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

.

Final (112/15/3); Closed as successful [1] by Useight at 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Hello, all! I have been a registered user of this great encyclopedia for over 3 years, joining in December of 2006. I became active in November of 2007, passing a request for adminship in June 2008. I’ve been all around the place in my tenure here, from operating multiple bots that perform dozens of mindless, tedious tasks, to plenty of anti-vandal experience, to being one of the first abuse-filter editors (and helping to get it implemented on Wikipedia), to closing hundreds of articles for deletion, to being a clerk at the changing username boards, and close to everything in between.

1 year ago, I unsuccessfully ran for bureaucratship. I withdrew it quite rapidly, which was not a great decision on my part. I enjoy hearing feedback from the community, and it has always been a regret of mine that I did not let more of the community express their opinions of me. In that RfB, there were two main opposition points. The first was that the bots I ran had multiple issues that resulted in blocks. Since that time, there has been but one block, which was resolved in a speedy manner and solved the issue once and for all. I hope that the community can see past this single block, as it was about 8 months ago, and it has has a perfect track record since then. The second issue that was raised was that I had not made many difficult decisions or stepped into many areas of controversy. Since that time, I have closed hundreds of AfD decisions, most of them going uncontroversially. The few that were controversial and went to deletion review, such as with Romania – Sri Lanka relations, were either due to my own error, which I always humbly admitted to, or ended up endorsing my decision. I have also been occasionally commenting on RfCs, including the BLP RfC and the RfC on bureaucrat desysopping, both of which have resulted in controversial outcomes. As such, in the past year, I do believe that I have taken what the community requested of me to heart. The role of a bureaucrat is to read, interpret, and identify community consensus. By listening and understanding to what has been stated in the past RfB, I have demonstrated exactly what a bureaucrat does.

With that, I would like to present my candidacy to the community. I hope that my actions over the past few years have demonstrated that I am capable of evaluating consensus fairly, that I have good knowledge of policies and guidelines, and that I am able to be trusted with the role of bureaucrat. I thank you all for taking the time to evaluate me fairly. (X! · talk)  · @925  ·  21:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 certainly read the discussions on when to promote and not to promote. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship has been on my “read-every-day” list for well over a year. While I do not talk much, I certainly read and enjoy all the discussions that take place there. It is not often that I comment there, but when I feel the need that my view is needed, I always jump in on the discussion. From what I have read and understood, the primary goal of a bureaucrat is to evaluate ‘’consensus’’. That is a very strage word, and it can mean a lot. It means a different thing to everyone, which means that my interpretation of consensus may be a little different than another bureaucrat’s. Because of that, the deciding factor in what determines consensus is common sense. It is not a percentage that decides it, but it certainly gives a rough outline of consensus. There seems to have been a drop in the range where consensus is typically to promote over the past year. When I passed my RfA, it was in the 75-80% range. That seems to have declined to 70-80%. However, with recent RfAs such as Davemeistermoab, it is always important to remember that it is not a hard percentage, but an outline. With RfBs, the percentage is a little cloudier. Historically speaking, the percentage has been 90%. However, this range has been cloudied by recent RfBs, such as Nihonjoe’s 4th one. This brings us back to the idea of consensus. Nihonjoe 4 and Juliancolton 2 were both around the same percentage level, yet Nihonjoe had a much stronger level of consensus. As such, consensus is still the deciding factor, as it should be.

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

A. The first thing to think about when closing an RfA is that there is no set expiry date. The 7 days is just a guideline, and bureaucrats should be taking their time to ensure that the debate is closed fairly. The hold template was created just for this purpose. On contentious nominations, when consensus is being evaluated, it is essential to remember that the bureaucrats are a team, and it is permissible to discuss between them. Collaborative editing is what makes Wikipedia go ‘round, and RfA is no exception. A so-called “crat chat” is one option, as it is a centralized place for bureaucrats to discuss. Lastly, it is always a good idea to give a rationale for contentious RfAs. A rationale may calm down some editors who, while not happy about the outcome, may come to respect it. However, closing without a rationale will result in mobs forming on talk pages, which does not fare well for both the bureaucrat and the Wikipedia community.

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. First of all, I have tenure as an admin for almost 2 years, in which I have always upheld Wikipedia’s policies, worked with many editors, including difficult ones, and have done my best to maintain my integrity. Whenever I press the "save" button, I always try to follow Essjay's advice: Will it help the encyclopedia? Lastly, I always try to maintain a good relationship all editors I meet. I have even made good relationships with the editors I have had disputes with in the past.

Additional question from Keepscases

4. While it's clear you understand the importance of consensus, please name at least one RfA in which consensus did not match your own personal opinion of the candidate and his/her credentials. How did the bureaucrat handle it? As bureaucrat, would you have done anything differently?

A: The first one that pops up to mind is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 3 (stats). In this one, I did not think that fl had the proper maturity at the time, due to previous encounters with him. (For what it's worth, my opinion has since changed, and I realized that it was a net positive that fl became an admin) However, 83 people disagreed with me, and that was the clear consensus. At the time, I had disagreed with the consensus. The bureaucrat handled it as he should have, as the consensus was clearly in the promote side of the playing ground. It was a commendable decision, and as such, even if I were to close it, I would promote regardless of my opinion.

Optional questions from Pharaoh of the Wizards

5. A senior Admin for many years who has a good track both as editor and admin but leaves Wikipedia under a cloud after a recent disputes and voluntarily returns his/her tools had he not left the dispute could have been escalated to RFC/Arbcom through the outcome of this could have gone either way.Returns after a few months asks you for his/her tools back.What will do as a crat ,he/she is not subject to any Arbcom/Community ruling and is entirely at your discretion ?

A. Hmm.. This is a difficult question to answer, because each situation is different, and the question is sort of vague, but I'll do my best. I have a feeling that you asked this because of recent issues on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, as a recent issue similar to this has been raised. It all has to do with whether or not it was done to evade sanctions. If they obviously resigned to avoid going to ArbCom, it would be a clear decline. However, if RfC/ArbCom was not even mentioned in the dispute as a possible end, it was a single incident, and it was resigned due to stress about the incident, I would probably determine that as being resigned "without prejudice".

6. In a RFA a candidate does not answer a few optional questions and many users oppose based on that and it comes within the area of discretion.How will you determine it?

A. It seems that a) there is no real consensus on whether or not optional questions are indeed "optional", and b) what is optional to one editor is compulsive to another. Because there is uncertainty about the nature of the questions, it would be unfair to the opposers to discount their opinion. It is always important to assume good faith when determining consensus, and what may appear to be a pointy oppose may actually be valid and have been done in good faith. As such, I would not discount these opposes and would continue to determine consensus as normal.

Optional questions from NuclearWarfare

7. In your last RfB, you indicated that would would closed Danny's RfA as unsuccessful. Could you please explain why you would have done so, and state why you disagree with Redux and Dan (among others; see Crat Chat)?

A. Despite the fact that Danny was in a trustworthy role for quite a while, there was large opposition over his behavior, his knowledge of policies, and certain actions that he undertook in his role as an admin. Technically, going by percentage, the RfA was in the discretion zone. However, RfAs are based on consensus, not percentage. With such a large opposition base, there is not a large consensus to support there. As to why I disagree with several of Redux's points, he bases his opinion on 1) how many users came back solely to oppose Danny, and 2) because some issues raised were unrelated to his role as an admin. On point 1, we have to remember that some people go on wikibreak, but still read Wikipedia with no interest to edit. However, when stumbling upon something that piques their interest, they can still edit. A user who has been inactive for a few months has just as much voice as a user who edits every day. On point 2, there is something about RfA that is missing in Redux's argument: RfA is about trust. The people who opposed for unrelated actions feel that those actions, while unrelated to adminship, make the user untrustworthy, as well as impending future incidents similar to what was given. Now as to why I disagree with Rdsmith4's. Dan bases his argument on this main point: the opposes are irrelevant to the role of an administrator. As I said for Redux's comments, what may seem unrelated to adminship may be indicative of future events, and are related.

I've been asked by NuclearWarfare to expand on why certain opposes, such as 2, 3, 48, 108, and 56 were valid. On some opposes, such as 2 and 56, they are opposing over what they saw as an example of poor judgment by Danny. The other ones, on the other hand, were not relavent to the candidate at hand, and would be discounted. However, after discounting, I still do not see enough consensus to promote him.

Optional questions from User:Scott MacDonald

8. Why do you want to be a crat?

A. First of all, I'm here to help. I've always been quite eager about helping out other places of the wiki, and this is no exception. While we probably have enough crats right now, it doesn't hurt to have any more, and it may indeed help to have a more active workforce around the crat areas (especially with time-sensitive areas, such as privacy renames).

9. What's the project's current need that giving you the tools will meet?

A. I believe that I would be a new benefit to the crat force, not only in that I'm certain I'd be a calm, rational mind when closing RfAs, but I have much experience in the bureaucrat. The first of which is that I have years of experience in all the crat related areas. I've watched WP:BRFA since my very first month here, and have watched it go through its various incarnations in the past 2.5 years. I'm certain that I have good knowledge of the various bot policies. Additionally, I've always been stalking WP:RFA, commenting on RfAs for years. I've read the discussions on the talk page for about 2 years, so I'm pretty well versed there. And of course, I've been a clerk at WP:CHU for over a year, and have hundreds of edits to WP:CHU, WP:CHUU, and WP:UAA combined.

Optional questions from Doc Quintana

10 Would you feel comfortable adminning any user in the future that holds WP:OFFICE powers that does not succeed through the traditional RFA process?

A

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

---

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

• Just a note to all: I'm going to be unavailable to answer questions for most of the day today, something unexpected came up in real life. I'll get to the questions as soon as I can. (X! · talk)  · @593  ·  13:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. As the user's nom last year. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Definitely; a great admin with admirable dedication to many aspects of the project. ~ mazca ^talk 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. What Mazca said. Resolute 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Good enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weak support X! has been a good admin, with both experience and dedication to the project. That said, while I am supporting this candidate, bureaucrats should be held to a higher standard than admins, and I hope that X! will become more involved in the belowmentioned more controversial areas of the project.  fetchcomms☛ 22:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sure. X! is an experienced and clueful user. I have no problems with him getting the wrench. (that sounded weird) — The Earwig ^(talk) 23:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support for a clueful longterm editor. As for the oppose section, I've trawled through the candidates recent contributions and I see things like this - an informed well judged comment on a contentious topic. ϢereSpielChequers 23:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. About Time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Definitely could be of use in bot areas, and I expect the candidate to show clue in other crat areas as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Full support - Keep up the good work. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support per nom.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. X! has done a lot of good for WP, including his invaluable bots. The fact that of the few added abilities that come with the 'crat flag is the ability to approve new bots has me convinced that X! will know what he's doing there. Valley2city^‽ 01:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Keepscases (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Has clue, will use it. Fences&Windows 02:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support BejinhanTalk 02:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - Airplaneman ^talk 03:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support – 'nuff said. –MuZemike 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - given the amount of stuff X! has done for wikipedia, if he/she wants to be a bureaucrat, make it so! --RegentsPark (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - I don't know a ton about this user, but the fact that they stay out of controversial areas is a plus in my book. Sounds like someone who can mop up, and leave the arguments to the rest of us. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely you want a 'crat who is willing to sort out big disputes and not sit and watch the bullets fly?  urban f o x  12:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20. Support Sure, considering all that you have done for the project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. –BuickCenturyDriver 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. m:Katerenka (d) 05:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support ThemFromSpace 05:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support- One thing I like is that X! tends to calm things down. Sole Soul (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - capable admin. Has been involved in contentious stuff, but is still an exemplar of the plodding predictability one expects in a 'crat. Crafty (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. I've been impressed with X!'s ability to approach difficult discussions with civility and sound reasoning. Their knowledge of bot implementation is a significant bonus as well; having learned from past bot problems, X! has a level of wisdom in this area that few other 'crats have. X! has clue, and will use it well. Wine Guy~Talk 07:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Net positive Dlohcierekim 07:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Why not? Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Among those who are yet to be bureaucrats, there can be nobody better suited for the role than X. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support I see no reason to believe that X! would rename Jimbo, authorise a spamming 'bot, or close an RfA/RfB against consensus -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Hell yes. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support, would benefit the project. --Taelus (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Bot Xperience of benefit for the role and has taken part in enough RfAs to get it. Polargeo (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support X! marks the spot. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Warrah (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support'. Fully confident in X!'s ability to do the job well. -- œ^™ 13:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Many hands make light work; more heavy-duty bot experience in the 'crat ranks is a positive. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. I have no problem with Prodego's position that you have to "really impress" us, and I have no problem with Iridescent's position that the "geekier" (my word not hers) skills and inclinations aren't the most important ones for cratship; more important are the skills and the inclination to engage and understand people and their conflicts. But by spending time on specific calls such as AfDs (and doing a great job, apparently) and avoiding general arguments over how Wikipedia should work, I think X! has shown precisely that he does understand what matters, and that he doesn't feel a need to push his own agendas, only to work hard and do right. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong support per Dank. X! really does mark the spot ;) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Thoroughly impressed by X!'s work and I feel he would do the job admirably. As noted, RfA is not an area of huge necessity but bots definitely need a hand now and then and X! would be great for the job. Not that I think you fit the bill, but I don't buy the argument that you have to do contentious things; a reserved bureaucrat is probably more desirable than a wild one. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support - Looks good; no major red flags or anything. AlexiusHoratius 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Rainbow Support The gayest support! Guaranteed not to fail! --FAIL!^Talk 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seriously, Fail? Valley2city^‽ 08:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes! I'm serious! He's awesome is he? --FAIL!^Talk 22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

42. Lame pun support - Come on down, you're the next contestant on Who Wants to be a Bureaucrat!Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - His bot skills will help with the role, and I don't see any potential problems to outweigh that. -- Atama頭 22:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support on the assumption that this isnt just an elaborate Plan B to get control of the name X without the exclamation. (On a more serious note, I trust your judgment fully and look forward to hearing you weigh in on future borderline RfX's.) —Soap— 22:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support X! has contributed a lot to the wiki. He deserves to be a crat because of all the great bot-work and article contribs he has done, along with his very cool userpage. Buggie111 (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support mainly due to his knowledge of bots and what he can bring the the bureaucrats. –turian^{обсудить} 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Very good administrator and has plenty of experience being one. --Bsadowski1 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Yes This admin is very, very, very beige. Just what you want in a stamp-wielder. --StaniStani  00:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Sure. He'd do a good job as a crat, I guess. ceranthor 00:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Wish I had the opportunity to do so last year, as well. I don't see the argument of "no current need for crats" as a legitimate one. The user is well known and has done some great work; based on his efforts here, his reputation is worth a lot to him, so there is little doubt that he won't ask before doing when an intense matter comes up. Every new position comes with a learning curve and even if the user hasn't immersed himself in the ugly politics of WP, he will learn by doing as 'crat, should he be given the job. I wholly support. Best of luck! upstateNYer 01:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Plenty of experience, would make a great crat. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. |X!|=Support, or, in other words/terms ABSOLUTELY! Hamtechperson 03:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support seems like a competent admin who can be trusted with the 'crat tools. --rogerd (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. After review this user seems well-suited to the bureaucrat role. Vast bot experience and lack of controversy are major plus-points. –Grondemar 05:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Ray^Talk 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Great bot experience and has been a good administrator. --Banana (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Jujutacular ^T · C 01:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
59. Strong support. Reasonable, experienced and competent. Ironholds (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Has the experience and temperament required to be a crat. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Seen him around. Looks good. Bureaucrat is no big deal. Andrevan@ 05:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Valuable expertise. Agathoclea (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support I know X! would be an asset to the project as a bureaucrat. I've seen him do good bot work, and think he will be especially helpful in this area. Trust him to make the right decisions. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support X! in this role doesn't scare me. Josh Parris 14:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
65. Status: Support Rationale: User evaluated as being beneficial to botkind. Hah, X! has the experience, is competent, I don't see why not! Inferno, Lord of Penguins 15:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Seems fine Reading all the other comments, only the time issue worried me. Given your answer I'm fine. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. Has relevant experience, reasonable replies to questions, and the concerns raised by the opposition are not persuasive to me. RL0919 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Awesome! I've seen X! around the wiki, he's always been nice. I checked his contributions, he has contributed to everything I look for in a potential admin.  Awesomeness  talk  20:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Good bot experience and clear answer to Q7. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. Ah, why not. harej 03:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support - Although most of the opposes are valid, I don't really see a problem with X! being a crat. —LedgendGamer 04:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support, opposition is unconvincing. Blurpeace 06:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74. Strong Support: Reasonable, experienced and competent. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75. We need more. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
76.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, X!. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Experienced and knowledgeable administrator. Will make a very good bureaucrat. -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. JamieS93^❤ 22:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support I trust him with the extra tools. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Trustworthy, nuff said. Steven Walling 01:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. I think this user is good enough. Recent history of RfBs suggest to me that crats themselves do not give "no need" opposes as much weight as others, something they would not do if there was really "no need". WFCforLife (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support —Terrence and Phillip 06:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support X! is a credit to the community and will be a fine 'crat. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 11:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Has experience in the appropriate areas. SilkTork *^YES! 16:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support Great user. No major outstanding issues. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. Trustworthy admin, and active in crat areas. While I'm not convinced that there's an urgent need for more bureaucrats, more volunteer work force is never a bad thing. Jafeluv (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support. I do this with a little ambivalence, because some of the opposers make good points, but I'm persuaded by the user's strong record of gnomish contributions, and because I always like to see administrators who participate in WP:ADREV. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support, I don't see any compelling reason why not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
89. Support He'll do fine and we can always use more help. Thingg^⊕⊗ 04:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support Some really great experience here. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 04:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support I've seen you around, and I believe your skills could be used to benefit the project. CrimsonBlue (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support--NotedGrant Talk 07:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support - candidate understands the inner workings of Wikipedia, both cultural and technical, and has demonstrated a level head and good judgment.--~TPW 13:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support why not.--Caspian blue 15:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
96. I think that X! is a decent admin and that he'll do fine as a bureaucrat. Acalamari 18:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support. X! is an experienced, dedicated, and trustworthy admin. Thus, I believe that he will do a superb job as 'crat. Laurinavicius (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Good admin, seems very dedicated. Will be a benefit.King Pickle (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support - a fine chap who I'm sure will use the bureaucrat tools wisely if he's elected. I don't think there's a particular need for new bureaucrats - the current ones do a stellar job, but I can't see any problems with X! having the bit as well. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
100. Strong Support - WP:100 - Great editor/admin, excellent chap, full support. There's more chance of winning the lottery every week for a year than X! going rogue! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 7° 22' 45" NET 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support - More than happy to have someone like X! be part of the crats. I also disagree extremely with iridescent's view that crats create policy in any way. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support - X! is a credit to Wikipedia, he would make a fine 'crat  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support X! is an experienced, uncontroversial administrator who's done plenty of good work. He's done plenty of good bot work, I trust him (as do many others, clearly), and I think he would be a worthy addition to the bureaucrats' ranks. I concur with Dank's points as well. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support I think this will work out to be the correct choice...Modernist (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support X! track both as an admin and user has been outstanding and uncontroversial.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support - absolutely no qualms about this one. Will make an excellent crat. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support I'm not really familiar with X! which had my initial reaction leaning towards oppose, but having read the opposes below, I found most of the lacking merit. Wisdom/Irri might have me revisit this !vote down the road, but besides them there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to oppose. It is telling when the opposers are flowery and complimentary of a candidates credentials.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support - Ack! I typed out a support a few days ago and apparently didn't save it. Short version: X! knows his stuff and he's trustworthy. What more can we want for? Lara 17:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
109. delirious & lost has evaluated this request, and supporting appears to be possible. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
110. I'm not worried about too many crats, I seriously don't think it's that big of a concern. I think that X! could be a valuable contributor to the en Crat group in multiple venues and I trust him enough with the couple extra buttons. The answers aren't perfect, but they're good enough so User:Jamesofur/whynot James (T|C) 18:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. Excellent contributions, committed and trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. Experienced user with good track record. Difu Wu (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Oppose - I have never thought X met the criteria or fit the mold for cratship. I find his "silence" to just be a striking disinterest in anything beyond BAG. Sorry if this seems harsh, but some editors aren't fit for all duties on Wikipedia. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   So despite the fact that he has precipitated in 200 RfAs and RfBs, has 200 edits to CHU and CHU/U, 74 to BTR, and 97 to BN, you're voting oppose because you "don't think he fits the mold"? And what do you mean by "his silence"? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Take a wild guess what I mean. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   If I understand Wisdom correctly, he's not opposing over pure statistics. He's opposing because in his mind, I would not fit in with the current crats. (X! · talk)  · @044  ·  00:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   But the question is whether he will make a good crat, not if if he will fit in. And what I meant by asking about his silence was which area you meant he was silent in. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Pretty much what Wisdom says. Majorly's point last time round, that you avoid anything contentious, is still valid as far as I can see; "The second issue that was raised was that I had not made many difficult decisions or stepped into many areas of controversy. Since that time, I have closed hundreds of AfD decisions, most of them going uncontroversially. The few that were controversial and went to deletion review, such as with Romania – Sri Lanka relations, were either due to my own error, which I always humbly admitted to, or ended up endorsing my decision." pretty much says to me that you still avoid controversy. You do great work with the bots, but I've never seen any interest from you in the broader decision-making and policy areas into which all 'crats are sucked. This is not intended as a criticism of you – you're one of the better admins – but aatdmin and crat are two different and not particularly overlapping skill-sets, and I don't think you have the latter. – iridescent 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Can you clarify whay you mean by "policy areas?" I'm not quite sure I understand why you are (I think) bringing up an interest in policy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes; by "policy areas" I mean "policy areas". Wikipedia bureaucrat is no longer the purely administrative position implied by its name (which was granted eight years ago when Wikipedia was a small clique of people most of whom knew each other, not a squabbling amorphous mass). Of the twelve threads on the most recent WP:BN archive, six are explicit "on the hoof" making of policy; the Wikipedia 'crats are now a de facto tier of Wikipedia governance. While X! does fine work in specific niches, I don't consider it appropriate for someone with no apparent interest in the broader issues affecting Wikipedia to be put in a position where they'll be making judgements and setting precedents with the potential to affect large numbers of users. – iridescent 16:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps, but truth be told anything that isn't 'crats making 'crat policy is "Hey, this might affect you guys. Check it out." I guess I just don't agree that we should be electing bureaucrats based on their ability/desire to write policy - I'd rather let the community do that and let those with the wrenches execute it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose I disagree with the idea that Bureaucrats must take part in controversial or contentious areas. This is RFA we are talking about, not solving difficult conflicts and disputes. The only experience necessary is a level of experience as an admin and a clear interest in the RFA arena. However, I am just unconvinced that X! is really the man for the job, or even if there's a job worth filling. There are, as I write zero RFAs up. If his statement had persuaded me that yes, X! could really bring something to the Bureaucrat team, I would have surely voted yes, but as I read it I become bored extremely quickly. It's all very well quoting statistics, policies and so on, but I see nothing that tells me what you would bring to the job. It's a hard question to answer, because a Bureaucrat's role is so dull, but this is precisely why Bureaucrats are so few and far between. Aiken ♫ 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   There is more to being a bureaucrat than handling RFAs. Me, I expect that X! would spend more time with bot approvals than he would at RFA. His knowledge of software systems and bots' impact on the wiki does in fact "bring something to the Bureaucrat team" in my opinion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. lack of content contributions. -Atmoz (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
   • Could you explain why a 'crat needs a lot of content contribution? A 'crat works in 3 areas: closing RfAs following the consensus; dealing with bot status and renaming accounts. How would having a lot of content contributions help with these? How does a lack of content contributions prevent a 'crat being able to effectively deal with these? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. No need for more crats at the moment, per my usual standards of "you must have really impressed me" for support at RfB. Prodego ^talk 04:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Great editor, from my limited interactions, and an absolute asset to Wikipedia, but I'm afraid I find the answers to the questions uninspiring at best. X! seems to demonstrate a severe lack of conviction which, whilst this can be interpreted as a positive, I personally think will likely add very little in the event of contentious RFA's and potentially cause more hinderance than help. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
   • Comments like "very little in the event of contentious RFA's" OR "I find his silence to just be a striking disinterest" OR "that you avoid anything contentious" OR "must take part in controversial or contentious areas" are strange reasons to oppose? I can't understand why having a polite, thoughtful person who is not a "drama queen" is a bad thing?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • Clearly then you do not understand the ramifications of certain tasks undertaken by the bureaucrats. My oppose stands, and I'd thank you to address my oppose directly, if indenting under it, rather than with vague generalisations that imply I made the comments you placed in quotes, when I clearly did not. Pedro :  Chat  20:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The partial quotes you cited, if all true, make it seem like the candidate is either timid or simply unwilling to exercise the thinking required in complex/disputatious situations. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You said "the candidate is either timid or simply unwilling to exercise the thinking required" Please explain? And what are the "ramifications"?? Is there a hidden agenda that I am missing??? - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   If I'm not mistaken, Pedro never said "the candidate is either timid or simply unwilling to exercise the thinking required" about X!. Sorry to be picky, but those extra question marks almost sound like shouting, even if it was not your intention. Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   No you are not mistaken. It was Wisdom89. No need to be sorry about being picky but please take more care when reading comments. Rather than personal attacks it would be nice if somebody attempted to deal with the concerns I raised. I can't understand why having a polite, thoughtful candidate who is not a "drama queen" is a bad thing?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC) PS - As you may have noticed I have no problem being contentious when a good candidate is being trashed unfairly.[reply]

   I meant that the way I (and probably some others) interpret the quotes you cherry picked is to mean that the candidate is unwilling to delve into troublesome conversations or complex situations. Both require a level-head, calm demeanor, and boldness in a crat. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Not really what I'm looking for in a crat and we have enough anyway that we should only promote outstanding candidates. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Surely every little helps, unless X! is going to be a negative, than simply because we have a lot of bureaucrats shouldn't mean his help won't be welcome. "Too many bureaucrats" reminds me of DougsTech's RfA !votes, I don't understand how a large number of bureaucrats is a negative. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The role, especially in the case of bureaucrat discussions, is best limited to a small number of people, in my mind. For instance, imagine a jury with 50 or 60 people in it. Do you think they would find someone guilty unanimously?  f o x  (formerly garden) 18:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Weak Oppose In answer to Q8 the candidate states "while we probably have enough crats right now, it doesn't hurt to have any more". Maybe, but there's no need either. I'm not seeing why he needs to "level up" here. He wants to help, which is nice, but there's any number of backlogs where we really need help, while "we probably have enough crats right now". Promotion would be harmless perhaps, but also pointless. It shouldn't be a reward for a nice-guy.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sorry, but I have to pretty much agree with Scott on this one; I don't see, as much as it will not hinder the project, how your promotion will help the project, and thus I don't feel it would be entirely beneficial for the project in the long term should you be promoted. Apologies for feeling this way, but I wish you luck nonetheless.  f o x  (formerly garden) 18:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I beg to differ. As pointed out by here, WP:CHU/SUL is backlogged to some extent. Also, Dweller noted that "there ain't many of us Crats active". I disagree that we have an such an abundance of bureaucrats as to object to new promotions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I think there are potential crats out there would are much better suited to the role than X!; not that he would be a catastrophe with the bit, not at all, just not as good a crat as we might have in his place.  f o x  (formerly garden) 18:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   @ Juliancolton - then you are saying the candidate's judgement is flawed here?--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   (edit conflict) @Fox: I find it hard to think of a lot of users who I think would be better suited to this position. We don't see a large number of RfBs these days, so saying that there are better candidates is all very well, but are they actually going to become bureaucrats? If you think there is someone who would be a better candidate, please nominate them - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Is there really all that point in nominating them? I wouldn't want to subject them to this, and I also doubt that the current number of bureaucrats is low enough to warrant more.  f o x  (formerly garden) 18:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose, per Prodego. Jonathunder (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sorry, not ready yet. — JoJo • Talk • 01:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose - This is one of the more difficult !votes I have made given the weight opposes have in an RfB, but after considerable thought I find myself swayed by Scott MacDonald's statements here, among others. The candidate is clearly a fine member of the Wikipedia community, and should be commended for that, but if the candidate doesn't see a need for more 'crats (per: "we probably have enough crats right now") then I find myself unable to extend support for a lifetime appointment at this time. With best wishes to X!, I respectfully oppose this Rfb. Jusdafax 19:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agree mostly with Iridescent's points about role of bureaucrats and I think there's no particular benefit to increasing the corps here. --JayHenry (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. I agree with comments by Scott, Wisdom and iridescent. I think X! is a great guy and he's been a very good admin but he just doesn't strike me as a great candidate for crat. I don't mean that as an insult or criticism, but just that not everyone is suited for all roles. Sarah 21:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. A fine editor, a fine administrator, but I find the arguments and statements in the oppostion more compelling than the nomination. I realise that ideally, being a b'crat would be even less a big deal than being an admin, but reality is far from ideal and with the way things are run here currently handing someone the b'crat bit is a big deal and a successful nomination requires, in my estimation, something beyond just "good admin, won't blow up the encyclopedia" to merit a support. Sorry. Shereth 15:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something is making me not support this, but I can't put my finger on what. I don't think you're the type of person who should have to do what a bureaucrat does, but I'm not opposing on gut feeling. Best of luck.  urban f o x  12:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't get me wrong, but the nomination and answers to 1–3 reek of cheese.  urban f o x  12:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head! There is something happening that I can't put my finger on. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not sure the user actually has the time to do the job. Bugs reported for his bots have gone unaddressed for weeks or months, sometimes without even the courtesy of a "I've seen this and will address it (soon/later/eventually)". –xeno^talk 15:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Could you provide a link? Hobit (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The most recent instance was the RfX tally problem where SoxBot reported a "0" for neutral no matter what. The bug was reported 4 Oct; and again 13 Oct; then 10 Nov; not acknowledged until 3 Dec; and not fixed until 26 Jan (altogether, the RfX tally was erroneous for over 4 months). –xeno^talk 21:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks. Hobit (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I differentiate between a bug that result in a bot doing an unintended work and a bug that result in a bot not doing a work, without harming anything. Sole Soul (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The bug resulted in RFA's main billboard reporting erroneous results from 19 Sept until 26 Jan. I'm just not sure X! has the cycles for the increased workload. –xeno^talk 14:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The difference is that I can only access the Toolserver on certain computers, while I can access the bureaucrat tools from everywhere. I am on Wikipedia every day, and do have time to check the three crat areas every day. On the other hand, I do not have access to a Toolserver-able computer every day. I suppose I can't convince you that I'll have the time, but I'm just disclosing my occasional disability to access the spot where my tools are hosted. (X! · talk)  · @759  ·  17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Given this reasonable explanation, I will revisit my position when time permits. –xeno^talk 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Remaining neutral this time around. If this request proves unsuccessful, I would support next time if both the consistency of response and the time-to-response improves. –xeno^talk 21:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. I was inclined to support until you quoted Essajay. Pcap ping 01:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I can only manage to say one thing about this !vote... Seriously? I would say that the advice is most certainly good... the reputation of person who said it doesn't have much bearing on the quality of said advice. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 02:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   If only guide yourself by what the preacher says, than yeah, it sounds fabulous, but if you take into account what the preacher did, it's quite farcical. I'm still assuming good faith with X!, so I didn't oppose... Pcap ping 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   "if you take into account what the preacher did". So let's all ignore the work he has done with Wikipedia, shall we? Let's ignore his administrative and mediation work, let's ignore the years of dedication he has shown to Wikipedia. Let's ignore the work Essjay has done to make Wikipedia a better place. Instead, let's just focus on the faked credential in an encyclopedia where credentials aren't even supposed to matter. Actually, let's just throw shit on his reputation to the extent he's unquotable. Fucking Fabulous. —Dark 11:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   If Jimbo said it and he quoted it, would you still feel that way? They're only words, motiviational no matter who speaks them.  urban f o x  11:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. There's not something I can specifically point out and say This is why I oppose, but my gut feeling is spreading time over too many areas, so I will remain neutral. Q ^{T C} 02:16, 4 March 2010 (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.