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

WilliamH[edit]

Final (125/0/2). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 14:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

WilliamH (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – WilliamH has been a Wikipedian since May 2006 and an admin since August 2008. He has also been a Checkuser and Oversighter since October of last year. I'm nominating him because he is clearly trusted to the requisite level by the community, as evidenced by his long tenure and use of advanced permissions. Also, he will actually use the crat tools to help in our areas most in need; of his five most edited WP: pages, three involve usernames/renames and one involves userrights.

While crats do need to close RFAs and William has not been one of the usual suspects at WT:RFA, I am impressed by this lack of politicalization or involvement in the various debates on WT:RFA. It is strong evidence to me that he has not sought this position as a means to level up or impose his views; he legitimately seeks to help an area with a backlog. Also, as he has shown a capacity in SPI to deal with sensitive matters requiring a neutral eye, I believe he is more than capable of reading community consensus.

Finally, WilliamH has shown skills beyond those of a simple Wikimandarin in his 18 DYKs and 3 GAs/2 FLs. These are more content contributions than I had when I passed and certainly show an appreciation of and involvement in the primary mission of the project. Given this track record, I approached William some weeks ago to nominate him and he has finally assented to this nomination. Therefore, I am happy to put him forward today for bureaucratship. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Many thanks to MBisanz for his time, consideration and nomination :) WilliamH (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Yes, I have. I understand the criteria to be granting the sysop flag when there is consensus to do so, and not doing so if said consensus is lacking. More broadly, I would sum up the criterion to be: can we trust the candidate to operate in accordance with administrative policy, and in other policies and guidelines pursuant to what we expect of admins, such as with a consistently respectful/civil manner, for example.

Broadly speaking, candidacies over 80% support pass, and those with less than 70% don't. However in the case of RFA, numbers are paradoxically not an exact science and do not embody the key aspect: the level of mutual agreement among editors, gathered by the merits and strengths of arguments. The position of this agreement at RFA can shift as new things come to light and/or those who have participated amend the weight or even position of their !vote, but the community finding out where this agreement lays is basically what RFA is about and is what the bureaucrat must assess and act upon.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A: As I’ve said before, I’m not interested in doing things quickly, but doing them correctly. There’s a few options here. The most elementary one is to give a detailed explanation and justification of my actions, because if I see that a candidacy is contentious then it simply must follow that I address that. Another possibility is a crat chat - getting a second or third opinion. However this is bit of a double-edged sword: I recognize the virtue of mutual agreement, but am uncomfortable with the idea of elite consensus being construed, like some higher parliamentary house if that makes sense. Another option is to simply let the RFA run a bit longer where reasonable to do so - the seven day period is not a countdown set in stone and this could easily aid a clearer outcome.

I must make it very clear though, that I will not be jumping in at the deep end. Although my contributions at RFA are certainly helpful and I am of course willing to close unambiguously clear candidacies pending closure where it simply means the candidate gets their tools sooner rather than later, my role at RFA has largely been “interested observer” and if this RFB is successful, that will not be rapidly or dramatically changing. We have few RFAs in comparison to previous years (something which I don't take pleasure in saying) and while one RFA requires more attention than one username change request, WP:CHU is the busiest area in terms of day to day crat tasks. As for bot flags, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved will be on my watch list, and I will flag where appropriate (and not without having had glance at the relevant discussion), however, CHU will be my primary venue, where I will ease the workload of the small handful of crats that do most of the renames these days, and speed up the process of unblocking those blocked pending renaming.

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 been an editor for almost 6 years and an admin for almost 4 of them, and feel that I am intimately familiar with policy, guidelines, and what is to be expected of other editors. From my experience in dealing with a controversial topic, high standards of fairness and knowledge of policy are fundamental. If recent messages on my talk page from editors I have never previously interacted with are anything to go by, I would certainly say I’m approachable. I am also trusted as a functionary. In comparison to other user rights which can have serious real life consequences, the scope of a bureaucrat is quite limited - technical ability notwithstanding, all the things they do are very clearly governed by what the community grants. Perhaps the best comparison is a worker at his desk who signs off the things other colleagues put in his in-tray every now and then, in accordance with its validity and colleages' position. I am confident that me contributing in this role will be advantageous to the project, and it would be an honour if this candidacy is successful. The community trust placed in me will always be regarded and respected, and I hope to reciprocate that trust as your next bureaucrat.

Additional questions from Wifione ^Message

4. Please comment on some possible situations when you feel a crat chat would be required post an RfA?

A: I feel it would be appropriate to do so in the case of an especially contentious candidacy, or in the event of a significant disparity between the ostensible outcome of a candidacy and its raw numbers. But as I said, I think crat discussion should happen only frugally. I don't, for example, believe that bureaucrat discussion should be a default option at certain percentages.

5. Please pardon the general nature of this question, but do feel free to interpret in any way that you may feel comfortable. An RfA candidacy has two distinct set of !voters. All the opposing editors in the oppose section comment that although the candidate has edited in some articles during his tenure at the project, knows the policies and guidelines and is trustworthy, he does not have quite the required editing experience, as there are no article creations/DYKs/GAs/FAs to the candidate's name. The supporting group comments that despite a wide editing experience being absent, the candidate is a capable CSD tagger and will be quite a capable hand at the deletion desk. At the close of the RfA, the candidate has 70% support. Kindly give some possible ways in which you might close this RFA, if hypothetically there are no other bureaucrats available for a second opinion.

A: There is the option of extending the RFA, but if there are two clear tiers of !voters in the candidacy, then I would question how useful that would be. Given that the opposes are pertinent, that 70% support is the low end of the scale, and that both sets of voters are quite clearly consolidated, I would probably lean towards no consensus to promote. The two schools of thought when it comes to article creation and content credits in relationship to administratorship are relevant not only to said candidacy but RFA in general, and I do not think such a closure is a departure from community expectations.

6. It's been almost three and a half years since you actively assisted in creating new accounts. Both UPOL and ACCG have changed to some extent in the meantime. If you were requested to now create the following three accounts (assuming that these accounts do not exist and have no SUL conflict) - NOTOX, Nokia indore002, Boogiewonderland - how would you handle each of these username requests, taking into consideration UPOL?

A: A brief overview on the three accounts: NOTOX - my corporate alarm bell went off slightly, and googling it reveals a few commercial entities which is definitely a concern, and I don't think I would create that now. As for Nokia indore002, Nokia is obviously a brand name, but I don't speak Finnish so can't really comment if it is exclusively a brand name, although looking at it now "indore" could be a non-native English speaker's writing of "Nokia Indoor", which could easily be a technology product. Then again, if a commercial intent was behind the account, I would probably expect them to get the name right. Boogiewonderland is seemingly just another reasonable abstract name and I don't see any reason not to create that, although it would be a different story if the comments in the request are along the lines of "we want to create a page for our band" or the e-mail address was @boogiewonderland.com, and the same goes for the other requests. Basically I would consider the bigger picture of each request and deal with it on a case-by-case nature.

I remember at least one participant in my RFA saying that I assumed a little too much good faith sometimes, and I think creating those accounts reflects that. Now I'm obviously older and definitely wiser, or at least feel it, and have been here three times as long. But in terms of usernames, I don't think that's a bad thing: usernames can be changed if it becomes clearer that they can't be reconciled with the username policy. I would much rather have that than potential editors walking away. I appreciate the nature of your question and hope it at least shows wider considerations when dealing with usernames, but what I'm getting at is that unless of course the only logged action of an account is the creation of said account or the username displays something patently obvious, accounts do not exist in a vacuum.

Additional question from Tryptofish

7. As you will remember, very recently you and I discussed an SPI case and unblock request at some length. During that discussion, you apologized a couple of times for having been slow to reply to questions. I realize that, the first time, you were not feeling well, and that is entirely understandable, but this continued after you had said that you were back. Are you confident, going forward, that you will be able to give the project the additional time that the additional responsibilities will require?

A: Very much so, and thanks for bringing this forward. The second time, I had to disappear to another city at very short notice. For our correspondence to be fragmented was not so much a question of reliability, just exceptionally bad luck, which I apologise for.

Generally speaking, crat tasks are not time consuming anyway, so this should not be an issue. I would also note that two editors raised the point of my activity during the 2011 CUOS appointments, but my assurance that I would meet the activity requirements there was good enough for Arbitration Committee, and I don't feel that there should be similar concerns as a crat.

Additional question from Kingpin13

8. I appreciate that you do not plan to work so much with bots, but still want to ask you a quick question related to bot flagging and BRfA: What difference would there be between how you assess a normal bot approval and an approval of a bot which has administrative rights?

A: As admin bots and non-admin bots are both approved by the same process (one which I am not involved in, and obviously wouldn't be acting on as a bureaucrat if I had participated in that process), and both could still do significant damage to the project if they aren't technically OK, I don't think there would be any significant difference. The obvious things to consider are if the appropriate discussions have received appropriate exposure, if the operator is themselves a sysop, and if there is consensus that there is a need for the bot, and it is technically sound, but consensus is consensus, and I should consider the where the community's and BAG's goalposts lie, not my own. If there was anything that I wasn't clear on though, I would ask to approving BAG member to clarify, because after all, it's them that actually approve the bot, but I can't imagine they would do so inappropriately.

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

9.Users who share a IP like a Husband and wife,Brothers or roommates who are established editors by themselves and have clearly notified this by mutual declaration on their userpage and have a tendency of voting together in RFAs.In a particular RFA they are supporting the same candidate as per nom with no rationale . Users opposing claim they are meatpuppets or proxies of each other.The RFA comes within the area of discretion would you consider the votes of those sharing IP separately or discount one vote per pair and why ?

A: Where accounts from the same IP operate in violation of WP:SOCK, then for Wikipedia's purposes they are generally considered as the same individual - CheckUser can't distinguish whose fingers are on the keyboard anyway.

The problem here is that unless there is a significant number of meatpuppets, a single additional !vote would still be within the order of magnitude, and wouldn't push an RFA out of the discretion zone which, if it was already in, would be subject to anyway.

10.A user zzz1 an admin with 30000 edits leaves the project in a moment of WP:DIVA as per WP:RTV and is renamed vanisheduser5555. Another admin xxx1 with 35000 edits also leaves the project but asks the crat at WP:CHUS to change her username to Kenyapotamus456 .Both leave in good standing with no arbcom,Rfc or Ani action against them.They have userpage deleted and talk pages blanked.If they both come and ask back for there tools what will do you and why ?What in simple terms is the difference between leaving with WP:RTV and by changing the username at WP:CHUS and leaving  ?

A:The first example is a standard instance of exercising one's right to vanish. It's done on the basis that a user wishes to obscure their association with their edits, and most importantly, is permanently leaving Wikipedia. In the case of the second admin wishing to be renamed, the initial query (and answer to your question) goes back to the nature of the request at WP:CHUS. It should be clarified if she wishes to leave Wikipedia and never edit again, or whether she wishes to retire or pursue a clean start. If the latter, placing the ((retired)) tag on her user page and abandoning the account is the best thing to do.

There are obvious additional nuances and it would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the only indicative factor pertaining to the second admin is the requested change in rename, it is probably reasonable to ask why an admin, presumeably with a measure of familiarity on the project if she's got 35,000 edits to his name, is requesting for her username to be changed to a username that is both somewhat random in itself and random in relation to her current username (and thus ask if it's an editor vanishing or an account retiring), which I shall assume for the sake of this argument.

Additional questions from Cunard

11.Users HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) wrote in the above discussion: "I think this demonstrates that bureaucrat discussions should be more of a common practice than they are currently, especially when an RfA is at the lower end of the discretionary area."

Nsk92 (talk · contribs) wrote: "HJ Mitchell make a good point that in cases where the outcome is likely to be a close call, having a crat chat would be useful ... Having crat chats in close cases like these is useful, both for more accurate determination of consensus and for greater consistency, particularly so that future RfA candidates better know what to expect."

Should bureaucrat discussions have been opened for the above two RfAs?

A: I think the underlying concern here is consistency, but since no RFA is the same and crats are obviously different people, perfection cannot ever truly be reached. I think a measure of mutual crat review could have been only a good thing, but I don't think it would have changed the outcome. The problem with the question "should" implies that the closing bureaucrat was not able to come to a conclusion on his own accord, which as he felt was not the case. I feel as though my response to question four covers this question somewhat: a crat chat is probably appropriate where the perceived outcome is different or the candidacy is contentious. If facing such a candidacy, I think it is more likely than not that I would open some form of dialogue, given my limited experience in RFA, even if just to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

12. In your answer to question five, you wrote,

Given that the opposes are pertinent, that 70% support is the low end of the scale, and that both sets of voters are quite clearly consolidated, I would probably lean towards no consensus to promote. The two schools of thought when it comes to article creation and content credits in relationship to administratorship are relevant not only to said candidacy but RFA in general, and I do not think such a closure is a departure from community expectations.

Your opinion, one with which I agree, seems to be at odds with the statements in the two RfA closes by WJBScribe (talk · contribs) and X! (talk · contribs). In cases such as these, when bureaucrats can reasonably have differing opinions about community expectations, should bureaucrat discussions be held? What weight would opposes based on content creation carry in relation to opposes based on (1) maturity, (2) inactivity, (3) lack of edit summaries, and (4) knowledge of policy?

A: Those are all valid opposes, and I can certainly see how RFA participants could reconcile their content-related concerns in light of having the delete button based on maturity, edit summaries (i.e., communication with other editors), and knowledge of policy. I'm not sure how relevant bureaucrat discussion would be because those expections may manifest in the RFA itself. By this, I am suggesting that in addition to those things, !voters would consider not only the candidates knowledge of policy but where it would be applied, i.e., the work the candidate wishes to continue. As an example, imagine an RFA where the candidate has few content contributions, is solely interested in WP:UAA or dealing with WP:SPAM and the blacklist, and their CSD tags are accurate. In this case, oppose !votes on the basis of few content contributions are a weaker argument in comparison to support !votes from participants who point out out the candidates scant but accurate deletion taggings bear little to no relation to the area the candidate wishes to work in. However, if the candidate wished to pursue XFD in an admin role, then that may open the doorway for more convincing opposition arguments.

13. What is your opinion about vote-striking during and after an RfX? Refer to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 12#Nichalp actions in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redmarkviolinist 3, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 16#Vote striking by a crat, reversal by a noncrat, and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 16#Guidelines and strikings and !votes, oh my.

For more recent discussion about whether bureaucrats should "police" RfAs, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 23#RfA behaviours in November 2011. See also the commentary at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 23#Civility and vote weighing for borderline RfAs on 14 January 2012, as well as Surturz (talk · contribs)'s comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dpmuk#Oppose on 13 February 2012. What are your thoughts about these issues?

A: Before even clicking any of them, the fact that your question links to three discussions rather gave me the gut feeling that it's not a good idea. I would say that unless a !vote is made in unequivocally bad faith, such as from a sockpuppet, it should not be struck out. In the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redmarkviolinist 3, it was obvious that Richard Cavell's oppose was beyond the realms of whether the candidate would be a suitable admin, and I would have given it that consideration if closing the RFA without making such a blunt distinguishing. It's not unreasonable to ask for elaboration, but going beyond that doesn't seem wise. As for "patrolling" or "policing", it sounds rather draconian to me and I appreciate the thoughts that attempts to do so could be taken as not impartial.

14. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 was placed on hold by bureaucrat and checkuser Deskana (talk · contribs). Deskana's comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2/CU discussion#RFA on hold were criticized here and here. After his actions at the RfA, Deskana (talk · contribs) recused from closing the RfA; see User talk:Deskana/Archive 25#Appropriate consideration and closure of Engima's RFA. As a checkuser and bureaucrat, how would you balance the two roles? How would you have approached the situation at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 had you been in Deskana's shoes and discovered a possible violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry?

A: It's important to consider the intentions behind this incident. Yes, it is unacceptable to avoid scrutiny in violation of WP:SOCK, and yes, it is appropriate that the community is aware of that. The issue here is that everything rather happened at once. Deskana posted that message ten minutes after putting the RFA on hold, and it would have been better if Enigmaman was contacted beforehand.

If I was faced with a similar situation, I would put the RFA on hold, and take the other stages such as discussing with another CheckUser one step at a time. I appreciate that Deskana did not have this capability at the time because RevDel wasn't introduced until a year later, but one idea might be to suppress the IP of the problematic edits when associating them with the account, like how CheckUsers associate accounts with other accounts. This would strike a reasonable balance with the privacy policy and the wishes of the community. Funnily enough, a situation not dissimilar did happen here, with zero drama.

15. At Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 23#Proposed practice for desysopping, MBisanz (talk · contribs) suggested on 8 February 2012:

I propose that when an admin or crat requests desysopping and states they are "invoking RTV," "requesting a courtesy vanishing," "vanishing," or otherwise making a direct allusion to WP:RTV, the reviewing crat would specifically inform them that by doing so, they could never reclaim the bit without re-seeking RFA and require the user to confirm they are aware that what they are requesting is permanent and different from retirement, leaving, or taking a break.

What is your opinion about this proposal?

A: I agree that it's entirely consistent with the philosophy behind the right to vanish, but my concern would be the bigger picture, and for that reason I find myself siding with the concerns of Balloonman and WJBscribe more - such a policy does indeed appear to be "one size fits all". I would say that further discussion should be had to hash out the considerations and distinctions between vanishing and retiring in themselves, as this proposal comes off as bit of an inadvertant backdoor way of doing it to me.

16. In your answer to question four, you wrote that "crat discussion should happen only frugally". Are there any RfXs at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion for which you would not have opened a bureaucrat discussion?

A: The one that stands out for me is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Remember the dot. Rdsmith4 sums it up best for me: "The numbers are inconclusive, and the objections seem to have serious content. No consensus."

17. How would you have closed the following RfAs? (successful, unsuccessful, bureaucrat discussion, or extension) If you intend to initiate a bureaucrat discussion, would your opinion be to promote or fail the candidate?

a. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare – closed as successful on 16 August 2010 at (87/36/8) at 70.7%

Successful. Some opposes are weightier than others, some are quite broad, and some are irrelevant. There is definitely consensus that the candidate is trustworthy and has WP:CLUE, and this to me appears the most consolidated perspective

b. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1 – closed as successful on 28 July 2010 at (75/29/8) at 72.1%

Discuss, leaning towards successful. There are some well-presented opposition !votes; Tiptoety's one definitely stands out, as does HJ Mitchell's. I would give the !oppose votes concerning collaboration a bit less weight, as collaboration or at least a willingness for it is really a prerequisite among CheckUsers, and some of the supports do address that.

c. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab – closed as successful on 11 July 2009 at (69/33/4) at 67.6%

Unsuccessful, or possibly discuss with that perspective. If this one is in the discretion zone, then it's holding on with its finger tips. I see opposes on the basis of limited experience where the candidate says he will use the tools, plus several in light of Ottava's comments over content policies, which also relate to deletion. These are strong arguments and I don't think they can be overlooked in favour of +sysop.

d. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon 3 – closed as successful on 23 February 2008 at (89/52/14) at 63.1%

See question 18.

e. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Logan – closed as unsuccessful on 21 May 2011 at (76/29/4) at 72.4%

Discuss, leaning towards unsuccessful, or possibly close as unsuccessful in its own right. I think this is one of those candidacies where the percentile really does not reflect the mood of the candidacy (not that it can anyway, but you know what I mean). The opposes, express that the candidate is too keen and lacks judgement, and they are quite consolidated in that many of them draw upon one strong argument.

f. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slon02 3 – closed as unsuccessful on 12 March 2011 at (45/19/10) at 70.3%

Unsuccessful. At the low end of the discretion zone, all of the opposers allude to or specifically refer to the problems with CSD, and even many of the supports acknowledge this. I think this is a good example of my response to question 12. To offer a comparison for the sake that this is in a similar percentile with GorillaWarfare's RFA, the opposition to Slon02_3 gives a much clearer perspective as to why the candidate would make a poor administrator.

g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman – closed as unsuccessful on 21 January 2011 at (76/36/10) at 67.9%

Unsuccessful. There are significant concerns regarding core content policies both in themselves and in relation to deletion policy, and this one falls a reasonable amount out of the zone of discretion.

h. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ling.Nut – closed as unsuccessful on 3 November 2010 at (113/63/7) at 64.2%

Unsuccessful. This is even further below the area of discretion. The impression I get from the opposition is that you can make your point authoritatively without bringing your demeanour into question, which is what they anticipate. User:Dank's words that the candidate would "mop himself into a corner" sum up the opposers' concerns in relation to anticipating more controversy well.

i. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 – closed as unsuccessful on 17 July 2010 at (88/30/11) at 74.6%

Unsuccessful. There are large policy concerns, the obvious one being on BLP. I notice that question 12, an ideal opportunity for the candidate to clarify or elaborate on BLP, was left unanswered. For each door closed, another two seem to open, and I would not say that there is consensus for promotion here.

j. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2 – closed as unsuccessful on 26 October 2010 at (123/59/21) at 67.6%

Unsuccessful. Concerns relating to maturity, experience and content work all gel together into another aspect that the candidate is not particularly responsive to criticisms or expectations, as is alluded to on the basis of previous RFAs.

k. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 – closed as unsuccessful on 13 January 2009 at (132/60/11) 68.8%

Unsuccessful. There is definitely no consensus to promote, and I think EVula sums it up well. The way the CU evidence became apparent was far from ideal, but the evidence itself was relevant. There clearly are two different camps of participants, and RFA really isn't the venue to discern which camp those edits belongs to, probably reflective of why there's no clear consensus. Additionally, if I had functioned in a CU capacity beyond that of indenting the votes of uncontroversial socks, I wouldn't be closing that RFA anyway.

l. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 – closed as successful on 10 May 2011 at (166/63/10) at 72.5%

See below.

18. At Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Hersfold#Q15, Hersfold (talk · contribs) wrote with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2, "Discuss with opinion towards accepting. As with ^demon's, this is a reconfirmation RFA, so I'd consider the bar to be a little lower than usual." Should the bar be lower for reconfirmation RfAs such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon 3 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2?

I would not be willing to close reconfirmation RFAs because of my feelings on them. In the case of ^demon_3's RFA, my first action is to look at the page history and think "86kb, wow, that's a Featured article or two, what a waste of everyone's time". I'm not for a moment second suggesting that admins may have impunity, are immune from criticism, or that those in opposition should not have a platform for their views, but if the candidate could have requested his tools back at any time, it seems a little pointless to me. Furthermore, where opposes are on the basis that it is a reconfirmation RFA, the bar may still be the same. I think we should work towards direct solutions instead of achieving them indirectly through a failure to restate a self-evident situation.

19. Question 5 said (bolding added by questioner for emphasis), "An RfA candidacy has two distinct set of !voters. All the opposing editors in the oppose section comment that although the candidate has edited in some articles during his tenure at the project, knows the policies and guidelines and is trustworthy, he does not have quite the required editing experience, as there are no article creations/DYKs/GAs/FAs to the candidate's name. The supporting group comments that despite a wide editing experience being absent, the candidate is a capable CSD tagger and will be quite a capable hand at the deletion desk. At the close of the RfA, the candidate has 70% support."

Your answer (bolding added by questioner for emphasis): "Given that the opposes are pertinent, that 70% support is the low end of the scale, and that both sets of voters are quite clearly consolidated, I would probably lean towards no consensus to promote. The two schools of thought when it comes to article creation and content credits in relationship to administratorship are relevant not only to said candidacy but RFA in general, and I do not think such a closure is a departure from community expectations."

Question 17a asked about how you would close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare, which was closed as successful on 16 August 2010 at (87/36/8) at 70.7%.

Your answer: "Successful. Some opposes are weightier than others, some are quite broad, and some are irrelevant. There is definitely consensus that the candidate is trustworthy and has WP:CLUE, and this to me appears the most consolidated perspective".

I've reviewed the oppose section of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare and 20 of the 36 opposes were based on lack of or unsatisfactory content creation. Opposes #4 ("I would like to see more content editing"), 5 ("Less than 50% of your edits are to article space"), 6 ("limited content creation"; "you should write a few articles"), 7 ("Write some stuff"), 9 ("lack of content building"), 10 ("not having much content experience"), 11 ("a bit more content work would certainly be a plus"), 12 ("Little experience of building the encyclopedia"), 15 ("Low number of edits to article space; meager article creations (4 articles/11 redirects)"), 16 ("I would also like to see more content building"), 17 ("On the question of creations, I think it's reasonable to expect an RfA candidate's own creations, however few they are, to demonstrate that the candidate has a fairly sound knowledge of content policy. GorillaWarfare's contributions do not."), 18 ("the limited articles"), 25 ("I do like to see some content creation"), 27 ("There is also problems with some of the articles you created with your first account."), 28 ("I am not as willing to overlook a lack of high-level content creation."), 30 ("nobody seems to have shown a concern here that this editor has only ever created 4 articles in his existence on here"), 31 ("the candidate's lack of content creation"), 32 ("Statistics don't usually tell the whole story, but when I see virtually all of a candidate's article and article talk edits in the single digits, alarm bells begin to sound"), 35 ("Insufficient experience because very little content provided."), and 36 (" believe an admin should have some significant content work. I ask not for GAs or FAs, but simply major effort into article or articles.")

Some of these opposes, as well as others that did not mention content creation as a concern, were worried about the candidate's deletion-related contributions. For example, oppose #10: "Looking at your recent history I see several things that concern me over your knowledge of policy. The speedy tagging identified by WereSpielChequers above and at Serwan Baban concern me over you knowledge of the speedy criteria, which is an area you say you want to work in. The Route M4 (Manhattan) article where you restored the prod tag to the article twice after it was removed, was only a couple of weeks ago and how this was wrong had to be pointed out to you on your talk page. The AFD comment brought up by SarekOfVulcan is also concerning."

In your answer to question 5, you write that you would "lean towards no consensus to promote" in an RfA with 70% support when the opposes are based on "no article creations/DYKs/GAs/FAs to the candidate's name" and the supports are based on "the candidate is a capable CSD tagger and will be quite a capable hand at the deletion desk".

In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare, there was 70% support, concerns about lack of content contributions, and well-grounded concerns about deletion policy knowledge. This RfA seems to mirror the hypothetical example asked by Wifione in question 5. The most noticeable difference is that in Wifione's example, the hypothetical candidate was a "capable CSD tagger" who would be "quite a capable hand at the deletion desk". In GorillaWarfare's case, the RfA participants had significant doubts about GorillaWarfare's deletion policy knowledge, another factor against closing as successful. Based on your answer to question 5, I thought you would close this RfA as no consensus. Would you expand upon your reasoning about how you found consensus to promote?

A: Sure. It's true that there are many opposes relating to scant content, but there are equally (or almost as equally, by my count 19) that the candidate is trustworthy and has clue, e.g. good answers to the questions. And yes, there are CSD concerns in the opposition section, but there are equally as many support !votes that address CSD that they still trust the candidate to improve on issues raised, and that the candidate responds well to constructive criticism. The percentage of this RFA is on the fence indeed, but in light of these aspects with all the other support, I do get the impression that it slides down onto the successful side.

20. Does your answer to question 18 mean that you would recuse or abstain from closing reconfirmation RfAs and participating in any bureaucrat discussions about them?

A: You wrote on my talk page that "I don't believe your opinions about reconfirmation RfAs sufficiently cloud your judgment to compel you to recuse from them" and really, I'd say you're right. Perhaps in saying I would recuse from them, I am rendering any measure of prejudice I may have irrelevant. I can see how the consequence of one may be useful if an admin is actually desysopped, but that's only clear once the process has happened. I stand by my original comment that we need the right process for the right purpose, not by indirectly achieving it when a self-evident situation is not achieved all over again. RFA is not Admin review. I think I would echo Deskana in Herostratus_2's RFA: it's not up to crats to determine what is and isn't acceptable. I would certainly discuss what I think of them as a member of the community, but I can't impose it as a crat.

A very insightful reply. (Link to my talk page comments). I have posed two final follow-up questions and have registered my support which will likely not be affected by the answers to them. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21. In each of his closes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement today and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation) (2nd nomination) on 17 February, Sandstein (talk · contribs) provided a detailed closing rationale: a breakdown of whose votes he disqualified, a summary of the relevant arguments, guidelines, and policies, and an explanation of how he came to a decision of "no consensus".

I have not seen this kind of closure in closes of contentious or divided RfAs. Such detailed reasoning would likely assuage the concerns of RfA participants who when faced with insufficient reasoning occasionally believe the consensus was incorrectly assessed (examples are here, here, and here). If you were to close a contentious or divided RfA, would you consider providing such a detailed rationale: a breakdown of the arguments you disqualified or to which you accorded less weight and a summary of the support and oppose reasons with the degree of support for each?

A: I would consider that, I would want to leave as little to the imagination as possible. I'd like to think that this always underpins my responses. But I wouldn't say what Sandstein did was for just everyone else's benefit - condensing the situation down must have made it a lot easier for him to review and come to a conclusion.

22. RfA and RfB candidates frequently avoid interacting with participants in the oppose and neutral columns for fear of being accused of badgering. I pose this question to give you the opportunity to reply to the concern about whether you are "bot-positive".

A: Well, "bot-positive" is abstract to say the least. Obviously the two areas can go hand-in-hand, but aside from flagging bots when they have been approved by the BAG, there is no further prequisite involvement for crats. Secondly, not participating in a process does not mean that one does not approve of it. As Newyorkbrad and AGK say, SPI would be a lot more uphill without bot assistance doing thousands of repetitive edits.

General comments[edit]

• Links for WilliamH: WilliamH (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for WilliamH can be found here.

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

Discussion[edit]

• Regarding question 9. If we assume, as the question states, that the RfA is a definite pass if you include the meatpuppet votes, then the RfA is at 80% support in this scenario. If you then assume, again as the question states, that ignoring the meatpuppet votes means it is a definite fail, then the RfA must be at 70% support in this scenario. Setting these suppositions up as a system of simultaneous equations shows that the only way this situation can occur is if roughly 47% of the vote is from genuine supporters, roughly 33% of the vote is from meatpuppets, and exactly 20% of the vote is from opposers. Surely then this would be a matter for checkusers, not for bureaucrats? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It is based on this issue which came up in the ANI raised by User and the related discussion about Brothers,Sisters and Husbands and wives voting for the same candidate as the issue of Meatpuppeting coming up. and think it is relevant for crats.I have never said they are meatpuppets,I only said an opposer raised this issue and it is for the closing crat to decide so.They have notified it in there userpages and hence the issue of Socking does not arise.It comes within of discretion assuming 80% or 70% exactly as pass or fail is not apt.The project has several Brothers ,husband and wives having separate accounts and voting Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What you call "brothers, husbands and wives" I call "meatpuppets". Either way, the naming issue of whether or not they are meatpuppets, or whatever else you want to call them, does not change the mathematics of the situation; there would have to be an implausibly high number of supporters from the "brothers, husbands and wives" accounts for this situation to occur, and then it wouldn't really be the bureaucrat's job to deal with it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

1. MBisanz ^talk 14:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - Strong understanding of the username policy. Has already proven trustworthy with the tools he's been given. Achowat (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I have no reason to expect that this experienced, highly respected editor would misuse any of the crat buttons, so I'll support. 28bytes (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. HurricaneFanAlt ≈≈ (bad revert?) 14:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support...MONGO 15:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Good answers to questions, great body of experience, definitely appears to have earned a few more permissions boxes. --WGFinley (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - Very careful and knowledgeable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Long term editor and admin, Checkuser, Oversighter - I think we can trust him to rename users -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support definitely. This editor has been helpful since the start of his long 6-year career. Minima© (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support I looked at 20 or so contributions to hotspots, and he was always intelligent, direct, non-patronizing, and respectful of others' time. He does not seem to lead changes in policy, which I suppose is an excellentagreeable habit for aspirants to this position, notwithstanding the need for such intelligent and wise editors also to contribute to policy discussions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 12:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support As the person who suggested him in discussions, I believe this user will make an excellent bureaucrat.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 522,338,177) 17:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Excellent answers to the basic questions above and good performance in his other roles around the project make this a straightforward decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. I do wonder how you'll find the time given the usual workload on Checkusers, but I see this discussion as almost pointless - if someone is trusted to Oversight and Checkuser then the 'crat buttons are a mere trifle in comparison. QU ^TalkQu 17:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Nom statement was a strong endorsement and the answers to the questions thus far have confirmed my feelings. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Yessssss Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Yes please! I have no concerns whatsoever regarding WilliamH's ability to take on the 'crat role. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, I was confused multiple times that he isn't a 'crat yet. mabdul 20:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Look forward to having you with us as a crat. Best. Wifione ^Message 20:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - Mlpearc (powwow) 20:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Seems to interact well with others, has demonstrated a high level of competence in most areas of Wikipedia, and from what I can see, shows good judgement in determining consensus and making decisions. Pol430 talk to me 21:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Of course. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. WilliamH is clearly a trustworthy and experienced editor who surely will do well as a 'crat. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24. Yeah, this will work. Per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. Competent in every relevant area and more besides. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Echoing all of the above and William is a friendly user through my experiences with him. The Helpful One 22:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support already a checkuser and oversighter. --Rschen7754 23:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support —SW— ^comment 23:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support I have no concerns. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Of course. Cheers! Shearonink (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
31. Obvious support It's probably time we had another 'crat or two. And what better 'crat could we have than WilliamH? He's sensible, calm, friendly, highly competent, trustworthy and pretty much zero-drama. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - Highly competent contributor. I have no problem supporting this candidate. Tiptoety ^talk 00:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
33. Why not? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support- Fully qualified. Good luck. Dru of Id (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
35. Unreservedly. AGK [•] 01:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
36. Secret ^account 01:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
37. Érico ^msg 01:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
38. Fully competent. WH is a great CU and OS, I see no issues with handing him the crat tool bag. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - Yep, as above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Competent, well spoken and trustworthy. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support for all the good it will do; is it going to snow? (it never snows up, only down) A review of all AfD non-majority closures shows perfectly reasonable calls. Existing tools used without drama. Josh Parris 04:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support having an oversighter who is also a 'crat is very prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support per below. →Στc. 05:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
44. Strongest Possible Support WilliamH is perhaps one of the best contributors here on en-wiki. A great checkuser, oversighter, and administrator...I feel William's bureaucratship is long overdue. Bmusician 05:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Fully qualified. -- œ^™ 05:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
46. Absolutely. T. Canens (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. I disagree with MBisanz's interpretation of the lack of WT:RFA comments. However I do agree that WilliamH has the qualities required for a good bureaucrat. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
48. Can't see any problems. I remember opposing you for steward last year due to lack of experience, but you seem to have plenty of experience for this role despite having a relatively low edit count compared to our other recently-promoted crats. Don't see any glaring problems with your answers. I think you'd do just fine as a crat. Btw, Nokia isn't exclusively a brand name :) Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
49. Despite the dubious quality of your RFA nominator:) I'm pleased to see that you are now accepting nominations from people with a higher standing. William will be a fine addition, and his in depth experience will be a particular asset. Pedro :  Chat  14:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
50. - filelakeshoe 14:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
51. Pile on. No concerns, bucketfuls of support.--v/r - TP 15:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
52. Cratship is three extra buttons. William can easily take on the role, and do so well. — foxj 16:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
53. No problems for me, so I'll pile on. Peridon (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - Certainly knows what he is doing, well experienced and would be an asset to Wikipedia as a 'crat. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. Thank you for your prompt (note!) response to my question above. I actually tend to think that you misread the SPI data in that case, but that's got nothing to do with crat responsibilities, and I think that the candidate is well qualified for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
56. Trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
57. Polite, well mannered, very experienced admin who has more than enough capability and nouse to be taken on as a bureaucrat. You'd be nuts to miss the chance :)  BarkingFish  22:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support No problems I can see, so I'll pile on the support too. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 23:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
59. Yes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - no concerns with anything I've seen him do. - Bilby (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support - Following the lead of a few trusted voices above. Carrite (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - Absolutely. Could certainly do with another crat and WilliamH is perfect for the job. Swarm ^X 05:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
63. Definitely. I haven't interacted with him very much, but when I did, he was extremely friendly towards me. He's obviously trustworthy enough to be a bureaucrat. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support I can't recall ever seeing WilliamH in action, but his answers to the above questions are pretty much perfect. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
65. No concerns at all. EyeSerene^talk 13:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
66. Of course! PeterSymonds (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
67. Per everyone above :-) --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 15:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
68. No concerns; experienced sysop. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
69. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) 17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support WilliamH is already a trusted user with Edit Filter, Oversight, CheckUser and Administrator rights. Has been a long time contributor for almost 6 years now and a quite experienced user. A good and potential candidate for Bureaucrat. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support I have not seen much of William's work in my areas of editing but what I have seen was generally very positive. And Matthew's nomination is detailed enough to simply say "what Matt said" instead of having to write all that stuff again. William has shown to be a trusted admin who possesses the necessary skill-set and mind for this job, so let's give it to him. More crats are always a good thing, so hopefully this RFB will get suitable candidates interested in cratship again. Regards SoWhy 17:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Pile on - no indication that this user will abuse the extra crat tools. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Very experienced admin, I don't anything that would convince me otherwise. -- Luke (Talk) 19:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
74. Yes, of course! I remember WilliamH in the time before he was an admin (though I had forgotten that I had granted him rollback over four years ago!), and have always thought he is a great editor. WilliamH has been an awesome admin as far as I know, and I am happy to support him for bureaucratship. Acalamari 20:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support I'm not sure I've ever !voted in a RfB before, but when I saw that WilliamH was going for it, I had to chime in. My experiences with WilliamH have been overwhelmingly positive—he's helped me several times, whether I have a question about a policy, need oversight, etc. He will be a terrific 'crat, as he clearly has a good head on his shoulders. And I swear this !support has nothing to do with him reaffirming my adminship :P– GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. This is not a place where I've contributed much, but I noticed WilliamH's nomination and have seen that he appears to be a diligent editor, respectful of the community, and a person capable of living up to our trust in him. dci | TALK 22:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Good answers. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
78. Samir 03:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Per everyone who knows better. I've never interacted directly with him, but there seems to be no reason not to support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support - sure ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 06:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. Lynch7 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. ~Feedintm^Parley 18:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support — No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support OMG! We haven't had a RfB in almost a year. And this may be the first time I ever voted in a RfB. Hooray for me! —stay (sic)! 03:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support longstanding and sensible contributor. I've met him a few times at meetups and he is as cluefull and sensible in RL as he is on wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 11:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
88. Clueful and intelligent. Absolutely. ceranthor 15:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
89. Has my trust. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
90. Absolutely no concerns GB fan 20:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
91. Stephen 23:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support In the few months I have come to know William, he's going to make a fine 'crat. Where is the motion I sign? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support From what I have seen of the user , will make a good crat. Enfcer (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support. Seems obvious. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support A top-drawer editor and sysop, who undoubtedly will make a top-drawer 'crat--Hokeman (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support I have no concern with him getting the crat tool, since he will make a good use of them. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support Of course. Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 11:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 15:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support Worked with William a few times, excellent editor and admin, will make a great crat. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support Why not? WP:100. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Support! No reason why not! mabdul 16:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Indented—you are support #17. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     This is even funnier when you take in to account that Mabdul said "I was confused multiple times that he isn't a 'crat yet" in his first vote. :-D --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

101. Support He's qualified and can be trusted to work in the area, work is needed in the area. Simple. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support Dealings over senitive CU requests show a knowledgeable and extremely thoughtful admin who checks carefully and doesn't act until they have a solid basis on which to do so. I like that kind of attitude in a 'crat. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support Obviously. Agathoclea (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support Came across this user in SPI last month and helped me quite a bit. He also knows quite a lot about other subjects on Wikipedia too. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 20:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support - William is clearly an experienced administrator and I trust his judgement thoroughly. He will make an excellent bureaucrat. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support- Has the judgement to fairly be a bureaucrat. --Kangaroopowah 01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. Seems a lovely bloke, and there also doesn't seem to be any reason to oppose... which seems strange, but also incredibly cool. — Isarra (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support--Sokac121 (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support: Absolutely. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support: I've had excellent interactions with this editor over IRC. I'd trust him with the 'crat tools.~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support -- Good luck... Wagino 20100516 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
112. Strong Support Thank you for offering your candidature at a time when there is a requirement for crats.Fully Trust the judgement of User MBisnaz , Newyorkbrad and Acaramari.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support - Seems like a good move...Modernist (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support Per nom. --John (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support Answers seem okay, no concerns. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support per the excellent answers to my questions. William's answer to Q13—that he would not strike RfA participants' votes or "police" RfAs because doing so would give the illusion of impartiality—is rational and heartening. His proposed course of action in Q14, particularly the use of revision deletion to suppress the name of the IP, is an inventive solution to striking a balance between privacy and transparency. William's insightful analyses in Q17 and the follow-up Q19 demonstrate his skill at assessing community consensus and explaining how he reaches his decisions.

     William's lengthy tenure as a trusted checkuser and oversighter, his willingness to recuse from closing RfAs when he feels he may have bias, however slight (Q20), and his dedication to working at the frequently backlogged WP:CHU prove that the community would be well served with him as a bureaucrat. William, thank you for your untiring replies to my numerous difficult questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

117. Support Why not. No reasons to oppose  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support. No concerns here. SuperMarioMan 00:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support. No concerns. Rlendog (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
120. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support-Smallman12q (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support Jedd Raynier (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support - No concerns. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support Certainly qualified e^xtra999 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

Neutral[edit]

1. Neutral Bureaucrats do these things - be superior role models, close RfA, rename, change account statuses, and do bot stuff. WilliamH is an excellent role model and will perfectly close RfAs, do renames, and change statuses. I am voting neutral because WilliamH seems not to have interest in bots. I searched his last few thousand edits for the term "bot" and there is no interaction there.
   I do not care if WilliamH is not a programmer or does not understand bot functionality but I think he should at least demonstrate a bot-supportive attitude. Since the job of a bureaucrat which is furthest removed from most people's editing experience is looking at bots I expect all bureaucrats to demonstrate something bot-positive, which this RfB does not do. I might say that a bureaucrat's job is to be a gentleperson and to do bot stuff, and undoubtedly WilliamH is a gentleman. If I had reason to believe he encouraged human and bot unity then I would vote support, but this RfB shows no such contribution. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   That's harsh. His main interest is CHU (where we need more assistance) and not bots (where it's sufficiently manned).—cyberpower ^Yak_Online 20:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not certain exactly what Blue Rasberry means by "bot-positive." (Since Wikipedia bots are editing scripts rather than Asimovian positronic robots at the borderline of sentience, the reference to "human and bot unity" doesn't help clarify.) However, my best interpretation would be something along the lines of "supportive of the use of bots as an aid in maintaining the encyclopedia, and of the editors who program and use the bots"—is that it? If so, I see no reason to doubt that WilliamH is "bot-positive", as for that matter, am I and virtually every other active editor. After all, the alternatives to having bots (and, relatedly, scripts) on the project would be either for editors to make lots of repetitious maintenance edits manually, or more realistically for most of those edits not to get made. I am certain WilliamH wouldn't want that but if you're in doubt, the best course might be to ask him before !voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Blue Rasberry [sic]: You might consider that WilliamH is an active checkuser, and the associated process of sockpuppet investigations is very reliant on all manner of bots. He may not have "I heart Bots" in his signature, but one would assume he is as supportive of bots as a typical contributor. AGK [•] 16:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral - I had a bad history at CHU myself (as a clerk) and I don't know about him. --J (t) 01:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.