group are needed.
    I will support just about any proposal to change RfA, but this concrete proposal of clerking is something I am compelled to support even though I am usually very skeptical that clerking can make a substantial difference at RfA. Such is the strength of Wugapodes' writing and exhaustive consideration of all aspects of a topic. I also approve of their recall proposal (about as concrete as a commitment you can make given the community have somehow never codified recall).
    I actually agree completely with their reply to #7, including that it is reasonable to oppose an arbitrator's RfB over the centralisation of power. This is the only reason I do not modify my support with "strong". But RfBs are few and far between and, as Wugapodes gives evidence of, often hand people the role for well over a decade; in contrast, I believe no current arb has been in the position continuously for all of the last five years (one comes close). I believe the positives of having Wugapodes as a crat more than outweigh the issues (none of which are personal, and only a matter of role distribution amongst the community). — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I remain not fully convinced that we *need* new bureaucrats, but some people think we do and they certainly don't hurt. With that in mind, Wugapodes is qualified and will bring a fresh(er) pair of eyes. In addition, in general and as amply demonstrated on this page, he is a good communicator. Regarding reasons to oppose, I don't think I agree with TonyBallioni that having too many arbs as crats will lead to groupthink (I think arbs tend to be pretty diverse in their opinions on many things, and to the extent there is implicit groupthink, this is offset by the reduction in crat groupthink at bringing on board a less wiki-grey-haired crat.) Finally, the more general point on risks of concentration of power (arb/crat overlap) has some validity, just to me it is not as big a deal as it's made out to be. Martinp (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some opposes reference Wugapodes' desire to clerk RFA more intensely, and take issue on some of his PoV regarding role of the WMF. Regarding the former, I think it's worth trying. Regarding the latter, I doubt it will be relevant too often in the bureaucrat role, and to the extent it is, I value having representation in the bureaucrat corps of a diverse set of viewpoints on governance issues. I respect that any imposition of policy by fiat by the WMF is resented by the community (especially when imposed ham-handedly, as has happened), but I am equally unwilling to pre-commit that it is never beneficial, or to exclude from consideration for bureaucratship someone who takes a more nuanced view than "WMF, stay out of the community's hair". So, for what it's worth, I reaffirm my support.Martinp (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  53. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. I think RfB should be less of a big deal than RfA, because it's much harder to abuse the crat tools than the sysop tools (accidentally or intentionally). I therefore intend to support most qualified candidates at RfB. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Clear thinking is always welcome. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. --Andreas JN466 23:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Newer 'crats are a good thing, and I am not sure I buy the groupthink/ArbCom line of reasoning to oppose. We trust ArbCom to do a whole host of things despite the frequent offwiki communication between Arbs. If groupthink is not a problem there, I do not believe it will be one at a 'crat chat, especially considering that there are crats who are not Arbs. HouseBlastertalk 00:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per thoughtful, thorough closes. As for the groupthink concern, I feel like the way to address it is through policy changes if it becomes an issue, rather than opposing individual RfBs or voting against an arb candidate before it's clear there's an actual problem. Folly Mox (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. I'm glad to see newer editors stepping up to be 'crats, I respect Wugapodes as an editor, and I'm impressed with their answers to the questions. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having skimmed the oppose section to review the concerns, I continue to support. Opposers have provided an abstract argument that we should separation of powers, but have not provided concrete examples of how the roles could conflict. In a perfect world, perhaps we'd have enough qualified candidates stepping up to these roles to enforce separation, but in lived reality, the practical need for new 'crats articulated in the nom is more salient. I find the arguments from single-issue !voters still upset about Framgate unfortunate — Wugapodes clearly has an extremely high level of community trust, and that shouldn't entirely vanish just because he took one reasonable stance with which you personally disagree. ((u|Sdkb))talk 17:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Canidate statement should end with Q.E.D., especially per Q7. HiDrNick! 03:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Good impression of this candidate. Their replies are often thoughtful and poignant, bringing clarity to complex issues. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  62. SupportLocke Coletc 05:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Clearly competent and understands the job. Maproom (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. As an Arbcrat, I firmly believe there is no problem with Arbcrats. Nearly a decade ago, when I ran for crat as an arb, most of the 10% who opposed my request did so for exactly the same rationale, so things do have a habit of repeating. Myself, I'd rather focus on the merits of the candidate, and regarding that, I have been working with Wugupodes now for 6 months, and have found him to be cool headed, willing to give consideration to issues and fair minded. Overall, I think he'd make a great crat, and I don't see any disagreement with that point above or below. That's what we're assessing, that's what matters. WormTT(talk) 09:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support — Wugapodes has articulated well–thought–out and exhaustive answers to questions — a quality that precedes their reputation. Time and time again they have proven to be capable of assessing consensus accurately, especially when discussions were convoluted. Their ability to fairly weigh opinions, rightly evaluate consensus, and express their reasoning in a clear and thorough manner make them as good a candidate as any for bureaucratship. — The Most Comfortable Chair 09:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I remain unconvinced by the opposition's rationale, which is largely based on policy positions rather than anything that directly relates to Wugapodes. Not only is someone's RfB the wrong avenue to raise this issue, it is also unfair to the candidate, who we should be assessing based on their work and not on a lack of policy distinction. Additionally, there is nothing that the candidate has done which would suggest that they would abuse their position — not that there is much potential for abuse in being an Arbitrator–Bureaucrat to begin with.
    Of course, everyone has their own criteria, however this particular line of thought feels arbitrary. Hypothetically, if the Arbritration Committee did not have any bureaucrats right now, would this still be that significant an issue? Basing opposition to someone's RfB candidacy on constituents of the Arbitration Committee, especially when there is a lack of foundation or evidence for Arbitrator–Bureaucrats being a problem, does not seem justifiable.
    Should the community feel the need to enforce a separation — which I would personally support for due checks and balances — there are appropriate venues to establish that, which an RfB is not in my understanding. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support --Victor Trevor (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support without hesitation. I get where the opposers are coming from but it isn't a problem for me. People on the committee have been good at maintaining differing viewpoints with civility there and outside. There's never been a hard line between the two. I think it is a net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Fully qualified, which in my opinion should be the only criterion. I don't think the roles of arb and crat overlap in any significant way.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. I understand the concerns voiced in the oppose and neutral sections but even they admit that Wugapodes is eminently qualified for this role. Would I have preferred it if they were not on ArbCom at the same time? Maybe. But that is not a sufficient reason to oppose this request and especially not a reason to tell them to come back later. After all, if we cannot trust the candidate to compartmentalize, they are unqualified for being a crat. Regards SoWhy 12:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. While I share concerns about giving too much power to a small group of users, the solution is to elect a more diverse group of editors -- i.e. not just admins -- to arbcom. -- Vaulter 13:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Spread the Wugs, I say! Thoughtful and eloquent and fair, exceptionally so. Confident he can handle any RfAR/RfA conflicts, if such arise. El_C 14:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Concur with concerns regarding a small group in too many roles, but candidate is clearly qualified for the role. SpencerT•C 16:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per nom, great candidate. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support In my interactions with Wugapodes, especially as relating to RfB's, I have come to appreciate the care, judiciousness, thoughtfulness, and openness to discussion that Wugapodes exhibits—all precisely the qualities we desire in our bureaucrats. I am not concerned with Wugapodes's accumulation of support responsibilities. The areas do not specifically overlap and now that most name changes are handled through global renamers, the demands on the bureaucrats' time are less pervasive, albeit intense when necessary. If Wugapodes judged that becoming a bureaucrat will not adversely affect their ARBCOM role, I am more than willing to extend my trust to that decision as well. I look forward to collaborating with you in supporting EnWiki in this area, Wugapodes, G-d willing. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  77. I'm not convinced that we shouldn't elect Wug cus he's an arb. I suspect someday he won't be an arb (retirement came even for NYBrad), at which point he shouldn't be forced to re-RfB. So far having ArbCrats hasn't been a problem, and until the community decides the roles can't run concurrently, that's not gonna affect my decision. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Worm's points, in this section and in the general comments, are salient to me, and more-or-less express what I was thinking more clearly than I could. I have consistently trusted Wug's judgment and been impressed by him on many occasions, and I disagree with making him wait to become a 'crat when he is ready and willing now. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 21:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support I don't see the arbcrat thing as an issue. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support A fresh crat is good, not concerned about arbcrat, people don't tend to be arbs forever and will be good presence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support – we could use fresh perspectives in the crat corps, and Wugapodes is certainly qualified. I'm not concerned about them being an arb, there's not really an overlap between the roles. –FlyingAce✈hello 02:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support This Arbcrat thing is a non-issue. Wugapodes has been an excellent admin and I'm sure will be a similarly excellent 'crat. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  84. The atmosphere at RfA has been continuously cited as the reason for the constant decline in applications, and here we have a candidate who is willing to roll up their sleeves and try to make a positive change. Yes: they have another hat (one that expires), and it's being held up as one reason to prevent (or delay) them taking on this work. Traditionally, bureaucrats have not had an issue being elected to the arbitration committee. I'm not sure why it should be different in the other direction. Both bureaucrats and arbitrators are selected on the basis that they are independent thinkers, resistant to groupthink, and possess enough self-awareness to recuse from participating in decisions when necessary. I trust Wugapodes to carry out the functions of the bureaucrat role with diligence and care. –xenotalk 12:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, excellent content creator. GregJackP Boomer! 14:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support I think !votes should be based on the nominee's conduct, not the voter's personal philosophy on separation of powers. If users are concerned about the number of arbs that are crats, they should open a separate RfC about it or nominate more non-arb editors for cratship to offset the numbers. I do not find anything in Wug's conduct that would cause me to oppose their inclusion in 'crat chats, which I believe is the biggest role of crats. Z1720 (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support for a trustworthy, qualified candidate. I agree with Wugapodes that crat chats need to be shorter; as someone who squeaked through at 79 percent when the discretionary range was higher than it is now, my RfA was stressful enough without a lengthy crat chat in addition. Since we already have several arb-crats and there's no real overlap in responsibilities ("power" is, IMO, the wrong way to look at it), I see no reason to oppose on those grounds. Miniapolis 15:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Remarkably drama-free conduct despite some high-profile work (in retrospect, the Kyiv close is especially impressive). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support A thoughtful, trustworthy candidate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Thoroughly trusted, experienced, and deserving. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 20:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Excellent candidate! have no problem with arb-cratting in this case. Thank you for running! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - For the same reasons I supported Wugapodes' RfA/Arb candidacy. I've read through the opposes, and just don't find any of them convincing. Some seem like opposing here as a proxy/demonstration regarding some other issue, but the most common objection looks to be the dual Arb-Crat role. First, from a big picture perspective, cratship is for life. That means we, what, can never elect arbs from the crat pool again? As I recall, crats running for arb have a pretty high success rate specifically because it indicates a freakishly high level of trust. That's now a reason to oppose? We don't have an embarrassment of riches in terms of users that manage very high levels of trust here such that we can maintain two large, diverse, mutually exclusive pools. Second, while I see philosophical objections about "consolidation of power", that phrase tends to assume some amount of synergy between roles that would circumvent or overpower checks on authority. What specifically is the worrying scenario here? Crats transparently assess consensus at RfA and ... not much else. Arbs are otherwise uninvolved with RfA, except insofar as they occasionally desysop people for cause. Where is the power play? I'm sure we could find some wrought machiavellian hypotheticals, but if an arb is going to to rogue, isn't that the seriously problem unto itself -- one which the person's involvement in a couple cratchats a year, wouldn't really compound that much? It seems like it comes down to something like "the principle of it", which, fine, I guess, but I still say we should be voting based on trustworthiness, and that we should fully take advantage when someone who has that trust wants to do extra work. Alternatively, if there's a consensus that Arbs shouldn't be Crats, but recognizing that one is for life, it should actually be codified that crats should abstain from cratchats or any other potentially controversial duties for the duration of their tenure as an arb. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're right User:Rhododendrites, the concerns perhaps haven't been spelled out clearly enough. One specific "worrying scenario" is not with the Crats role to grant sysop rights after RfA, but with the Crats role to remove those rights in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is when ArbCom request it. The Committee members themselves have not been given the authority by the community to technically remove the rights. Crats have not been given the authority by the community to decide when a user should have the rights removed. The decision and the action are separate. Putting both together gives rather too much power to a small group of users. Having the two responsibilities given to separate groups allows for appropriate checks and balances. Now, at what point should we get concerned that these two separate but related powers are being consolidated into one group? Difficult to know for sure. But perhaps a third seems an appropriate point at which to say that it seems we should pause to think about the implications. And I think that this should work both ways. So if there are already three Arbs who are Crats, perhaps we should not elect a fourth. I don't actually know. But, after reading the arguments against this consolidation of power, I understood it; I understood the concerns, and felt that the concerns weighed, for me, heavier than the need for another Crat. In addition, there is another user who is applying to be a Crat, who doesn't carry with them this and other assorted baggage, so that reduces even further the need to appoint Wugapodes with the several concerns attached to them. In addition to that specific concern, there is the general concern of lack of diversity and checks and balances when too many advanced permissions are put into the hands of a small group, no matter how trustworthy they appear to be. Wugapodes singles out for praise Amanda's close of Greenman's RFA, apparently unaware that she added the rationale only after coming under pressure to do so. Even Crats, who have been elected on trust, can make mistakes, as Amanda did so again when resysoping Ivanvector without waiting 24 hours (I've also made mistakes, as have other Crats, but those two stuck in my mind for some reason). Essentially what is being said is that even with trusted individuals it is better to have too many checks and balances than too few. I hope that goes some way to explaining the concerns. SilkTork (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for elaborating, SilkTork. The separation of calls to desysop with actually desysopping is a useful point, but under what scenario would that realistically become a problem? Certainly the arb-crat that decides a desysop is called for during a case should not be the crat to execute the desysop, but that seems like an easy line to draw without setting arbitrary numbers for when those roles may overlap. As for the mistakes, I'm not sure I see the connection between "sometimes trusted users make mistakes" and "we must not combine the powers". The objections to "consolidating power" still seem based more on a sense of "principle" than on any real potential for harm. Of course, I wouldn't underestimate the importance of "principle" when it comes to trust in institutions, but principles like that are usually predicated on some possibility (or precedent) for problems that I still haven't seen here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - Dr vulpes (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support per Rhododendrites + it's not that I see no validity in the neutral and oppose opinions and perhaps there are potential concerns regarding multiple roles; but not with this candidate. Making this candidate's nomination a proxy for discussion of a substantial matter of (unclarified!) policy is a far too reflexive (and personalised) response. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in agreement wih this. I think there is room for a larger discussion however; I'm not sure it is fair to do it during a request such as this. I'm not sure this is the right forum. 400 Lux (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support: I can't say it better than Rhododendrites did. So I won't say any more. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. I read about the AC and the crat permissions and roles. I am unconvinced that there is an issue with the two sets being with one editor. If we were dealing with funds and these were accounting functions I would give it a more detailed analysis. I am not seeing the need for separation of duties. The separation of duties principle is designed so that no one corrupt person can perform a complete function. I'm absolutely sure there are logs for whatever these people are doing that are viewable by the their smaller communities. I'm not persuaded there is an issue there as addressed by opposition below. I've reviewed a sample set of edits and discussion. I am persuaded that this promotion would add to the project. Thank you. 400 Lux (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Excellent candidate. Personally I'd say that his pro-WMF stance re Framegate was a big positive, not a negative. English Wikipedia was not policing itself adequately at this time. Nigej (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support 0xDeadbeef 10:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - good candidate and per Rhododendrites. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support No reason to think they'd missuse the extra tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Seems like a fine candidate and answers questions in a straightforward manner. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Overall WP:NETPOS for the project and community. —  dainomite   15:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  104. SupportEpicgenius (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Wugapodes is one of our most articulate admins and has a proven track record of assessing consensus in complex and controversial discussions. There seems to be little doubt, even amongst the opposes here, that they would be a good crat. It's a good point about the 'separation of powers' between ArbCom and the crats, but given that there are already multiple arbcrats who have been wearing both hats for years, it would be really unfair to put that on Wugapodes. Either we say arbs should recuse from crat business while they're on the committee, in which case that rule should apply to everyone, or we say it's fine, in which case it shouldn't be a problem here. – Joe (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Wugapodes is an outstanding and trusted editor who will be a valuable addition to the 'crat corps. I'll also point to Xeno's comments above. GABgab 17:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Always really impressed by Wug's closes. To me the pros (more diversity among crats in the "time since RfA" dimension, excellent candidate) weight more strongly than the cons (concentration of roles). I hope we will see more RfBs to further mitigate the concentration of roles and (other aspects of) diversity. Femke (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support on competence and capability. I am not dissuaded by the multiplicity of roles. ArbCom will revolve into new membership in time, and neither ArbCom nor Crats are immune from other forms of review. BD2412 T 19:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. I see no problem with having crat-arbs, as long as they’re willing and able to put in the work. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I particularly like the idea of having a discussion about whether they should keep the rights after 5 years. Wugapodes will make a great crat I'm sure. --Ferien (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support a) I believe Wugapodes is good at closing discussions and assessing consensus; I have seen them do it many times. To me that is the most important skill that a bureaucrat should have. b) There was a recent discussion about the need to add fresh blood to the crat team and I believe Wug is a good choice. c) I do not agree with the notion that being on arbcom simultaneously should be disqualifying. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Clear-headed and eloquent. Nardog (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support I have a lot of respect for Wugapodes and am glad to see the self-nom. I have never considered to oppose an ArbCom candidate because they're a crat (rather the opposite), so I don't think it makes sense to oppose a crat candidate because they're currently on ArbCom. Legoktm (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. The crat-arb thing could easily be resolved by amending the WP:Arbitration Committee procedures to either allow or disallow the practice. I don't see a point in debating it when arb-crats are already a thing. Either they shouldn't be a thing or they should. If they are a thing, then Wugapodes should be a crat. If they shouldn't be a thing, then the practice should be to remove crat for the duration of an arb's term. The middle ground we currently exist in is silly and arbitrary. –MJLTalk 06:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Opposition is unconvincing. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support So I've moved to Support as I think the two most common oppose reasons are unconvincing. Either we should require any 'crat running for arbcom to agree not to act as a 'crat for their term, or we shouldn't restrict incoming arbcrats. Regarding @Roy Smith:'s reply which I only just saw, for that basis to be significant, we'd need any indication that 'crats do act as a buffer between arbs and desysops that is not already played by the need for three arbs to agree. The other main oppose reason, that of "excessive pro-WMFness". I mean, I hate to say it, but 'podes is already an arb, checkuser, and oversighter. Thus far, I've not seen any say we should remove him for poor performance. If his views aren't an issue there, I feel dubious as to whether we would see them with him as a crat. That all said, didn't we just have an RfA where even the supporters disliked the idea of judging by political viewpoint? Unless someone can point out actual decisions made differently due to 'podes', why is this any different? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support SoWhy's vote eloquently catches my views. Cabayi (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - To an extent I can understand the concerns around separation of powers. Ultimately though, it’s about whether we can trust a candidate to be impartial and accurate in the discharge of duties. I see no evidence to suggest they wouldn’t be, so why not? MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. I think Wugapodes is trustworthy. Since recent crat chats have often taken "how supporters respond to the oppose section" among the criteria for determining consensus, let me put this out here: I disagree with both main arguments in the oppose section at the time of writing. Namely, (1) I do not want RfB to set a precedent that precludes editors from holding Arb and Crat positions at the same time, and (2) I support interwiki cooperation on behavioural policies and disagree with claims that Wugapodes is "too pro-WMF" in this regard. Deryck C. 14:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support There are many editors on both sides whom I greatly respect, but I find myself landing here. We are in desperate need of both 'crats and arbcom members; I don't see 4 arbcrats being an issue. We should be welcoming the fact that someone else (who is qualified, as WTT noted) wants to be a 'crat. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If he wasn't a current arb, I'd support, but we currently have three 'crats as members of AC. Regardless of whether or not the individual is trusted, being part of a small group in frequent communication encourages group think in discussion. That's an unavoidable problem and is something that you have to deal with if you want a functioning committee. No problem there.
    The potential problem emerges since the last real power of bureaucrats is to vote in crat chats. Based on the last crat chat, you have about 10 actively participating, and all of the current arbs in some way. Giving the current committee ~40% of the votes isn't exactly fair to either the candidate or the community because by their nature, people who are in frequent contact in closed groups are more likely to agree with one another. That can be unfair to the candidate if all vote for no consensus, and that can be unfair to the opposes if all vote to promote.
    Short of it, when your term is up, I'll gladly support, just like I supported your ArbCom bid. I can't right now, though, given the current composition of the committee. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: How would you feel if Wugapodes did a second RfB after their term is up, you supported them, and then they ran for another term on ArbCom the next year? I'm not trying to catch you out, it's a genuine question – I just don't see how we can reduce the number of 'arbcrats' without a rule that applies to all of them? – Joe (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe, fair question. I suppose my response would be that the community has specifically not set any qualification for any position because it presumes that the voters in RfX and ACE can set their own qualifications without there needing to be a hard rule. Currently, it looks like there's at least a sizable enough chunk of the community that wants to prevent the creation of a new bureaucrat that isn't an arb that the method seems to work (in other words, if enough oppose, the rule exists without formalizing it.) If Wugapodes was to run for ACE in a few years after a successful RfB where he'd stated he'd stay out of ArbCom if he passed, the community would have the opportunity to vote on if it considered that an impediment to his election as an arbitrator then, and could prevent it via voting that manner.
    Like both Amanda and I mentioned below, the concern isn't with the concept of crats being arbs, it is with the current concentration of crats who are active arbs. Since there's literally no such thing as a policy-based support or oppose in an RfX (we don't have any policy about who can be an admin/crat, so nothing can be 'policy-based'), opposing in this discussion is the only way to prevent it as the community is unlikely to ever create standards since opposition here works just as well. Sorry if that was a bit rambly. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per TB (and Barkeep below). Too much concentration of roles while he is an arb. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am certainly not displeased with your work in senior office so far, and if I had not been preoccupied at the time, I would have supported your RfA. However, TonyBallioni does raise some very salient points, as does Barkeep49 while abstaining. I would add that the style this RfB does not convey the modest approach that seems to be more in character for 'crats. If this should pass - and most RfB do - I would hope that what tends to come across as a political campaign speech will not be a politician's typical empty words and will be backed up by the promised activity, particularly the clerking of RfA. What gives me further pause is that IMO this RfB comes a tad hard on the heels of your RfA and the election to Arbcom (where you are currently inactive); however, like Tony, I might well support a new bid for 'cratship when you are no longer a member of that Committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    I don't think I've ever added to any of my RfX votes before. However, I do find it rather odd that you have hurriedly changed the status of your availability for Arbcom since it was mentioned here. Although I agree that Arbcom is a huge time sink for its members - or as I have been told many times - Whatever the reasons were for the absence from the Committee (health and RL excepted), I don't believe that work in other departments of Wikipedia should detract from Arbcom for which one has clearly sought election, and (for my barometer at least) your overall participation on Wikipedia has been very low since early 2021 and does not show any signs of picking up. The comments on The Signpost were also mentioned by opposing editors since I made my vote here, and on review of that issue, I feel I must concur that 'Community vs WMF' politics are incompatible with the scope of bureaucrats who IMO should be Wiki-apolitical, or at least keep their leaning for themselves where opinions matter. There is nothing personal in these remarks of mine, but the facts do give me pause, while I will repeat again, that I might well support a new bid for 'cratship when you are no longer a member of that Committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per TonyBialloni and Barkeep's concerns in the Neutral section. We need more not less separation of powers around here. Nothing personal; like TB, I would support if Wugapodes' ArbCom term were over.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The candidate is eminently suited for both Arbcom and bureaucratship but I would also prefer to see a separation of roles. Thus, it's either one or the other. Schwede66 23:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per above. Nothing personal. starship.paint (exalt) 09:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I was intending to support (despite my two quibbles below); however, I am convinced by the arguments regarding a trend toward there being too many higher level permissions being grouped into the hands of a small group. If there were fewer than three Crats in ArbCom it would be a different matter.
    My minor quibbles: I'm not as certain as Wugapodes that Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/Clerking_RfC#B1:_Bureaucrats is a clear consensus for only Crats to clerk RFA - there appears to me to be a bit of a muddle between those who consider that Crats should oversee others doing the clerking, those who feel that Crats should do the clerking themselves, and those that feel that Crats should both oversee and clerk. Considering the whole section on Who may clerk, I'm not sure there is a clear consensus, though the trend appears to be that anyone should be able to clerk (something I would support). My other minor quibble is Wugapodes using as an example of making a neutral Crat decision, their own rationale for deciding there was consensus to promote in an RfA in which they had !voted to support; and this on the very RfA in which Crats discussed not referring to how they had !voted when recusing. That Wugapodes did it as a non-Crat was perfectly fine, but that they are using it in their own RfB as an argument for being a Crat seems a little clumsy. I think, though, that I might have been more understanding and appreciative if they had given an example of where they had !voted to oppose, but then gave a rationale for deciding there was consensus to promote. SilkTork (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SilkTork, a brave attempt was made by Scottywong within the framework of RFA2011 to address the need for clerking of RfA where you commented there too. The discussion did not gain traction (ironically it was closed by a troll-vandal-sock who was indeffed shortly after), but during all these years later I have been of the opinion that clerking can be done by any experienced, uninvolved editor as the need arises (in may ways like the peanut gallery demands judgement at ANI) and that it has never been a task specifically allocated to Bureaucrats only. Subsequent discussion in 2015 did not appear to have reached any consensus regarding the 'crats either and the proposer chose not to check out what had been discussed previously (a common failing of RfC proposers). The main thing to bear in mind however is that 'consensus can change'... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose The rationale for this self-nomination consists solely of "RFA is broken, and I intend to fix it". I don't accept that RFA is broken and I don't agree that the fact that some RFAs are contentious is a problem or a negative. Nor do I accept the assertion that consensus at RFAs have been erroneous so as to either accept or reject candidates against consensus. And even if I accepted any of these dubious premises, I see no convincing evidence that this candidate is the person to fix it. To the contrary, the argument advanced convinces me that this candidate would worsen rather than improve the RFA process given his stated attitude and bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banks Irk (talkcontribs) 22:16, 10 June 2022
  9. Per too many arbs into crat circles, makes the bureaucracy of desysops by Arbcom moot when there is a legitimate reason for separation of powers. To be clear, I don't hold being an Arb as an issue for a crat, just the number of arbs. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I hate to wind up on this section of an RfX. Wug, I think you're a great person, and I'd be happy to support an RfB when you are no longer an arb. Silktork, Amanda, and Tony put it very well. SQLQuery Me! 00:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose: I'm sorry to find myself here, Wug. But, I can't support your intention to change things at RfA. Ok, this got consensus, and that appears to be what you're basing this on. But, that question was only lightly attended (24 supports/opposes). Meanwhile, the overall concept of clerking received more opposition (38) than the 24 combined who attended the one sub-question. This was also seven years in the past, and while I haven't seen anything to supersede this discussion, consensus can change. What the role of clerking would entail of bureaucrats needs to be discussed before we ever venture down that path. Even today, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats does not outline any role for bureaucrats to be clerks at RfA. Sorry, but I can't accept you having the role you intend for yourself in being a bureaucrat when there is so little support for it, and no clarifying discussion or modification of WP:CRAT to support what that would look like. Everything at RfA is controversial. I can't accept the idea that someone would move ahead with such plans without further discussion given this reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, in order to attempt to maintain some seperation between ARBCOM and Bureaucrats - concentrating too much power in ARBCOM's hands is a bad idea. BilledMammal (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Hammersoft, who better expressed my concerns that I've been struggling with how to make for most of the day. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add that Iri's oppose also articulates my nebulous feelings that I struggled to express. I'm not really concerned about crats being arbs or arbs being crats - I'm opposing based on Wug's ideas on "clerking" and for many of the reasons I opposed his arbcom candidacy. Everything I've seen of Wug is that they mean well, and that they are likely a good person, but I do not think they would be a good fit as a crat - too much feeling of someone on a mission. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per TonyBallioni and SMcCandlish. Just no. No apologies. – Athaenara 05:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose I vaguely remembered Wugapodes posting some opinions which I thought were too pro WMF. Upon searching, it was in Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Opinion and the associated article. Wugapodes is free to have any opinion of course, but that is not what I want to see from a crat. Most of the time crats have little work to do, but they can play a big role in protecting the community in the event of another WP:FRAMBAN like affair. When that happens, I'd want a crat to take decisive action like how User:WJBscribe did, whom I consider to be the best we had. Couple Wugapodes' general stance about WMF with him being a current arbitrator, I must oppose. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose due to the pro-WMF views expressed at the signpost. The Wikimedia Foundation was created to serve Wikipedia and its sister projects, not dictate what happens. I can't support anyone who believes that the Wikimedia Foundation is superior to the community that has governed this project since the beginning. NoahTalk 10:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose It is the wrong time. scope_creepTalk 14:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per above, separation of powers is important to me. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Pretty much per all of the above, but most especially based on views regarding the WMF, which are divisive at best and an inaccurate reflection of the Wikipedia community at worst. It's difficult to see how they would set those views aside when dealing with critical issues, especially those regarding admins.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per all above. I would certainly reconsider in the future. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose in light of the candidate's perspective on the role of the WMF in relation to the community, I am not comfortable appointing this person to represent our interests when the next kerfuffle with the foundation occurs. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose for now, respectfully, per Tony and Barkeep. An excellent admin and a skilled arb, but let's keep powers separate whenever we can. — kashmīrī TALK 18:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - Per Tony Ballioni and Barkeep. Beyond My Ken (talk)
  24. Oppose per TonyBallioni - maybe after your term is over --DannyS712 (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I'm not particularly concerned by the separation-of-powers thing. In an ideal world, we'd keep all Wikipedia's various governance tiers separate, but we don't live in an ideal world and in a community with only 3500-4000 active editors, there's inevitably going to be some degree of overlap. What I can't get on board with is what appears to be a "Wikipedia is broken and I'm the only one who can fix it" mentality. Wannabe dictators are in some way a good thing on Arbcom where the process is expressly designed to force them to follow consensus, but as far as I can follow the rather rambling nomination statement, this is a candidate who expressly wants the 'crat permission because he thinks it will help him stop people expressing opinions with whom he disagrees. Assuming this is successful—RFBs usually are—I can only foresee either us electing someone who feels they're unable to do what they were elected to do and ultimately resigns in disgust, or someone who interprets the result as a mandate and leads to every subsequent RFA degenerating into an acrimonious mess of appeals and counter-appeals whenever he tries to 'clerk' someone expressing any view with which he personally disagrees. ‑ Iridescent 13:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Not at this time. -- Dolotta (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. I share some of the sentiment that Iridescent does (and enough of it to oppose this RFB), though I wouldn't've worded it as such. Useight (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose very reluctantly. I think Wugapodes is an excellent editor who on paper is qualified for this role, but I share others' concerns about the conflating of arbitrators and bureaucrats. If Wug were not already on ArbCom I'd support without a second thought. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I can't support, because I share TonyBallioni's and Barkeep49's concerns. Having spent four years of my life on Arbcom, I'm in awe that Wugapodes wants to take on more things that take up more time. You're a better arb than I, Gunga Din. (Admittedly a low bar, but nonetheless.) However, I think there is indeed a need for more 'crats, that Wugapodes would be an asset to their ranks now or in the future, and dear God why would we put somebody through this again if we feel that way? So I land here in neutral land, and I'll let those who have more firm opinions decide the question. Katietalk 23:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I currently sit here because I am unsure about the arb/crat co-mingling. 'podes is obviously competent (a viewpoint shared by basically everyone). I feel that arguments of "one person holding too much power" is odd. 'arbs intrinsically hold lots of authority, and then we also give them CU and OS, the two primary other local functionary rights. 'Crats do fairly little, these days. So sheer userright amassing is not my concern. It's more that there are some minor crossovers between arb and crat rights, but not significant ones in practical terms. Perhaps a greater issue is that of amassing COIs beyond that of a regular user. I am likely to decide one way or t'other, but for now reside here. By all means feel free to consider this an overly-verbose placeholder neutral and moan accordingly. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Moved to support Nosebagbear (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    The reason arbs get CU and OS is because arbcom picks who gets those rights and it's then their job to audit how the people they've deputized are using those rights, to make sure they're not abusing them. The way they perform those audits is by examining the CU and OS logs. I guess technically, they only need to view the logs, not perform actual checks or suppressions, but the current software bundles those two into a single grant. On the other hand, arbs have no supervisory role over crats. If anything, there's a checks-and-balances relationship. Arbcom can decide to revoke an admin's mop, but they need to get a crat to implement that for them. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When you're auditing CU activity there are occasions when you need to be able to run the checks as well, rather than just look at the logs. If someone is accused of blocking the wrong person based on a misread of CU data, one needs to be able to see the results of the checkuser request in question, not just the log entry showing that the request took place. Likewise of someone is accused of abusing oversight to hide material inappropriately, one needs the OS permission to be able to see what it was they hid. ‑ Iridescent 16:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent sure, but we also don't prevent arbs from using CUOS in that narrow definition - quite the opposite, we like to see them working the lists and also permit them to carry it over after ceasing to be arbs. The status quo is firmly "arbs should also have the other major functionary userrights, and if they have them, they should learn and use them". Nosebagbear (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also times when the ability to view checkuser logs or oversighted material is relevant to an arbitration request or case. (For what it's worth, I see no significant problem with a few arbitrators also being bureaucrats.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mainly for separation of duties reasons. I have no doubt they'd do the role well enough, but have excessive arb/crat overlap is a series of governance issues waiting to happen. Hog Farm Talk 00:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I trust Wugapodes's judgement implicitly; it's why I nominated him for adminship. I think he's done great work as an Arbitrator. I consider him a wikifriend, and I'm not going to oppose. However, I share the concerns expressed above about concentration of power; I've expressed them elsewhere numerous times, and have voted against candidates I respect based on these concerns. And thus I find myself here. If this request fails, Wugapodes, and you offer your services again when you're not on ARBCOM, I would gladly write a nomination statement. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

The very reasons why there is a much higher turnout for ACE than RfX are 1). It's a straight vote and not a debate (as I mentioned above), but more importantly 2). The voters will never need to account for their votes. 3). It's an easy vote which requires no research. 4). Every user who qualifies to vote is canvassed by a mass-message talk page notification which guarantees a quick participation by users who are otherwise not in the slightest bit interested in Wikipedia governance. but also to over 1,000 admins and other editors on the admin newsletter list, who had already received the official notification. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (140/6/2); Scheduled to end 16:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – It is my honor to present Lee Vilenski to you for consideration as a bureaucrat. I believe that if you examine his record, as I have, you will find he possesses the characteristics and experience we want from our crats. Namely a rock solid grasp of policy and guidelines, great skill in finding consensus across a variety of discussions, and the ability to write closes for controversial topics that gain acceptance. Making something contentious into something boring is something I've seen Lee do well, including in his closes for deprecating Fox News and more recently in closing this discussion which had its original close overturned on review. Lee displays his understanding of policies, guidelines, and procedures through his incredible accomplishment on the content side as well, having won the WikiCup once and twice been the runner-up. He has written more than two dozen featured articles and over a hundred good articles. Lee is, in my mind, highly qualified for the position and would also, if elected, become the crat whose account registration was newest and who has the most recent RfA (currently Primefac holds both these marks having registered in 2010 and RFA'd in 2017). Better decision are made when groups consider diverse perspectives and Lee would bring the perspective of someone who came to Wikipedia during a more recent era. I hope you join me in supporting his nomination for bureaucrat. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co Nomination

It is a rare occasion that we are able to consider the nomination of a new bureaucrat, so I am humbled to be able to co-nominate Lee Vilenski. Lee has been with our community for a few years now, exemplifying the best that the community can produce, even though he's only been with us about 5 years. During that time, he has consistently demonstrated his understanding of policy, his ability to make good judgements and most importantly, he's demonstrated a definite lack of controversy.
We've had recent discussions about our bureaucrats, a group which considers me a "newbie", despite being on the encyclopedia for 14 years. We're long in the tooth as a group, and we need people who represent the present shape of the encyclopedia. I would personally be proud to be represented by Lee. WormTT(talk) 15:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the above nomination, and look forward to any questions that may occur. Thank you all for taking time to look at my nomination. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 read through Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship as well as previous RfAs, especially when they have led to a cratchat to become familiar with the procedure. All discussions are different, but a general rule of thumb of above 75% support confirms confidence in an RfA candidate, whilst below 65% suggest there isn't a consensus to promote. RfAs that fall in between that range need additional eyes. Of course if consensus is not clear, at any percentage or if something specifically controversial arises, then a crat chat can be called. Bureaucrats give an individual assessment of the discussion, whether they believe there is consensus or no consensus to promote the user to admin.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A: In all likelihood, all RfAs are a bit contentious due to their nature. When closing a contentious or close discussion it is important that the close gives a well thought out and well written closing rationale. It is important that we give a detailed, methodical (but also distinct and to the point) response when closing an RfA either way, as it gives users who have participated answers to the close. Even if a user disagrees with the result, a well written rationale will help give respect to the result.
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 have closed and participated in many high profile discussions. I have spent some time being involved on panels for closing, such as the recent proposed changes to the RfA format and the deprecation of Fox News as a source. I have a reputation for respecting policy based arguments and attempting to keep our articles in line with our wider MOS. Even as a new member of the community I was highly involved with the removal of FANCRUFT in the form of move-lists on professional wrestling articles, and also more recently on the overhaul of non-accesible tables across reality television articles, and improving the quality of our cue sports articls (where I've significantly contributed to over 25 featured items). As a mostly content creation user, I am aware there are places on the site where I am not familiar. If I am commenting on something, I will use my own knowledge, but also supplement with relevant policies and guidelines. A high-level discussion, such as ones with a closing committee, require much more careful understanding of the policies involved. I don't know all of the policies on the site (I doubt many do), but I always read them if I'm ever linked to a new one that I'm not familiar with.

Optional question from ToBeFree
4. How is your closure of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals#Closed: 8B Admin elections an example of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community?
A First, thank you for bringing this up! I had debated making a mention of this in my nomination statement, but eventually decided against it as it didn't fit any of the questions neatly. It's worth noting that this was a panel close, so I wouldn't want to talk on the behalf of others involved.
I agree with the final DRV result now, that a no consensus result would have been the most suitable close. The RfC close wording did state that a future RfC would be suitable to get the proposal to pass, however, the "unsuccessful" result would halt that. If the original close had a no consensus result that would have been suitable close. I do think we got a lot of the wording right, in terms of discussions not being a vote, but the actual bolded result was a bit of a miscue. I think that the three-person panel discussing the result off-wiki both exaserbated issues after the initial close was done, and are elements I might avoid in future. The RfA process is a lot more transparent in that respect.
I'm more than happy to talk about the result/overturn or even the policy in general as soon as the DRV had concluded. I, however, didn't want to sway the DRV or grandstand over the result as it was in progress. It makes sense that the community would rather have an open discussion about the close at hand, so that is something I have looked to do more since this item.
Optional question from Dolotta
5. What consensus assessment are you proudest of?
A: I'm not sure if "proud" is the right word, as closes are simply a summary of the conversation. However, I was pleased to be involved in such a high profile close when dealing with the Fox News deprecation discussion. It was great to also work with two other highly experienced editors. I also recently did an assessment of this discussion that had previously been overturned. This was a great experience in closing a contentious discussion, but, also for the involved users to get closure on something that had been active for many months.
Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
6. How would you have closed this one Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS and Crat chat was there consensus to promote or not  ?
A: This might need a bit of a preface. This was a very contentious RfA, due to having a !vote percentage of less than the zone for a 'cratchat, but still passed. It's difficult to talk about a discussion that has been closed without being swayed by it. It was also done in 2019, which was even before I became an admin. Luckily, I didn't comment on the nom at the time, so I'm not swayed by a !vote on the RfA.
If I were involved with the cratchat, I would likely have a much longer response and wouldn't take the responsibility lightly. The first thing to look at with this nomination is that there are were some confusion over the April Fools elements and some poor rationales that should be given less weight. That for me is the reason why a cratchat is somerimes suitable even if the actual vote falls slightly outside of the discrerionary zone. The discussion as a whole had a crux on civility. Our job isn't to tell whether or not the user is civil or not, but instead comment on if the community (or at least the people in the discussion) think as a whole that they are civil (along with being given the toolset).
It's not an easy decision, but I didn't find a consensus to promote in this case. The supporting parties did not do enough (in my eyes) to overcome the strength and volume of opposers. That's not to say that I agree or disagree with RexxS as an admin, nor the final result of the discussion, this is just my interpretation of the discussion.
Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
7. Do Crats have the right to use there discretion rather WP:IAR in there decision making or have to compulsory follow policy in each and very decision ?
A:Just to confirm - you are asking if a crat can use IAR when closing an RfA, or in general? IAR is a policy; but in practice it is for obviously beneficial things to not be weighed down by potentially ill-fitting policies. Closing discussions, such as promoting someone at RfA, a bot request or cratchat isn't really a policy based thing - it is a summary of the preceding discussion. As such, ignoring the previous discussion is a supervote. That doesn't mean that there is no policies being used in the discussion (far from it), so we should do everything to not let personal biases impact this. IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it", but something being "improved" after a discussion is debatable.
Outside of discussions, I am sure there are good times that IAR is used, but it's not something I use much, if ever (if I have actually successfully used IAR, I'd like to know)! I tend to think that if a policy is too restricting, then changing the policy is the better way forward. I do tend to keep my editing to follow our manual of style and previous consensus wherever possible. I do hope this answers your question, as I feel I may have misread it slightly.
Optional question from The Most Comfortable Chair
8. Which elements — or the lack thereof — would you consider most important in determining the strength of individual !votes relative to other !votes and the discussion as a whole; in other words, what kind of commentary and circumstances — again, or the lack thereof — would lead you to depreciate or augment the value and importance of any given !vote or a set of !votes?
A: Policy. If your argument has a good solid foundation in existing policy, then these are the best types of arguments. We often find arguments falling foul of WP:ILIKEIT, or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which shouldn't be discounted, but certainly given less WP:WEIGHT than those grounded in established consensus. There are, however, some cases where !votes should be depreciated, such as duplicate votes, votes in violation of a ban, or egregious things such as personal attacks, or obviously bad faith actions. RfA is a different type of discussion (in comparison to say AfD), as every !vote is based (at least to an extent) on personal opinion. However, even in an RfA there are policies, such as WP:ADMINCONDUCT and WP:ADMINACCT, so !votes based on conduct and similar issues should be given a little more weight. It's a little more nuanced than what I've said, as outside of struck comments, all !votes have value.
Optional Question from Robert McClenon
9 What in particular (if anything) do you think that you as a bureaucrat, or bureaucrats in general, can do to facilitate an increase in the number of administrators and/or to reduce the toxicity of RFA?
A: Great question. In terms of increasing administrators, I actively look out for candidates for RfA that I think will pass and reach out and provide nomination statements (including nominating Hog Farm and Eddie891 who both passed), although most of my candidates get snapped up by Barkeep! In the current state of our RfA then convincing suitable editors to run is the best way to get more successful RfAs. If I were to be given the role of crat, this wouldn't stop me from continuing to investigate potential candidates.
Since I joined the project in 2017, RfA has been a surprising thing to see pop up on my watchlist (if I haven't been involved in it). Last year we had 7 successful promotions. In 2018 we had 10 and we are half way through 2022 and have only had five. This wouldn't be too bad if we were simply too rigorous in finding a suitable candidate, but we've only had 8 total RfAs. I think most users are in agreement that the RfA process has some major flaws in it. The issue is coming to a consensus of finding a better way to do it. I think we are all responsible in reducing the toxicity at RfX. The process is a week-long ball of stress for the candidate (or at least for me), which in the case of a close call is extended by a cratchat. I feel it's the duty of the 'crats to provide an accurate, but also speedy close. As a bureaucrat, I'd want to limit the length of insecurity as much as possible, but also give a suitable reading of the discussion as a whole.
That being said, we do look to our most experienced editors, which includes bureaucrats, to provide ideas and create discussions on how to make the process easier. I have lots of ideas but as we've seen the process isn't the easiest to reform. It isn't tied to the 'crat position, but as someone who will have been through two recent RfXs, be in a unique position from a candidate point of view. I can use this information and add to our efforts to make RfX less toxic, which in turn should provide more nominations.


Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

  1. As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lee Vilenski has been one of our best administrators since his RfA in 2020 and has shown great aptitude for managing challenging situations. It's a delight to be able to support his RfB. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per nominations and KevinL above. firefly ( t · c ) 16:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support of course. A very solid record of content creation and closing discussions wisely. Why not? –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support will be a great addition to the bureaucrat team. We certainly need the perspective of editors who joined more recently, and I support and know that Lee Vilenski will do a good job. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - the crat position is an odd one, because most of the time it doesn't involve anything other than the occasional flipping of a bit. When contentious or close RFAs do come along however, such as the one we saw recently, the crats come into their own, and to be honest I think they do a very good job of it. As such, adding new members to the team from time to time seems a good idea, and I can't imagine a finer candidate than Mr Vilenski. I mostly know him through his excellent work on snooker articles, and he's clearly a very experienced and well-respected editor, so happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Smart capable editor and admin. I feel Lee would be an excellent addition to the bureaucrat team. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as clearly capable of and having the mindset for the role. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Naleksuh (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Wikipedia does need more crats. As exemplified in the Tamzin RFA crat chat, Wikipedia is desperately in need of crats that reflect the current makeup, mindset and culture of the Wikipedia editorial and admin corps. --WaltCip-(talk) 17:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Obviously Lee is capable, as well set out by BK49. I then focus on @Pppery:'s point on whether we needs more 'Crats. The issue isn't that we really need more 'crats in total - no doubt they're correct on that. But I would encourage them to consider the other aspects - cratship is an extremely static pool. The vast majority of 'crats have held the admin right for at least half a decade. Most for appreciably longer. In the same way that arbcom could function with fewer arbs (maybe even function smoother) but having more helps ensure a range of viewpoints is provided, thus too, the crat corps would benefit from Lee's presence. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I think it is healthy to have new 'crats and new candidates step forward on a regular basis (to reflect changes in the makeup, mindset and culture of the community). Strong candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Absolutely no concerns about Lee in this role. -- ferret (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. support more the merrier. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Armbrust The Homunculus 17:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support If this is a nomination by Barkeep49, I seriously have no questions left to ask. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Co Nom WormTT(talk) 17:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support: the pool of crats we have, in aggregate, have far too old join dates to properly represent the community. Lee Vilenski has the temperament, experience and skills needed to be a crat, and would be the only one to have joined Wikipedia post-2010, I believe. Lee Vilenski has a five-year history of showing incredible dedication to the project, in both content work and behind-the-scenes pages, and I have seen no issues with their use of admin rights. — Bilorv (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Yes, yes, a million times yes. Incredibly cordial and level-headed, has a great grasp of Wikipedia's policies. Dedicated to the project. Checks every box and more. — GhostRiver 17:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Experienced, helpful, and not reckless or aggressive. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Per noms, in the rare occurrence of a crat' chat, the more the merrier, as well as people who represent the Wikipedia of today. Sea Cow (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Lee Vilenski seems very competent and experienced. I think he will be a fantastic steward and leader. You have my full support, and I wish you only continued success. PaulPachad (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support New blood is needed on the 'crat team, and I'm confident Lee is a good choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No concerns with Lee for this role, I think they'll do well in it. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I mostly know this editor from their work in guiding numerous articles through FAC and their even more numerous thorough, sympathetic and informed reviews there; purely on this basis I am more than happy to support their nomination for 'cratship. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. While I haven't really interacted with the candidate, the nomination by Barkeep helped to put me in this camp. Good to have another person available for mediation in contentious RFAs. Rollidan (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - I respect and trust Lee. BOZ (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support There is no reason for concern. --Victor Trevor (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support No concerns from me. I respect and look up to Lee and I'm sure he would make a great bureaucrat. Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 19:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Solid candidate; has what it takes to make a good crat. Schwede66 19:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I have had many positive interactions with this user and have no concerns. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Concerning the issue of "need," perhaps we do not "need" one or more new bureaucrats to ensure that RfAs are timely closed, given the sadly limited number of RfAs we have had in recent years. But no Wikipedia task or process benefits from being run by a closed-ended group of more senior editors, without any periodic intake of new blood. The bureaucrats find themselves in the spotlight only when there is a debatable RfA closing resulting in a 'crat chat; and at those times, it would be good to have at least one relatively fresh-faced person participating in the discussion, even if he is not going to spend the bulk of the rest of his wiki-time 'cratting. I find the "need," or at least desirability, of having at least one new bureaucrat compelling from that standpoint, and I have no concerns about the candidate himself, so I find this an easy support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support: Maybe we aren't in dire need of 'crats now, but let's not get complacent – we will need more at some point. When trusted, qualified, capable editors like Lee Vilenski step up, we shouldn't miss our chance. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 20:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Of course. Lee is a wonderfully level-headed and reasonable editor and I see no reason that he shouldn't be a crat. ♠PMC(talk) 20:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - he is certainly qualified, and has the proper demeanor. I don't see a downside to having him as a crat. Atsme 💬 📧 20:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Fresh blood is a good idea. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Wikipedia does need more crats. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I’ve seen Lee around various areas, particularly the Good Article nomination backlog drives. He has incredible temperament for complex and relatively simple cases alike and exemplifies the ideals of a collaborative wiki editor. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Yes, yes, yes, yes. ~StyyxTalk? 20:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Not super familiar with this editor, but we need more crats and most of the people above offering their support are people known to have a clue, so. The examples of their admin closes show they also have both patience and a clue. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support no brainer. I've worked with Lee variously over the last few years and have seen nothing other than level-headedness throughout, even when dealing with me. Therefore this candidate is endorsed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Leijurv (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Looks to me like a very experienced and good editor well deserving of this. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 21:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support An excellent administrator who will be an excellent bureaucrat. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Stephen 23:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Aoba47 (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, seems legit, fresh perspectives are always handy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Thank you for volunteering. Levivich 01:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  51. For the new blood. I agree there isn't a need in terms of backlogs, and I think we should get rid of crats and hand over their function to stewards since RfA is functionally an election already, but thats not happening and so long as the community insists on having having a discretionary zone, we should have new additions that reflect the currently active community. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Thanks for trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeplissken10 (talkcontribs) 03:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Why not? -FASTILY 03:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Good editor and admin, and he doesn't bite the newcomers. Thingofme (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. I wholeheartedly trust Lee. ––FormalDude talk 04:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Volten001 05:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support for the reasons stated in the nomination. Mz7 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Lots of pleasant experiences with Lee in the FAC space. I fully trust their judgement and as per everyone else here.--NØ 06:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Sane --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  60. trusted, good interactions, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Every interaction I have had with Lee has been positive. Good candidate; I trust him. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support per Tony. Also has good judgement in when to back a good RfA candidate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - I highly trust Vilenski and am very confident in his abilities. He's proved more than capable in both administrative contexts and in content creation (beating me in the WikiCup twice). I see no reason he shouldn't be a bureaucrat as well - we may not "need more crats", but we would certainly benefit from them. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I believe that we do in fact need more bureaucrats, especially those who are active editors and can bring a new perspective. I have absolute confidence in Lee's ability to judge consensus.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  66. SupportKurtis (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Fully support. No issues with Lee. Tamzin's RfA demonstrated our crat corps is a little light on newer members. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support – We may not need more 'crats to deal with the current workload, but what would happen if half our current 'crat corps were to decide to give up their bits? Suddenly we'd be in a situation where we didn't have enough 'crats. Lee has responsibly held the mop for quite some time and has demonstrated the willingness to collaborate with others and learn from mistakes. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Yes, 8B close was wrong (and maybe a supervote), but it was a panel and also I'm impressed by Lee's response above. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - Trustworthy editor. I don't know what world Pppery is living in when the literal last RfA was extremely contentious and political and was decided by a mere 11 users in a crat chat. It is obviously still a very relevant and important role whose legitimacy comes from the continued support of the community, in spite of the low workload. Until that changes, we absolutely do need, or should at least want, more good candidates getting cratship. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your rationale here, Swarm, particularly the phrase "mere 11 users". When was the last time you saw a discussion closed by more than 11 people? The only comparable body is Arbcom, but RfAs already place way too intense a focus on just one person for a full week plus crat chat time. Arbcom is too intense as well, and indeed many people choose to retire or lose all motivation to volunteer when they become a main subject of an arbitration process. But crat chats with 11 participants are much worse than Arbcom panels of 11, because Arbcom comes up with new rules and ideas, whereas crats are there only to evaluate the community's existing view. — Bilorv (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not 11 users to close a discussion (as opposed to one), it's 11 users who are allowed to offer a reading of consensus in an RfA, in the extraordinary situation when we have to call upon all such users to form a meta-consensus. The fact that we can call all possible users to address the situation, and the most we can come up with is 11 users is not particularly reassuring to me. We need fresh blood and more participation, not a stagnant and ever-diminishing pool of ancient users, some of whom are long detached from the current community. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - not only is new blood is certainly needed among the corps of 'crats, but it would it be impossible to dispute nominations from Barkeep49 and Worm That Turned, two of Wikipedia's most respected and experienced users. Lee's excellent admin work, a WikiCup winner and twice runner up, and his superb unwavering content building (not only for our shared passion), are some of the few reasons why (Bilorv's comments noted) I still occasionally contribute to Wikipedia. He's a fully qualified candidate and as per Newyorkbrad's reasoning, an easy support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, I do not see why we need more crats at this point, but beyond this I do not see any other reason not to support--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support—Wikipedia may not need more crats, but we certainly need Vilenski to be a… crat. Or, something. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 21:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  75. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Clueful, civil, encyclopedically minded, community-involved, trustworthy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support SpencerT•C 23:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Candidate have the guts to wade in contentious territory, such as the Fox News case. We can always need another bureaucrat. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support no concerns -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 05:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - seems to reach the bar. Voting because of Pppery's oppose: in my opinion, the purpose of RfB is to say whether individual candidates reach the bar; if we have too many crats, we should stop looking for new candidates rather than derailing individual applications. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support starship.paint (exalt) 09:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support without hesitation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support He seems to do well in leadership positions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 14:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Not too familiar with their work, but they seems qualified and nothing concerning comes to mind. So why not? El_C 14:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Terasail[✉️] 14:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - unreservedly. Lee Vilenski is knowledgeable, civil, and encouraging. I trust him to make decisions impartially based on policy and evidence. He has also contributed a huge volume of quality content. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Yes. Level headed, reasonable, and reflective. Appears to learn from mistakes. SilkTork (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Excellent candidate. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Great close history, a willingness to admit gaps in knowledge, and a good answer to question 6. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 18:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support we should welcome well qualified bureaucrat. DIVINE 📪 19:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. 8B was not an ideal close, but it is more important that he has obviously learned from that incident. No other concerns. HouseBlastertalk 20:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Lee is great and very level headed. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Sound judgment, stellar track record, has clue. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 21:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support because I do believe we need more bureaucrats, first because we need a broader demographic selection, and second because there have been occasions where it has been dicey finding enough truly active, uninvolved bureaucrats to close a discussion. We really shouldn't be at a place where we have to wait around for them to show up. Lee Vilenski is not perfect in every imaginable way, but through his very consistent good judgement and temperament has gained my trust that he will improve this project by becoming a bureaucrat. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Came across Lee as a very competent admin, and the Oppose votes aren't convincing enough for me to change this view. — kashmīrī TALK 23:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support – a greatly qualified candidate. –FlyingAce✈hello 02:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. The candidate is immensely competent and will be a net benefit to the 'crat corps. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support, we need more admins and bureaucrats that care about Wikipedia's content, not Wikipedia's drama. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Great content creator and great administrator. NoahTalk 10:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support — Lee Vilenski is diligent in their content work as well as administrative tasks. They are not infallible — no one is — but they have learnt and improved from their past experiences, and their judgment skills are trustworthy. An editor who is so engaging with the community and unfailingly kind in their conduct is easily qualified for bureaucratship. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support, strong content creator. GregJackP Boomer! 14:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support for an admin who seems to be up to the job. Miniapolis 15:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support I can't add more than what's already been said. Fephisto (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Modussiccandi (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Qwesty67 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support My kind of candidate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support qualified and trusted. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 20:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support The candidate has relevant background and trust from the community, and I agree with Barkeep that we ought to have some newer 'crats. ((u|Sdkb))talk 21:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support, seems qualified, credible and deserving...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. Seddon talk 01:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Keep up the good Wiki-Work Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support.Lee really deserves this title for helping the community a lot.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - GamerPro64 04:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - Dr vulpes (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - Rock solid candidate as far as I can see. Seems reasonable to support. scope_creepTalk 09:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  120. SupportGolden call me maybe? 11:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support In my opinion, there is no harm in having another crat if we can trust them. I see no reason why Lee Vilenski can't be trusted. --Ferien (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - good candidate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - If Lee is backed by Worm and the court, then I support. —  dainomite   15:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support, no concerns. Wishing Lee Vilenski the best of luck! GABgab 17:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support -- EN-Jungwon 17:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - competent, no concerns. Femke (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support, without hesitation. BD2412 T 19:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. No concerns. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Having one close made with a panel get overturned doesn't outweigh Lee's several positives. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support – competent and mature. Should handle the position well. GenQuest "scribble" 00:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. Per moneytrees. Lee has good judgement. –MJLTalk 06:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - I trust the nominators as well.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Oh Geez! Am I in the right place??? Really Really concerned about those opposes by some esteemed editors who almost always know WTF they're talkin' about! Naahhhht! ;>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Cabayi (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. --Baggaet (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  136. This is not meant as an insult even though it sounds like one, but this is exactly the sort of boringly competent person who's best suited for RFB. That he's a relatively recent joiner, rather than a member of the class of 2006–08, is a definite plus; it's through no fault of their own but the existing crats inevitably reflect the concerns of expansion-phase Wikipedia rather than maintenance-phase Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 13:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also used the b word in my nomination statement and so I will say that we're both complementing him rather than insulting him given the circumstances. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. Lee has shown himself to be a reliable admin to date and I agree with comments that it's good to have a new crat who has been an admin for less than a decade. Deryck C. 14:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support - Good content and good admin contributions. Concerns about "too many crats" are just as meaningless as the "too many admins" argument last decade, since there's no requirement to keep the number of admins/bureaucrats to a minimum. The one misjudgement of consensus doesn't bother me either. If a pattern were to be shown, then I would likely oppose, but a singular instance is not a cause for concern in my opinion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Highly qualified. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wikipedia does not need more crats. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I may have supported this nomination, but at this time I cannot vote for one of the admins who closed this discussion about proposed admin elections. The initial close was wrong and it was ultimately decided that it "did not accurately reflect community consensus" [1]. Given that the role of a 'crat is to judge community consensus, I think that is pretty damning, particularly when you consider the importance of the matter at stake in that RFC. -- Vaulter 00:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I find the read of the Fox News sourcing problematic. If there is no consensus that Fox News is reliable and a lot of good reason to doubt, why should it be reliable for any topic? Andrevan@ 02:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's entirely inline with current consensus. There is disagreement over its reliability on the topics of US politics and science. There is a consensus for it being reliable on other topics. See WP:Perennial sources: [t]here is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science and [t]here is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. It is not unusual for a source to be reliable for x but not y. There is a different, much stricter sourcing standard for medical topics: [t]he popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. It's also worth noting that the Fox News RfC was closed by a panel of three editors (a current bureaucrat and two admins). Mr rnddude (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan I'd more ask if it felt like a correct interpretation of community consensus in that RfC. Your point has potential merit for reasonableness, but that is more up to the community to decide. Had the closer (one of three) decided to go for what they felt was reasonable even against what the bulk of editors were saying, that would be more of a concern. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nosebagbear: Well, for what it's worth, there have been two lengthy additional discussions since then, and they have not resulted in a different consensus. Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could folks link the other discussions here and I'll read. I am returning to Wiki after a number of years of inactivity. Andrevan@ 18:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan: The discussion that Vilenski was involved in closing is here; the three discussions that have taken place since then are here, here, and here. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. The close mentioned in #2, above this discussion is an automatic disqualifier for a role which requires, critically, the ability to assess consensus. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Due to the 8B close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per RFA review close that was overturned and as Vaulter explains above --DannyS712 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At the end of the day, 'unsuccessful' and 'no consensus' amount to the same thing: no action will be implemented, but for different reasons, but of course, ideally, the closure should accurately reflect which one it is. What the opposers here are not mentioning however, is that the closure was a joint effort by three experienced and respected administrators. Lee's role in this was not a unilateral decision. Joint closures are not rare, as and as admins are human, even three of them together can sometimes not get things quite right. The decision went to review, which was summarised and closed by Tony who is also no jerk and has plenty of clue. Things happen, but IHMO this RfC closure in which Lee played a minor part, is not sufficient grounds to oppose this RfB. It's also interesting to note that although well researched and launched by an experienced admin, the complete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review RfC, of which the contested close was only a part - but the most difficult to assess - was not heralded as a resounding success. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you bothered to click the ANI diff I linked to, you would realize this was not a semantic debate over no consensus vs unsuccessful. -- Vaulter 19:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In all likelihood, all RfAs are a bit contentious due to their nature strikes me as a statement by someone not too familiar with how RfA works, or at least, hasn't been paying much attention to it lately. Not a debilitating issue on its own, but since the kind of thought that goes into closing an RfA is a bit different than that of other types of discussions, I would like to see a bit more evidence of consistently solid thinking from the candidate before supporting. May move this vote later depending on what other examples come to light. Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I haven't interacted with Lee Vilenski much as well, but the one experience I remember left me a bit unsatisfied. In February I wanted to review Russia at the DYK, an article Lee Vilenski reviewed at GAR. The article then was trimmed away here, here and here and several times more by thousands of bytes and Russia had to go through a reassessment. Lee's approach towards this left me a bit unsatisfied. I'd have expected a follow up or an assurance that it is fixed. At least there exist different concepts in what is good and in Russia's case the other one seemed better to me and also to others. So I am not going to Rush(ia) another time into almost approve, mention my reservations and leave it on neutral for now.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if that's your vote, Paradise Chronicle, so-ve-it.
    I'll show myself out. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 05:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't give up the day job. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Related pages


  1. ^ Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship § Extended confirmed?
  2. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  3. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.