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

EVula[edit]

Closed as having failed to reach consensus by Cecropia (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC) at (75/20/7); Scheduled to end 06:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Hello again. :) I'm putting myself up on RfB for a second time (see also RfB/EVula 1.0), as I find I still wish to be a bureaucrat here, and feel that sufficient time has passed since my last one that I've (a) grown a little bit wiser, (b) met some of the time-based requirements that some editors cited, and most importantly, (c) I feel that I've matured enough as a Wikipedia contributor that I've addressed the concerns raised in my last RfB.

The reason I put myself up for 'crathood last time was that I felt comfortable taking the "next step" in on-wiki activity. When it didn't pass, I directed my energy to some of the other WMF projects. Currently, in addition to my adminship here, I'm an admin on Meta, Commons, and Wikispecies. In addition, I've become very active in correcting interwiki links between pages, and across multiple projects; my wiki-matrix serves as evidence of how widely I've traveled around the various projects. However, I still hang my wiki-hat here on en.wp (for example: I've got 23k edits here, and just 820+ on Wikispecies, my 2nd most active project). Once again, I feel myself comfortable stepping up to the plate and becoming even more deeply entrenched in the project.

Currently, I have been an administrator for a bit over a year and a month, and an active contributor just a month and a half shy of the 2 year mark. My edits as a Wikipedia editor have been, lately, primarily of the anti-vandalism type, though I still manage to get some content edits in here and there. I'm very active in discussions on WT:RFA, especially in regards to closures per WP:SNOW (which is definitely one of my areas of interest). I'm extremely active in RfAs, usually in monitoring them to fix little things left and right (primarily in updating tallies, but also correcting formatting for those that don't pay as close attention). I'm very active on WP:UAA, and, as I mentioned in my last RfA, I feel that my firm grasp of WP:U would serve me well in taking care of renaming editors (provided WJBscribe leaves some for everyone else). Also, as a dedicated Wikipedian, I do what I can to make editing pleasant for everyone, which most often takes the form of cracking jokes; I'm quite proud of my eight Barnstars of Good Humor. :)

I look forward to continuing to serve Wikipedia, either as a bureaucrat or continuing as an administrator, however the community sees fit. I look forward to any and all constructive feedback. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Ayup. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 17 December 2007 (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. I'm well aware that there are two different camps when it comes to RfA closure; the "hands-off" approach, which is akin to a vote count, and a "hands-on" approach, where the closing bureaucrat is more involved in determining consensus. I'm also aware that, despite what people say to the contrary, people just loves them some numerical breakdowns, and the common amounts bandiefd about are 70%-80% being the traditional discretionary range, with anything lower failing, and anything higher passing (75% seems to be the magic sweet spot). However, RfA is a tricky beast, and I realize that there are times where numbers can say one thing, but the words another; at the end of the day, words trump numbers, and there will always be times where extenuating circumstances can change how an RfA should be closed (for example, particularly damning evidence coming to light particularly late in an RfA).
Also, anyone with "on wheels" at the end of their username gets instantly promoted, right? ;)
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. I'm a big fan of transparency in all aspects of Wikipedia's inner workings, and my potential 'crat decisions are no different. In the event of a truly down-to-the-wire RfA, I'd be open to the idea of a "'crat chat", but I'm very proud of my history for being bold and owning up to my actions; whether or not a promotion would cause a commotion wouldn't affect how I make that decision.
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 consider myself to have an excellent track record of being openly communicative, with almost 8,000 edits in the various talk namespaces. I think I've got an equal track record in being fair; I'm never vindictive, even when being called mildly unpleasant things. :) I feel that I usually interpret Wikipedia policy correctly, but that's also due to a lack of evidence that I'm not... I'm plenty willing to admit when I'm wrong, I just never am. :D
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. As I'm already extremely active on WP:RFA, I think I've got that covered in spades. :) I'm currently not very active on WP:CHU, but that would change immediately if granted the 'crat bit. Bot's aren't exactly an area of expertise for me, but if I need to flip a switch there, I'll do so whenever I am needed.

Optional questions from Nishkid64

5. Have you ever nominated anyone for adminship?
A Sadly, no. Because I'm a die-hard wikignome, I only have a handful of pages that I actively contribute content to; most of the editors I interact with consistently are on places like AN, ANI, or WT:RFA (or in the case of people like Lar or Riana, on other projects), and partly because of the nature of those locations, they're already admins. I do have a couple of people in mind, though; one has already promised her nom to another admin, and another needs a bit of time since his last RfA for dust to clear. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. I have a general idea of how you would conduct yourself as a bureaucrat in potentially controversial RfA closings. However, I would like some specifics. Could you cite some specific controversial RfA closings of the past, and explain what you would have done in those situations?
A. Well, I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny just barely qualifies as controversial (dunno why some people say that I'm sarcastic sometimes...), so I'll go ahead and address that one. :) Last time, I was on record as saying I would have promoted. However, my overall attitude has shifted since then, not the least of which because I was on the receiving end of someone saying (very bluntly) "your opinion shouldn't count" in regards to my opposition of Hdt83's 4th RfA. I really didn't like being dismissed so readily, and it definiely came as a slap in the face (both as personally insulting, and to show me that, hey, perhaps my attitude could use an adjustment). As a 'crat, I don't think I could do that as readily as I once may have; judging consensus is one thing, but my old attitude was based on dismissing choice arguments. If, somehow, Danny were to request to have his sysop bit removed and then ran another RfA and the results were the same, I would not promote (though I still think that Danny's RfA was a singularly unique event, and I don't think the project has directly been harmed by his promotion).
Danny's is the main one I think of when reading "controversial RfA"... plus, I figured I was going to get asked about that one directly sooner or later anyway, so I might as well nip that in the bud. :) If there's a specific RfA you'd like my feedback on, just list it and I'll give you my thoughts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question(s) from Redrocketboy

7. What is the difference between consensus on an RfA and an RfB? Do you agree that "consensus" should be two different percentages?
A. The process of determining consensus is the same, but the touted values are different; just as 75% seems to be the sweet spot for RfA, 90% seems to be the sweet spot for RfB (which, personally, I think is a bit high). I do think the two should be different; aside from the fact that a rogue 'crat would be more dangerous than a rogue admin (though still undoable from a technical angle, it'd be hell on the community), there's also the matter that gauging RfAs is decidedly more nuanced than, say, an AfD or knowing when to speedily delete an image per I1. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. What is your opinion of reconfirmation RfAs? Thanks.
A. Personally, I'm not a big fan of them, as I think they create unnecessary drama. However, if an admin legitimately feels that they may no longer be suited for adminship, I whole-heartedly agree that at least something should happen, as I don't consider adminship to be a post that, once achieved, can only be taken back by drastic measures, such as ArbCom (which also means I'm in favor of removing admin and 'crat bits from long dormant accounts; inactivity is a valid demotion reason on several other wikis, such as Commons, and I think it's a valid idea). For example, I supported Walton One's reconfirmation (based on the fact that I think he's a good admin).
As a bureaucrat, I would consider any reconfirmation requests to be just as binding as any other RfA, and if an admin came up and failed to gain consensus for their continued adminship, I'd close the RfA and post a request for desysopping on Meta. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Shalom

9. Here's the dreaded "Danny question," updated for the most recent controversial RFA. :) How would you have closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Note from someone other than the candidate; feel free to move this to the talk page if needed.) I don't agree with the implication in the question that Elonka's RfA was equivalent to Danny's; the situations were wholly different, simply because Elonka's was at 74%, within the recognised discretionary range, whereas Danny's was at 68% and therefore should have been automatically closed as no consensus, as per the standard rules. The reason I've often asked the "dreaded Danny question" on previous RfBs is to test whether the candidate believes in extending bureaucrat discretion beyond the 70-80% range. WaltonOne 16:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I actually don't consider that RfA [Elonka's] to be controversial at all; the promotion was valid. The only discussion about it that I've seen was on WT:RFA, but the argument was largely stemming from a personal dislike of the candidate; sour grapes do not a controversy make, as it were. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Q.: The "dreaded Danny question" was also on my reconfirmation RfB. I didn't want to respond to it essentially because I had not been active at RfA when it came up and I didn't want to be put in the position of second-guessing the good-faith decision of other bureaucrats. However, When I saw how extremely important it was to many other participants, I did answer that, inter alia, it did not fit any reasonable definition of consensus that I could understand but that it was valid, having been made in good faith by the aforementioned bureaucrats. (I urge you and everyone to read my reasoning in the original.) My consistent position on bureaucracy has been that trust in a 'crats judgment (and impartiality) is at the heart of the position. Please tell me by what definition of "controversial" you find the Danny RfA to be "not controversial at all," by what conception of "consensus" you feel the Danny nomination reached it, and finally, do you feel that dislike of a candidate (especially when widely expressed) is inconsequential in an RfA? -- Cecropia (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I think you misunderstood by what I meant when I said "I actually don't consider that RfA to be controversial at all"; I was talking about Elonka's RfA, not Danny's. I've clarified my statement above. However, your question about likes/dislikes is a good one.
For a 'crat, whether they like or dislike a candidate is (or should be) irrelevant; at most, a bureaucrat should recuse themselves from closing RfAs for editors with whom they have a strong association, positive or negative (I have to admit to not seeing much harm in a 'crat closing an RfA of a friend if it's at 100%, but recusing would still be nice); I would also think that, in such a case, they would have participated in the RfA, meaning that recusing themselves from closing the RfA is an absolute given. For an RfA participant, however, whether they like or dislike someone is largely tied to their opinion of the candidate as an administrator; of the several editors here that I'd go on record as saying I like (no good can come from going on record about who I don't), I would support their RfAs/RfBs (and have) not because I like them, but because of the qualities that make them appropriate for the positions, which is why I like them to begin with (similar argument for the opposite; I dislike vandals and editors who eschew encyclopedia editing for social chit-chat, and would oppose such editors if they come up for RfA). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q (again): Thank you for clearing up the issue of Danny vs. Elonka. My question on "disliking a candidate" in an RfA does not pertain to a bureaucrat's closing of an RfA; of course a 'crat must NOT let like or dislike affect his/her closure decision; I take this as a given. My question ws directed rather to the concept of whether you, as a bureaucrat, would "weight" the quality of opinions, as in the question of the perception of "dislike" toward a candidate being (in the 'crats view) a "bad" reason for opposing and therefore to be less considered in the decision process.
     Secondly, I must return to the Danny RfA. I understand that in the instant question you were referring to Elonka, but in response to Q.6 you say: "Well, I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny just barely qualifies as controversial[...]" [emphasis yours]. So we don't have "not controversial at all," but "just barely" controversial. In my view, The outrage over that decision created a breach in the process, a fire if you will, that I (as restored 'crat) and other 'crats have had to put out to reestablish trust in the process. Since your perception seems to clearly be at odd with that evaluation, I would really like to know again "by what definition of 'controversial' you find the Danny RfA to be '[barely] controversial [...],' and by what conception of 'consensus' you feel the Danny nomination reached it. TIA, Cecropia (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I realize that Danny's RfA was a major issue; I was just joking about it being only slightly controversial... unfortunately, the little smiley face that usually denotes my jokes ended up a little far from the joke itself. I'll see about rephrasing it... If you're wondering just how controversial I consider the RfA, I don't think it was large enough to bring the site to a halt (obviously, since it's still here), but it probably had a role (to some degree) in the promotion of a couple new 'crats this year (the logic being that getting some fresh blood might prevent such a promotion from happening again; I'm not saying that's how I feel, but I can easily imagine that being at the back of the mind of some people).
As for how I'd weight "I like/dislike" arguments, it depends on how it's phrased. As I can't keep track of everyone's friends and enemies list, I'd have to go off of their statements. If someone dislikes the candidate, but cites perfectly valid reasons to oppose (the difference between "he ran over my cat" and "he put an FA up on AfD" is pretty significant), I don't consider the editor's opinion of the candidate to be relevant to the oppose. As for Supports, I'm okay with seeing "# ~~~~"-type !votes in RfAs, though it's difficult to guage the meaning behind such arguments. I'd prefer to see reasoned arguments even from supporters, but as I mention at User:EVula/opining/RfA ramblings#Vote vs. Discussion, I consider the "vote" aspect of RfAs (as opposed to the "discussion" aspect) to be a simple yay/nay on whether the candidate is suitable for adminship. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q. OK, two points: (1) we have two issues going on here, so I'll return to Danny a little later; (2) all should know I take RfA seriously, and RfB even more seriously, so I am looking for concrete answers without irony, winks or smilies. On the issue of valuing "oppose" "votes," you seem to be saying that the closing bureaucrat is entitled to weight or disregard opinions by his/her personal standards; i.e., you would feel empowered to consider the validity of an oppose, which implies that you are valuing the opposer's sincerity. Do I understand you correctly? -- Cecropia (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. As per my statements above, I'm not a particular fan of arbitrarily dismissing !votes based on personal opinion ("that's valid, this isn't", etc.), but I do think that obvious cases of an editor grinding an axe (and I consider the community's self-policing of such grinding to be fairly good) should be weighed differently than, say, an editor who cites instances where the candidate has edited contrary to Wikipedia policy and/or guidelines. I think a 'crat making that judgement call is well within the bounds of the position, but I'll readily admit that it's a very fine line. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[unindent]
Q.: Thanks for the prompt response. You aptly refer to the community's self-policing; I believe that it is the community's responsibility first and foremost to evaluate the expressions of support, opposition, and comment, and that the bureaucrat should inject his/her judgment only in evaluating the community's sentiment as to consensus. How do you feel about the possibility that, if the result of an RfA is in the doubtful zone, and that some opinions that could push the RfA one way or the other were "tainted" (for want of a better term) that a bureaucrat express this openly and make a standard extension of 24/48 hours to allow the community the opportunity to evaluate this themselves? -- Cecropia (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: As you say you're in the U.S., I know it's getting late, so take your time and we can pursue this again tomorrow. Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I think that allowing the community additional time, while a bit unusual, is an excellent path to take if it allows for a clearer consensus, especially since it's done by the community (which frees up the 'crat from having to do anything but "guage", for lack of a better phrase). If I were to do such an extension, I'd probably opt for 48 hours; though Wikipedia itself never sleeps, the varying schedules of involved participants could prevent a full evaluation from happening, so more time is better (though extending it for too much could possibly be counter-productive; if after such an extended time consensus can't be gauged, well then, consensus simply can't be gauged, and it's time to shut it down). Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to bed. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q. part 2: Now I must return to Danny. The Danny nomination is emblematic of why many are picky in choosing bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are under extraordinary pressure to "get it right." You most recently replied to me: "Hehe, I realize that Danny's RfA was a major issue; I was just joking about it being only slightly controversial [...] If you're wondering just how controversial I consider the RfA, I don't think it was large enough to bring the site to a halt (obviously, since it's still here), but it probably had a role (to some degree) in the promotion of a couple new 'crats this year (the logic being that getting some fresh blood might prevent such a promotion from happening again; I'm not saying that's how I feel, but I can easily imagine that being at the back of the mind of some people).
So now you're saying that you were just joking about it "slightly controversial." Your comment that it didn't "bring the site to a halt" is a rather limp straw man. I can't imagine what would happen at RfA that would have that effect; but it severely impacted RfA, leading to issues of trust of the process, which is poison here. You did say that you were for promoting Danny before you were against promoting Danny. Bureaucrats don't have the luxury of changing their minds, especially from argumentation. A 'crat should state a decision from a position of confidence that it is the right thing. So to rephrase my question and state it for the third time: "Seeing that you initially felt he should have been promoted, by what conception of 'consensus' you feel the Danny nomination reached it." --Cecropia 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Quite simply, my opinion about the duties of a bureaucrat for my first RfB were different than my opinion this time around. Probably the most pivotal even that has happened in the past six months in regards to changing my attitude was the feedback I garnered for my oppose to Hdt83's 4th RfA, which I outlined in my response to question 6. I understand that 'crats "don't have the luxury" of switching tracks, but I've come to the conclusion that my previous logic was flawed; not only is this my personal opinion, but it seems to reflect the community's opinion as well, as evidenced by my (slightly higher) support ratio this time, plus having a couple of editors I respect support my 2nd RfB (despite strongly opposing my first RfB), and finally, by the fact that none of the oppose !votes cite that I'm wrong in my current assessment of the 'crats duty. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from User:Dustihowe

10. What makes you feel that you deserve this position?
A. I consider myself to make well-reasoned decisons, as well as a rather active member of the Wikipedia community. Given that I spend so much of my time around RfAs already (doing general maintenance work, such as updating tallys and closing RfAs for candidates with very low edit counts), I feel that I'm rather qualified for the position. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. In the past Rfa's, there has been controversy over one user constantly attacking self-nom's using the same phrase. This user focused only on the self-nom's and rarely voted on the other current Rfa's. Some members of the community complained. What is your view on this problem?
A. I've talked to "that user" about his edits, actually (I wasn't able to convince him that he should augment his edits, but he did clarify his position a bit). However, I think that the responses to the edits are more disruptive than his edits in and of themselves. The community has made it pretty clear that they don't put much stock in his particular argument, so I don't see any benefit to the perpetual foaming at the mouth that happens nearly every time he !votes. All you have to do is read the !vote, acknowledge (to yourself) that you disagree with it, and keep on reading...
Also, I have seen "that user" participate in other RfAs, where he backed up his Support !vote with a reasoned assesment of the candidate's strengths. I definitely don't think he's grinding an axe or anything like that (I also wouldn't refer to his edits as "attacking"; doing so is emotionally charged and suggests both malice, of which there is none, and a personal vendetta against the candidate, which there isn't; by his own admission, it isn't personal); he's just expressing his personal opinion, which is what every RfA participant does (the way he goes about doing so is just a bit unfortunate is all). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Avruch

12. In the neutral section below, I commented that I am neutral on this RfB because of the presence of the Nazi swastika in a userbox on User:EVula/grammar. Whatever your opinion on the utility of the userbox, do you think it appropriate to self-identify using a symbol that represents a regime responsible for as many as 72 million deaths? Either way, do you think it is appropriate to view your decision regarding the userbox as a comment in your judgement in general? (See World War II casualties).
A. I think that negative concepts only hold as much power as you allow it to. I'm a big Mel Brooks fan, and one of his favorite things to do is tear down concepts (the Nazis, in Blazing Saddles and The Producers, or the Spanish Inquisition in History of the World, Part I) by ridiculing them. I personally subscribe to this line of thought, and feel that the term "nazi" has transcended its original definition to encompass more than just a hateful regime.
However, I'm also aware that I'm an American, and that some on the other side of the Atlantic might not agree with me... EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Nick mallory

13. Why have you got a Nazi swastika [1] on one of your user pages? Do you still think objections to this kind of thing are '"pathetically ridiculous"' as you have done before? Is this a suitable box for someone who aspires to this important and high profile role on Wikipedia? Nick mallory (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I feel that I've answered this question a couple of different ways in the Neutral section; as it is, you're the first person to complain about it, and since my personal policy is (and always has been) to address complaints when they're brought to my attention, I've removed the userbox.[2] I think you're using my "pathetically ridiculous" comment out of context, however; I also explained what the phrase was in reference to in the Neutral section. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for replying here and for removing the box. I note you didn't answer my questions as to why you had it in the first place, why discussions about this issue are ridiculous in your view or whether it is fitting for bureaucrats to have Nazi regalia on their user pages but it's your RfB and that's up to you. Your argument that you've removed it because someone complained about it, rather than because you realised it was a stupid thing to have in the first place, is clear enough and I've had my say on the matter. Good luck. Nick mallory (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from User:Krator

14. What is the largest consensus building discussion you have participated in within Wikipedia? Were you happy with the eventual result, when viewing the process, not the outcome?
A
15. Do you think Wikipedians, in general, are too reluctant or not reluctant enough in changing their stance in a discussion when arguments have been brought against them? Do you think bureaucrats should (ever) change their closing decision of an RFA after a discussion, for example on WT:RFA?
A. I don't think a general statement can be made about the reluctancy of editors to change their minds. Some people watch their actions, and will respond to a rebuff or new evidence (or counter new arguments); some people just edit and walk away from the page (or lose track of it; I know it's been more than once that I engaged in an AfD discussion, only to forget about returning to it for various reasons).
While I certainly think that everyone should be open to the idea of reversing their decisions, off the top of my head, I can't think of a situation where a 'crat would reverse a decision (that has more to do with my limited imagination than that there's never a time; if you provide an example, I'll certainly address it). Bureaucrats are supposed to execute community consensus; if that consensus was there, the promotion happend, and then something extrodinarily bad happened (candidate decides that blocking Jimbo would be A Good Thing, etc), that doesn't have any bearing on whether consensus existed at the time of promotion. A reversal here would be neither necessary nor appropriate; events that occur after the RfA's closure are well outside the scope of the bureaucrat's role in the community. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15b This follow up question aims to further elaborate the second part of the question above. The question was not about new things happening after the discussion. Rather, it was about users questioning the closure and the reasons behind it. The first example might be an editor who thinks that the bureaucrat did not discount several opposing comments properly (such as that would happen with the example in question 16). A second example would be editors (or even a broad community consensus on WT:RFA) who question the weight given to certain opposing stances.
A. Ah, my mistake. While 'crats are expected to gauge consensus, I do think that the community at large should have the authority to override them (community consensus trumps pretty much everything, save ArbCom rulings and certain policies), if there's sufficient evidence that, perhaps, they were wrong in their assessment of a situation. I believe the first step would be to communicate with the closing 'crat (central location, preferably on the 'crat's user talk page) to ascertain what their reasoning was; it could simply be that those who feel the closure was improper are themselves biased, and an open dialogue would help to voice all opinions and concerns.
For a wider consensus building, I'm not entirely sure where it should be held (perhaps WP:BN), but I don't think WT:RFA would be a good place; I'm rather active there, and I don't feel that the cross-section of participants there represents a true cross-section of the community.
So, to answer your question in a shorter fashion: yes, bureaucrats should be open to the idea that they might be wrong. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, EVula. Of course bureaucrats, like anyone else can be wrong. But this process needs certainty, and you are opening the door for second-guessing. You say "While 'crats are expected to gauge consensus, I do think that the community at large should have the authority to override them (community consensus trumps pretty much everything." Did you think about that before your wrote it? Bureaucrats are entrusted to determine consensus; that is why we are picky in choosing them. So what is the mechanism for the "community" to override the bureaucrat? Please don't equivocate with "first ask the bureaucrat for his reasoning." Of course the 'crat should give his reasoning, but how would you have the community "override" it? If a bureaucrat doesn't have faith in his own decisions, he shouldn't make them, and perhaps shouldn't be a bureaucrat. Note that I have stated multiple times that "Danny" was wrongly decided. But I have never proposed the decision be reversed. -- Cecropia (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[off-shoot conversaton has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/EVula 2#Moved conversation. sorry, but it made this hard for me to both follow and properly address. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]
No clue what the mechanism is, nor am I suggesting that we rush right out and create a Bureaucrat Overturning Noticeboard. I realize the gravity of the situation, and agree that, if a 'crat doesn't believe he's making the right call, he shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but at the same time, I'm not uncomfortable with some sort of check existing (though, given further consideration, I suppose ArbCom could be considered that check). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. As a bureaucrat, how would you deal with users whose opposing stance has been conclusively refuted, but not withdrawn. For example, "He has vandalised [1]" with the response "That was another user [2]". What about less controversial examples than this one?
A. For very plainly false instances like that one, where there's absolutely nothing else that the opposing editor has cited as their rationale, then yes, I'd advocate not giving the comment much (if any) weight (the same would apply to anyone that cites just that one particular !vote for their opposition). If someone has cited multiple reasons and one or more of those turns out to be a mistake, the others still stand as viable reasons to oppose.
I can't over-emphasize the extremely narrow criteria that I'd summarily dismiss !votes; it would have to be the absolutely only thing being cited, and it would have to be refuted beyond the shadow of a doubt (like you said, if the diff is by a totally different editor, that's pretty much refuted). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Three "standard" questions are currently asked every potential admin. What fourth question would you add?
A. None. I feel that the existing standard questions are quite sufficient, and additional questions should be tailored for each candidate, though I'm not opposed to some editors applying their own set of questions to candidates as they see fit, and I'm open-minded about adding a fourth question, depending on what it is. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17.b I chose to participate in the discussion before following this up:
How much weight would you give to opposition in relation to an answer to a question, should it be optional and leads to tangential response/incident unrelated to a candidate's ability to serve? Keegantalk 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from User:Dan Dassow

18. What criteria do you use to assess whether someone is ready to be an administrator? What additional background, capabilities and temperament should a bureaucrat have beyond that of an administrator?
A. You can find my personal requirements at User:EVula/opining/RfA ramblings#Requirements. As for 'crat requirements, I think a reasonable amount of experience is necessary; probably not much more than eight or nine months of being an admin (I realize I was below this threshold for my first RfB; I think that much experience is good for the candidate, and considering I've had some major experiences since my first RfB, I think I was too inexperienced the first time around). Other than that, the trust of the community is all that's left (although that trust could have a variety of variables attached to it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. What, if any, minimum standards should exist for people to vote in a request for becoming a bureaucrat? Likewise, should only established contributors and/or administrators be allowed to vote in an RfB?
A. The standards should be that the user have a registered account; outside of that, I don't think we should require anything more of participants. The same for RfB; admins and 'crats are supposed to be chosen by the community, and that community includes more than just established editors and admins.
Now, that said, the community collective does a pretty good job of highlighting suspect !votes; if it's clear that the account is only in existence to sway the Rf* one way or another, I'd have no problem with lighter weight being granted to it.
I'd also like to say that my idea of "community participation" does not include blocked users; their blocks effectively remove them from the community for a time. If their block encompasses the entire seven-day period for an RfA, then they're just out of luck for participating; if their block ends before the RfA does, they can participate, no ill will being held towards their participation. Obviously, any ArbCom sanctions against Rf* participation would be a factor as well, but that's an extrodinary exception. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Is the one week period for review sufficient to exercise the due diligence necessary in the review of a candidate for becoming a bureaucrat?
A.
21. In addition to your suggestion of a 90 percent approval level, should there be a minimum number of votes during an RfB?
A. Er, 90% wasn't my suggestion, it's the RfB figure I I've heard as being comparable to RfA's mythical 75% "sweet spot", and as I mentioned in question 7. As for a minimum number of votes, I don't think RfB should have suffrage in the way that ArbCom elections do; as I mention in my answer to question 19 (which I'm answering at the same time as this one, so it's not like you could have seen the answer), I (generally) don't think restrictions on community participation should be made. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. What harm could a rogue bureaucrat cause? What should be done to mitigate that potential harm?
A.
23. You have indicated that becoming a bureaucrat is your dream and that an RfB is an opportunity for your detractors to crush your dream. Why do you believe that becoming a bureaucrat is a dream rather than a nightmare in which you would be exposed to additional abuse?
A. That comment was strictly a joke, and one that has been referenced twice already in this RfB (this question, and in an oppose below), so I've removed it. While being a bureaucrat is most definitely something I aspire to, to call it a dream is an exaggeration. I also wouldn't consider being a 'crat a nightmare; I understand the margin for "additional abuse" that would come with the position, but I don't consider the threat so great that I should refrain from assisting in the ways I wish to.

Question from Walton.

24. On 3 December you made this post on the talkpage of User:Goodshoped35110s, telling him that he was not making constructive/valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. Four days later, you made this post on his talk page and blocked him for 48 hours; your cited reason for the block was his claims of sockpuppetry against an established editor. Throughout this period, Goodshoped was being subjected to a systematic campaign of harassment and trolling by the vandal PeeWeeHerman (using various sockpuppets), as demonstrated by his talk page history. He has now retired from Wikipedia due to this campaign of harassment. Looking back at your own actions, do you believe that your block, and your general treatment of Goodshoped, were proportionate to the situation (considering that he was a relatively new user without great familiarity with Wikipedia policy), and do you believe that you provided Goodshoped with enough support against the trolling to which he was being subjected? More generally, do you feel that disciplinary action of any kind (warnings, blocks, etc.) should be taken against users who are seen to be using Wikipedia as a "social networking site" and not making "enough" contributions? WaltonOne 16:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Self-correction: I've been informed that Goodshoped has not retired from Wikipedia and is editing under a different account name. Apologies if the above was therefore misleading. However, the question stands. WaltonOne 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
A. This has been discussed elsewhere (your talk page, Ariel's talk page, even some a bit below), but I thought I'd go ahead and give my two cents. I'm not opposed to editors socializing on Wikipedia; I think creating a cohesive community of contributors ensures that our most valuable assets (the editors themselves) don't burn themselves out. It's wonderful, and one of the reasons I love my list of insults (I've been told by too many editors that they appreciate reading them to take it down). However, I don't think that people should only be here to socialize; at the end of the day, the only reason for a community is to develop and improve the encyclopedia. Editors that are here only to socialize need the occasional friendly warning about what the purpose of the project is. I understand that he was being pestered by a puppetmaster, but that is no excuse for his behavior.[3][4][5] I'd also like to point out that my block was unanimously supported on ANI.[6]
As for dealing with the problem of over-socializing in general, I think that leaving stern reminders (similar to how I've done) is an acceptible path; what happens after that would largely depend on the individual situation, but as a rule, I'd support deleting user subpages that are outside of the scope of userspace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion[edit]

  • I completely agree, and was going to leave a note to a similar effect here myself. I'm rather disappointed in the !voters who have chosen to oppose simply because they can be picky. It seems to me that more crats is always better than less crats; it makes the workload per crat lessen, making time for other helpful tasks. GlassCobra 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I can see not voting, because you want to save your supports, but, opposing? Lunacy. SQLQuery me! 05:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though you may disagree with the opposers, hopefully you can recognize that they are not lunatics. --JayHenry (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an action of lunacy makes the actor a lunatic. Just like people who make mistakes, are not themselves, mistakes. the_undertow talk 06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're just in denial because you were a mistake. ;D GlassCobra 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. First support I'll expand later. Lara❤Love 07:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC) EVula is a great admin; one of the very best I've encountered. He's always helpful, he already works in RfA, closing snows and such. His attitude always impresses me and makes me smile. I think he'd be a great asset to the bureaucratic team! Lara❤Love 07:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Just-beat-out-by-Lara Support A fantastic admin who will make an even better 'crat. EVula's been one of the guys to look up to for as long as I've been around. With a year of adminship under his belt, and a sense of humor that could slay a yak from two hundred yards away (with mind bullets!), it's time for EVula to take the next step. GlassCobra 07:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support same rationale as last time. GracenotesT § 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Again, same rationale as last time, but now with more positive personal interaction. Trust. Pedro :  Chat  08:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. This is the first RfB I've supported in a long time (and I opposed his previous RfB, incidentally), but after some thought I am convinced that EVula deserves my support. WaltonOne 09:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further rationale (now that my own RfA is finally over and I can give proper thought to this question). EVula's answer to q1 is precisely correct, and shows the right balance between discretion and vote-counting. Furthermore, based on long experience I trust him to stand by his word, and not abuse the power (such as it is) which comes with bureaucratship. There is no good reason not to make EVula a bureaucrat, and as such I support. WaltonOne 15:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. One of a small few who might actually do the role justice. Daniel 09:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. -- I like the reasoning expressed above for wanting the 'crat bits, and the answers to the questions. Cirt (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Support — the guy has a great sense of humor; that's enough for me to trust him ;-) --Agüeybaná 14:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support based on my long-held opinion that all established admins should be eligible to become bureaucrats. EVula's involvement in RFA, Wikipedia in general, and other Wikimedia projects makes him a respected leader. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moderate support. I've always found EVula to be civil, but others are worried about civility problems, so I'm a bit worried about that. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Although I believe you are sometimes a little too quick to close RfA's per WP:SNOW, I still trust your ability to use the 'crat tools in an appropriate manner. Qst 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Great involvement, and little drama make this a good Burocrat. Civilty and communication skills only further that. If the 'room is full' I'd rather have a full room with you in it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Consider this another "very strong support", just like the last time. Acalamari 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Same as last time. - Zeibura (Talk) 17:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Same reason as last time. Sean William @ 18:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - established user, understands both our polices and our politics, and is friendly :). The latter is of course the most important part ;). Why not? Nihiltres{t.l} 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - An excellent candidate for the `crat `bit! --Kralizec! (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support - This candidate is upfront and certainly reliable enough for the position. Far too many editors equate 'civility' with a non-existent right to feel unoffended at all times. His answers ain't bad, either. the_undertow talk 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support as a hardworking admin and established Wikipedian. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Good user, nice generic pages ;). Mønobi 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support He already serves us well as an administrator, I believe he will do well as an Bureaucrat. Marlith T/C 05:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. A wise and judicious administrator, who I know the community can trust with the position of 'crat. --krimpet✽ 06:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support We obviously need more 'crats, and few are as qualified as EVula. Jmlk17 06:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, great editor, fantastic experience, will make an excellent 'crat. Dreadstar † 06:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - no issues from me here. Candidate shows good judgement overall & I feel many of the concerns have been addressed since the last RfB - Alison ❤ 06:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Walton and I are of the same mind with respect to the role of bureaucrats (just as the role of admins, namely, to determine for what actions—here, admin and bureaucrat promotions and bot flaggings—a consensus of the community exists and then to effect those actions), and I concur in his assessment of the candidate's answer to question one as properly representing what that role ought to be. I confess that I am a bit surprised to be the supporting Evula, having firmly opposed him five-and-one-half months ago in view of his being (or, rather, my thinking/finding him to be) insufficiently wedded to numbers or all too likely to discount certain !votes at RfA in view of his, or some small portion of the community's, finding them to be unmeritorious, but those concerns have been largely allayed; whether his views have changed or whether I (like, it would then seem, some others) did not well understand those views in June I don't know, but in either case I am able, I am happy to say, to support. Joe 09:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Looks good to me SQLQuery me! 09:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I've no concerns about this user. I am pleased to support. -JodyB talk 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - does excellent gnomish work at RfA already, more than any other person (probably including the current crats). He obviously knows the username policy extremely well and I trust him to implement it at WP:CHU. More than anything, I think he's a pleasent guy and I trust him to judge consensus better than most. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Has my complete confidence, no concerns with trustworthiness whatsoever. The userbox may have been unwise, but it was dealt with correctly, and has little to do with competence or trust. --barneca (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Yes, he has been through some controversy, which he handled maturely. I completely and fully support EVula's abilities, and I truly trust him with this access level. нмŵוτнτ 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Also, I will stress that the noun "nazi" has become slang for Generation X, and even moreso for Generation Y in the US for someone who is a "controlling" "perfectionist" or one who "disagrees" with another. Groups such as "feminists", the "police", and "RAs" are soemtimes called "nazis". It is not at all uncommon for someone to call him or herself a "grammar nazi".[7] It is also referenced in the popular US television show Seinfeld, calling someone a "soup nazi". Note that I am not saying that it is politically correct or right, but that it is frequently used without referring to the Nazi Party. нмŵוτнτ 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't care less about political correctness, I just think someone standing for a position of trust like this should know better than to adorn one of his user pages with Nazi regalia. He removed it after I objected to it, rather than because he acknowledged it was stupid, but it's been dealt with anyway. Nick mallory (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Grow up Nick. You've opposed, you've had someone prove you wrong and give a long list of reasons why that's the case. Restating your case will do nothing for you - give us a real argument, withdraw your oppose, or leave us alone. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support from oppose. I think EVula is a great administator, and there is no reason not to trust him with the b'crat tools. Maser (Talk!) 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Participation in bureaucrat related positions already, with good standing? Yes. Rt. 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, Clear history of participation within the areas that are appropriate for a would-be bureaucrat. The use of the userbox was fixed rather quickly, so it's a non-issue to me. Justin chat 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. support—Random832 21:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. support --.snoopy. 22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. As per last time. I don't think he'll go astray with them, I don't understand Wikimedia's obsession with minimalism when it comes to higher positions - a trusted person wants a trusted position? Go for it. Also, he's in my top 10 favourite people on Wikipedia. Top 5, perhaps. Did I say that last part out loud? :x ~ Riana ⁂ 23:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Supportqualifiedfor the position; changed from neutral on the basis of calm & appropriate handling of the userbox matter. DGG (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. My intent in raising the point in neutral was to seek an answer, and I regret not foreseeing that it might cause opposition that, to my mind, was premature for the circumstances. I also regret having clicked on the undertow's user page =0 EVula has my support and my apologies. --JayHenry (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I accept Evula to properly close RfAs, Bot requests, and properly rename users. Keegantalk 06:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Seems to have a good understanding of the idea of interpreting consensus and not imposing his will on decisions. Mbisanz (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - I went neutral last time, but I have now decided to support. I think you have improved your civility, learnt lessons, and now seem to have the right experience to use the Bureaucrat tools effectively. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I disagree with EVula about the inoffensiveness of Nazi symbolism out of context, but I appreciate that the box was removed and I think the response sufficiently allays my concern regarding general judgement. AvruchTalk 17:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support one of the most active in RFA, won't abuse those tools. Secret account 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support someone whose opinions I respect, but not so much as their ability to put said opinions to one side and act according to the rules. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - We can always do with more 'crats, and EVula is more than qualified. Keilana 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I think he'd be fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support all my interactions with this admin have all been very good, there is nothing in the oppose votes that cause me concern, though I'm glad he tidied his user page. All the best. Khukri 10:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I trust this user and his ability to make good decisions by respecting the will of the community. Húsönd 17:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I have seen absolutely nothing in any of EVula's contributions to indicate that he would abuse the position in any way. Given this, and the rather vague quality of some of the reasons given for opposing, I have no hesitations in supporting -- simxp (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I think it might be a bit early yet, more experience is beneficial, but I also don't find myself in agreement with the YellowMonkey's oppose rationale. (As a side note, that EVula didn't recognise that YellowMonkey was Blnguyen's nom-de-IRC possibly puts paid to the notion that EVula spends too much time on IRC I'd say...) I would encourage EVula, if this fails, to be blander for the next few months, and then try again. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. I've seen this administrator doing many useful and carefully reasoned things around Wikipedia and I believe he will be a credit to its bureaucracy. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support with +23000 edits I believe he is more qualified for this position then some. Sirkadtalksign 01:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support No problems here. A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I don't think EVula would misuse the new tools. I acknowledge that civility is occasionally an issue, but EVula's comments at the former RfB seem fairly unrepresentative of his comments just about everywhere else on the project, so I'm not too worried. --Iamunknown 06:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. change from neutral to support Based on her responses to my questions above (even though I disagree with her answer to my last queston) I feel that she would be a good 'crat. Good luck Evula, and sorry about the mistake. Dustihowe  Talk  17:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Qualified. Spellcast (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I think that EVula will make a fine bureaucrat. Captain panda 20:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, knows how to use the tools and is more than trustworthy. Anthøny 12:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I could have sworn I did this before, but oh well. EVula is one of the best users out there. —Animum (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose - I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger..ahh..ahhh.. nvm..:P ..--Cometstyles 18:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Definite support. He has a great record as an administrator and i think he would make a great beurocrat. --businessman332211 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Yes has my complete trust, knows policy well--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 13:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. I have been thinking about this for along time, and I've moved to every category possible during the course of this RfB. I've decided to support; I think that EVula would a good bureaucrat, and there's a need for more bureaucrats, as it's inevitable that WJBscribe will find that doing all the renames is boring (I don't want to make empty assumptions on that fact, but doing a repetitive backlog almost always proves tiring for anyone but a bot...) On the userbox thing, I don't think it impairs his judgment, but that doesn't mean I agree with its use nor the insults on his userpage. I don't think these things will prevent EVula being a effective bureaucrat and interpreter of consensus, and from seeing him around RfA, he's of a mindset that a bureaucrat should be, a calm and thoughtful one. Support. Maxim(talk) 14:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. I have no idea how may bureaucrats we need, but I trust EVula to make good decisions with that set of tools, regardless of how infrequently that might be required. And no one should mistake his wit and lightheartedness for flippancy or insensitivity: he is one of our most thoughtful and sensible admins. — Satori Son 15:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support We're always in need of more 'crats, and EVula is one of the most trustworthy, and experienced users on this wiki. Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Great Track as far as I can see through no interaction with this user.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support He'll be good. I think most of the opposes are very weak and hope the closer will consider that.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. The Transhumanist 03:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Experienced with RfAs. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support User has worked extremely hard, is a great helper around here and has wonderful contributions and can definitely be trusted with, and deserves, this power. -- ~ <font=Courier New>Ryan A. Taylor || screaming at me || DUMPING GROUND! 04:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, being a "grammar nazi" is not a valid reason to oppose.--Uga Man (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Having thought long and hard about this (such that I'm commenting in the final 10 minutes), I think that Evula would be a valuable asset to the project as a bureaucrat. He has shortcomings, but I don't see them as major for the bureaucrat job. I realise that my support this late in the discussion will have little effect, but I don't want to have wasted all that time spent thinking like I did with Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mackensen (I didn't get around to commenting before it ended). James086Talk | Email 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support I do understand some of the opposer's concerns, such as the fact that EVula has many commitments, but I really don't think that would be a factor, I believe EVula would not have any problem with wearing multiple "hats". I also am not convinced by the "we don't need more 'crats" reasoning. I think that considering the extremely low ratio of bureaucrats to editors, having more is not a bad thing, and I think that EVula is an excellent administrator, with a great sense of humor that deals well with others. Also being a bureaucrat wouldn't change the great work he does as an editor and an administrator. I think EVula's answers to the questions show that he is measured, respectful, thoughtful, and understands policy. I also don't think that the "grammar nazi" userbox was all that big of a deal, although of course I do respect, and understand those that wanted it removed, and the fact that EVula took it down at the first complaint further shows he's flexible and willing to listen, both extremely valuable traits for a bureaucrat. I think that the community would not lose anything from promoting EVula, and I think that they would gain a valuable, experienced addition to the current bureaucratic team. Ariel♥Gold 07:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I guess there aren't many positions for BC around, so we can choose to be a bit picky. The things listed last time and your general editing pattern aren't really what I was looking for. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Blnguyen, may I ask what was it you were looking for, exactly? Also, last time it seems the main problem was civility - he's one of the nicest users around here now. Thanks. Redrocketboy 07:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, generally high levels of wisdom and/or hard work, preferably both. As far as hard work goes, yes, although he has 23,000 edits, but about 3,000 are userspace edits (well over 1000 to his own userspace), about 2500 of the talk page edits were adding WP tags, mostly just the empty tag at around 4-5 edits per minute ([8]), so in effect those 2500 edits took about 600 minutes or a total of 10 hours of work. Basically all of the mainspace edits are marked minor and some of them are pattern edits over and over. About 80% of the WP edits are just updating the RfA tallies over and over rather than making original comments etc, and there are a lot of vandalism warnings on user talk. So although the edit count is high, the difficulty rate is not high at all. The other thing about wisdom is that EVula seems to be too knockabout for my tastes, ok I make (attempted) humourous edit summaries sometimes but in this case there are just too many. Looking at EVula's actual RfA debate I see a lot of piling on dead horses (< 40% RfAs) and a few supports and not much else. Also, from his supporting pattern, it seems to me that his RfA history is quite pro-IRC (almost everyone he supported for is on IRC and I hardly see any supports to non-IRC people) so I think that would give a very pro-IRC outlook. Seeing as I didn't see many detailed RfA analyses from him and coupled with his supporting history, I think that if there are close RfAs, he would probably be a bit soft on IRC people, whereas with non-IRC people, judging by him not being detailed and analytical, I think they might get a bit of a random closure. Which might be rotten if the non-IRC person got a load of rubbish opposes and what have you. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to go and strengthen any rumours (IRC related especially) but here are some of EVula's comments on RfA voting. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to challenge the !vote, but I feel that some of your comments warrant a response: specifically regarding adding empty ((WikiProject Tennessee)) tags, the project had only recently started, and there simply weren't any criteria for what the articles should be judged for (and the whole class and importance infrastructure wasn't even set up); I was specifically trying to tag as many articles as quickly as I could. When I know the criteria, I'm more than happy to tag the page correctly.[9]
    I'm not sure what you're inferring about "pro-IRC", however; while I do frequent IRC, the channel that I'm the most active in is #wikipedia-en-admins; while I'm generally logged into #wikipedia as well, it's in a tab that I very rarely look at, much less comment in. Personally, yes, I support candidates that I'm familiar with (generally from on-wiki, though; certainly not via IRC), but as a 'crat, I wouldn't let my pesonal feelings get in the way (if I felt I was too close to a candidate, I would simply recuse myself, provided I hadn't already participated and would summarily recuse myself by default).
    I also disagree that I rarely provide detailed RfA analyses; generally, I'll only make a quick response if I'm supporting but don't have anything to add,[10] versus when I oppose (or go neutral), where I do my best to fully articulate the reason that I'm !voting the way I am.[11][12][13][14] I realize that the majority of my RfA edits tend to be minor (updating the tally being the primary thing, but I also do what I can to fix formatting when it's broken [15][16][17][18]), I consider such edits valuable in their own way; similar to clerks on some other areas on Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've a long-standing notion that we can never have too many clerks in the checkout counter, so to speak. However, I do agree with Blnguyen that EVula isn't properly suited for this position. He's a terrific volunteer, and I was actually just about to contact him about his recent desire for an account on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, which has apparently stalled due to the lack of a Foundation user "vouching" for him (it's a seldom viewed requests page on Meta). I'd be happy to reccomend him for an account there, as his skills could surely be used over there. Here, though, determining RfA consensus and such, is not an area that I feel his skills are well-suited for, and as such, I'm a bit leery of endorsing this particular request. gaillimhConas tá tú? 07:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well personally, I don't mind having stacks of bureaucrats, but once the room starts being populated, people will complain and say that the room is full. Then they will oppose RfBs. Thus, I would rather save up my RfB supports...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok, that makes sense. Apologies if I've misconstrued your comments. In fact, I'm just going to go ahead and tweak my own comments a bit. Cheers mate gaillimhConas tá tú? 08:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blnguyen, I wasn't aware that we had a limited number of RfB supports to use; I was under the impression that we gave the tools to whoever was qualified enough and showed enough dedication to the project. GlassCobra 15:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I was concerned about the way EVula challenged several of the opposers in his last RfB. I know it was a few months ago, but it was a little too confrontational. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 09:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that he's learnt from his mistakes there. Redrocketboy 09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    RRB, please remember that everyone is entirely entitles to their opinion here, and the engaging in conversation of every oppositon is frankly not likely to do much good, especially when it is really a metter of your own perception. I won't try and stop you though. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, what's participating in his previous request, by replying to those whom chose to oppose, have to do with being suited to being a crat? SQLQuery me! 05:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I'm sorry, because my opinion of the candidate as an admin is quite good, and has grown considerably since the first RfB. Still, I recall the quick temper shown there, and I fear it still might appear if the stress of a controversial RfA closure arose. Per Binguyen, since the standards for b'crats are (and of right, ought to be) quite high, I don't think this is the time. Xoloz (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, I like EVula but I don't think he'd make a good bureaucrat - it's a post that often means the holder is subject to even more inane, childish bitchiness and rules-lawyering pedantry than being an admin, and I don't quite think EVula has the right temperament. Users need to be very civil and very polite to carry out the role. Neıl ☎ 15:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. EVula is a great volunteer, and this oppose vote should not be construed as challenging that fact. Still, for this position, I do not see suitability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? Why? SQLQuery me! 05:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I agree with some of the above. Miranda 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which parts? Why? SQLQuery me! 05:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SQL, please do not hassle mine or others opposes out of respect of our viewpoints. Thanks. Miranda 09:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, let me give you a reason. He is admin on 1.) Commons 2.) Here 3.) Meta and 4.)Species. On his page it says if I've pissed you off before, now's your chance to crush my dreams! ;). Also, I apologize, but I would be afraid and pissed arrogant admins/bureaucrats as seen with this conversation here about a user's RFA who clearly would fail due to his experience. However, in the rate this nom. is going, this will probably be successful. But, I see this as a "vote for me because I will promote my friends" type of nomination and ignore consensus, rather if it is 73%. I just see this nomination as a prima facie of power hunger. Not improving mainspace pages on articles, but rather a level up for some type of "pwnage" over users who actually improve the encyclopedia and not constantly intake into drama. Miranda 09:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, where have I given you the idea that I'd promote my friends? I've stated several times that I'd recuse myself from handling RfAs for people that I have strong feelings for (positive or negative), especially since I'm more likely to participate in those RfAs, meaning that I'd recuse myself regardless (I wouldn't even close an RfA of 100/0/0 if I'd participated in it). As for that adminship discussion, the RfA was for a candidate with 250 edits, who was nominated by a three-hour old editor, and was citing years of experience under a different username; it was a very obvious sockpuppet show, which Checkuser backed me up on (the nominator, Meph456, and the candidate, Wikitank, were both blocked as socks of Italways).
    I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm just here for the "pwnage" of users, which I'm not, but I do appreciate the belief that this RfB will pass; I've got my doubts at this point, so at this rate you've got more faith in me than I do. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose A recent RfA was blighted by the user's use of this Nazi box [19] on his user page, something I objected to then and something I object to now even more so as having such a box calls into question the users judgment which just happens to be the key requirement of the post EVula is aspiring to here. It's obviously something a lot of people are going to see as (putting it nicely) crass, moronic, ignorant and divisive and, though ultimately trivial in itself, isn't a good sign of the user's maturity or sensitivity. I'm the last person to be politically correct but this goes over the line for me, though I'd object just as much if someone had some communist or islamist kitsch on their user page as well. If he'd removed it and apologised then I'd have accepted that, but arguing the toss as he does in the section below and defending it because it's hard to find just shows entirely the wrong attitude to me. People did not object to it in Haunted Angel's case just because it was 'front and centre', they specifically and explicitly objected to what it said about the person and how they initially dealt with the issue and the same applies here, more so as this is hardly an issue EVula was unfamiliar with. People won't care about the box if that person is not standing for a senior role, but when they are standing for such a role obviously it's going to be an issue and it's very strange if he can't see that. Evula might have thought "This whole brouhaha is, in my opinion, pathetically ridiculous" when this issue came up before with Haunted Angel but this role is about enforcing the community consensus, rather than his own opinions on others. Haunted Angel came a cropper here and if EVula can't learn by other people's mistakes he might just have to learn from his own. Nick mallory (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regretful Oppose Allow me to explain my rationale for opposing this otherwise splendid candidate. In his opening summary, he states that "I'm very active in discussions on WT:RFA, especially in regards to closures per WP:SNOW (which is definitely one of my areas of interest)." This tells me that he may be less willing to close discussions with a difficult-to-see consensus, which IMO is unacceptable for a 'crat. Maser (Talk!) 09:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to support.[reply]
    What is a "difficult-to-see consensus"? WaltonOne 09:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, closure per WP:SNOW is the only time that a non-'crat can close an RfA. I can't do anything else with RfAs unless I'm a bureaucrat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you regret opposing, don't oppose--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 13:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, per YellowMonkey. @pple complain 09:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...er, nobody by that name has participated in this RfB. For that matter, nobody with that name even exists;[20] the only editor with a name close to that hasn't edited since August of 06... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He means Blnguyen (talk · contribs) - he often goes by that nick on IRC and many call him that here too. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! Okay, that makes much more sense... I was seriously confused about getting opposed per a non-existent person. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you regret it, why oppose? No point doing something you'll regret--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 13:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose While EVula is a great admin and a really nice guy, I simply do not agree with his answer to Question 7. The position of bureaucrat should not be so sacred in my view; in an ideal world every admin would be a b'crat too. And to be honest, I think most admins would make excellent bureaucrats since most of the time it is easier than being an admin. Hence why I don't understand why bureaucratship is 90%. EVula agrees it should be separate percentages, but that simply defeats the point of consensus. It simply cannot be two different percentages, otherwise that just means neither are really consensus at all, but just a vote. So, in summary, whilst I <3 EVula's work as an admin and a bureaucrat "clerk", I simply don't agree with his view, and how he seems to think bureaucrats are something overly special that require such a ridiculously high percentage to pass. Apologies, but those are my feelings. Good luck anyway. Redrocketboy 13:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I strongly agree that bureaucratship should not be some kind of special mystical status, and I would love to see bureaucrat powers given to all admins (indeed, I made that exact proposal once at WT:RFA). I also agree that there's no real reason why the RfB threshold should be 90%. However, EVula, in his q7 answer, is perfectly correct as to the current community rules and practices; it isn't really fair IMO to oppose him simply on the basis that he has pledged to enforce the rules as they currently stand. The proper place for discussing a change to the existing procedures is WT:RFA; if you want to make a proposal for the RfB required percentage to be lowered, I will strongly support it. WaltonOne 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'll move to neutral should this RFB be close to the arbitary borderline of 90%. I'll consider opening a discussion on the said page, but I feel it'll probably lead to nothing, especially as it's been done before. Redrocketboy 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Regretfully opposes. While you're a great admin, there are a lot left to be desired to become a burecrat as indicated by editors opposing you. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a particular reason that strikes you as demonstrating that EVula would make a bad crat? SQLQuery me! 05:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you opposing if you regret it? Don't do something that you'll regret--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 13:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. As BL Nguyen said we can afford to be picky...I think we can do better. The whole Nick Mallory/swastika conversation doesn't inspire confidence (it isn't a matter of listening to what people ask, it's a matter of "getting it" in the first place). Given what happened in the past RfB (per Slim, above), "I've matured" (in just a few months) makes me wonder if he "gets it". That said, kudos for the "on wheels!" comment - that's one of the best I've seen in an RfB. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Switching to neutral. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Fine editor and admin, but Blnguyen said it nicely. Nothing personal to be sure. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, Blnguyen said what nicely? His rationale was "The things listed last time and your general editing pattern aren't really what I was looking for." What is meant by "general editing pattern"? How can the candidate improve to meet your standards for a bureaucrat? (See my note in the Discussion section above.) I have no problem with people opposing on solid grounds (e.g. the Nazi userbox), but vague opposes like this are not helpful to the candidate. If you trust him as an experienced admin, why, precisely, don't you trust him as a bureaucrat? WaltonOne 14:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Since I made the comment above, Blnguyen has provided an extended rationale [21] which explains his reasons for opposing in more detail. My comment above concerned his original oppose, [22], not the present one. WaltonOne 21:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess there aren't many positions for BC around, so we can choose to be a bit picky. The things listed last time and your general editing pattern aren't really what I was looking for. Yup, that's what he said nicely. I concur. Some users simply are unfit to be bureaucrats, is EVula one of them? I don't know, he may be an amazing 'crat I don't know to be sure. But at this point in time, I'm not convinced he would be. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mate, I believe that KnowledgeOfSelf's comment was easily understandable, and if you think it to be vague, perhaps re-read it a few times. Admin buttons are completely different than bureaucrat buttons, and it's rather obvious that many of us think EVula to be an excellent administrator, but do not feel as though he'd be such a great bureaucrat at the moment, as they're completely different volunteer positions. Also, these sort of snarky challenges to opposition in these processes could easily be done without. In any sort of Rf*, the opposition often goes to considerable lengths to explain their rationale, while those in the supporter category often just sign their names (see this particular RfB, for example). There's nothing wrong with participating as fully or as sparsely as one wants, of course, and we should give each other the proper respect with regards to this. We're all volunteers here, and calling your fellow volunteer's participation "vague", "not helpful", and pestering the fellow to explain himself "precisely" is bad form. gaillimhConas tá tú? 17:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one could say it is bad form to describe Walton's comments as "silliness" (see edit summary). Discussion should be encouraged - I for one couldn't make sense of Blnguyen's oppose either. When one opposes, they should make it clear precisely why they are opposing, not "I just don't like his edit pattern". Redrocketboy 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, not really. You see, there's a difference between discussion and thinly-veiled snarkiness. I think right now, we're discussing, whereas Walton is basically pestering KnowledgeOfSelf. Discussion is crucial to an Rf*, as a request for buttons is a process that relies on discussion in order to be successful. However, when people call into question the good-faith and validity of our volunteers, this not only besmirches the discussion, but creates an air of hostility that is bound to derail these discussions, as you can plainly see here. There is a certain way to go about discussing others' opinions and it requires a certain amount of congeniality, tact, and social graces, all of which were severely lacking in WaltonOne's, well, silliness, hehe. Cheers mate gaillimhConas tá tú? 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't call anyone's good faith into question; I don't doubt that the comment was made in good faith. Nor am I "pestering" anyone - I was just discussing. Nor did I "call into question" anyone's "validity" - what I was calling into question is the validity of the oppose, not the "validity" of the person who made it. But IMO it is generally helpful to the candidate to explain exactly why you believe that he "wouldn't be such a great bureaucrat at the moment", or what is wrong with his "editing pattern". I completely agree that bureaucrat buttons are different from admin buttons and that bureaucrats should be held to a higher standard; however, I don't think that this excuses opposers from the need to justify their oppose with specific reasons. You are entitled to disagree, but I firmly believe that the default in an RfB, just as in an RfA, should be to support or go neutral; an oppose is only justified if there is specific evidence that the candidate is not presently suitable to be an admin or bureaucrat. I apologise to KnowledgeOfSelf if my comments came over as lacking in "congeniality, tact and social graces", and I meant no offence towards him. (I also note that he has changed his vote.) With respect, I don't appreciate having my good-faith comments referred to as "silliness". WaltonOne 14:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for an apology Walton, discussion is good, and I didn't take offense in the very least. Now I want to explain why I changed my position: I stick by my thoughts, but they were rather archaic from a certain stance, hence my switch. It is not right to oppose a candidate simply because there may be better candidates further down the line. It took me some extra thought, but it is the conclusion I reached. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I always am never proven wrong in waiting in my decision on RfA/B's, because I don't want to have to change my view later, whether good or bad. I thought some of the stuff like the userbox and various comments were rather trival, but this alone is enough reason alone for me to oppose. Bureaucrats should be held to a higher standard and I would have supported if it weren't for that. So sorry. --Charitwo talk 13:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that Jimbo himself has stated that he didn't have a very big problem with my userpage.[23] In case you haven't already, I'd recommend reading User:EVula/opining/About my userpage, where I go more in-depth about my collection of insults. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that Jimbo himself is entitled to his own opinion, as am I. :) --Charitwo talk 14:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, fair enough. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. You are a great admin, but I have the same concerns raised above (opposition #4-5). Someday, I would support this, just not now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Regretfully oppose As I've been reading through the arguments for and against, I keep going back to this page. I've been pondering why it bothers me so much -- after all, anyone who does any amount of cleanup or vandal fighting regularly gets nonsense like that. And I like to have a bit of fun with my own user page, so I don't hold it against others who also enjoy a bit of fun. What bothers me is the page come across as pride in the number and extent to which people have gotten pissed off. This is not a trait I like in an admin, much less a bureaucrat. --Fabrictramp (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm certainly not intending it to come across as pride (though I can understand how you'd read it as such); I made the list just for my amusement (and the amusement of others). I don't add every insult I get, especially not at this stage, where I'm just adding things that are particularly noteworthy (either because it's creative, funny, or on a different project even). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per my standards, and per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC) (comment added by Mr. Gustafson (talk · contribs) [24])[reply]
  17. Oppose - Reading the nom’s direct contributions to Wikipedia’s contents, and any reasoning behind these direct contributions, I don’t see enough evidence of a broad understanding of the encyclopedia’s role in the world of today – an understanding that should be a prerequisite for the elevated position sought by nom. -- Iterator12n Talk 14:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per User:Blnguyen. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - I was troubled by the first diff Walton gave in question 24, and I thought it at least merited a response (if one is forthcoming, my opinion can definitely be changed, depending on the answer). It's good to approach people about problems you have with their editing style, but why not approach them in a friendly manner, at least at first? Admittedly, this might not have that much to do with being a bureaucrat, but the way you handled that does lead me to question your judgment just a little. - withdrawn delldot talk 12:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor being described in Walton's question has had a history of incivility and severe disruption of the project from the first day he arrived. The diff in the question came as the final straw after several very stern warnings from other administrators and even bureaucrats that the editor needed to shape up or ship out. EVula was absolutely in the right here; he posted his block to AN, and met with full consensus. For a full background of the situation with this editor, please see Walton's talk page, where User:ArielGold explains the entire thing. GlassCobra 13:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I have supported this RfB, and q24 was not a condemnation of EVula's conduct, but simply a request for clarification. As GlassCobra points out, some other editors have pre-empted the answer by providing some more background information to the case, which is available on my talkpage. WaltonOne 14:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) OK, thanks [to both of you] for the additional background info. I definitely agree that this context changes the situation. The diffs don't look out of line to me in this context. Maybe I should have looked into it better before opposing. But a response to the question still would have been good. Since in my mind bureaucrats are given a huge amount of trust, I'm still not confident enough in EVula to actively support, for a lot of the reasons discussed above and below. But I'll withdraw the oppose. delldot talk 15:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Mainly per Blnguyen and Xoloz, and the followup answers to question 15, these leave me with some reservations, and I also have some reservations regarding temperament. Dureo (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my own defense, I believe that I've addressed the temperament concerns in the nearly six months since my first RfB. The fact that nobody has cited any recent diffs (and instead only refer to that first RfB) reinforces this belief, though I'd be willing to consider it an ongoing problem if (again, recent) evidence is brought to my attention. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose poor judgment manifested in RfA's in particular, as pointed out in question 13 & response thereto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, what exactly do you mean by "poor judgement" in reference to RfAs? I consider all my participatory arguments to be rather sound... is there one (or more) in particular that you disagree with? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
This may be an odd reason for not supporting, but I think her other contributions to WP are so important and so necessary that i am dubious about her taking time from them to do this also. We need her more elsewhere.DGG (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC) changing to support of basis of his calm response to the userbox questions. DGG (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, EVula is a male, not a female. Nishkid64 (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't figure out how to reconcile his answer to Question #6 in his first Request for Bureaucratship with the fact that even after the furor at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Haunted Angel 2, he continues to keep a userbox that some people find "actively insulting" at User:EVula/grammar. What's more, he dismissed concerns about the box as "pathetically ridiculous" which seems needlessly harsh given how painful and personal this issue is for some people. I don't think EVula means ill (though I'm very sensitive to the fact that other editors are bothered by it); the whole issue for me is that EVula appears to have said one thing in the previous RfB, but done quite the opposite. Unless this discrepancy between answer and action can be clarified I don't think I can support. --JayHenry (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC) I think this probably could have been foreseen and avoided, but the explanation about context seems honest and this was dealt with swiftly. --JayHenry (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, the only reason it was an issue for THA was that it was front-and-center on his userpage. I noted on my talk page (User talk:EVula/Oct-Dec 2007#Grammar Nazi userbox) that I think the reason mine has been around for so long without garnering any comment whatsoever is because (a) it's buried in a sub-page (and as much time as I spent writing out everything so it'd be interesting to read, I'll readily admit that very few people probably care about my userboxes), and most importantly, (b) it's in a totally different context (chiefly: his had no context whatsoever, and mine does). The grammar nazi box is on a page titled User:EVula/grammar, can only be accessed by clicking a link titled "grammar", and is surrounded by grammar-related userboxes; there's very, very little room for misinterpretation about the box. The "pathetically ridiculous" was in reference to the general situation on the whole, where people were questioning both THA's initial reasoning for adding it, and then it the situation was compounded by people criticizing him when he addressed the concerns by removing the box; it became a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, which I didn't think was particularly fair.
As for my own usage of the box, I've yet to receive a single complaint about it, which is why I've never considered it to be an issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Nazi swastika is fine and dandy because you think it's "in context" on your user page? OK, I'm complaining now, it's an issue for me, that's why I'm lodging an opposing vote here. Obviously I don't think you're a Nazi, but I think your use of the box and, even more so, your continuing defence of it here calls into question your knowledge, judgment and empathy for others. If you turned up for a job interview at my place with a discrete little hammer and sickle badge you wouldn't get too far either. Honestly, what are you thinking? Nick mallory (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A hammer and sickle? Wow. I'd gladly hire an employee with that badge because A) we can't discriminate based on political beliefs, and B) Communists have a kick-ass work ethic. The swastika and the hammer and sickle do not a good comparison make. the_undertow talk 01:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for a political discussion but you addressed me directly so may I say - you are kidding aren't you? Kick ass work ethic? Tell me, what do you drive? An Audi, Mercedes, Porsche, Volkswagon, BMW - or a Trabant? I can think of many million people in the Ukraine, the Baltic states, eastern Europe and Russia itself who might, having actually experienced your preferred system over the last century, have a different opinion of its merits than you. I'd direct you to ask them about it, but I can't because the communists starved them to death or shot them in the back of the head. Really, with your statement, you make my exact point for me. Now, as this is about EVula's RfB if you want to explain to me just how the Soviet Union triumphed in the cold war by outproducing the hoplessly workshy Americans and British take it to my talk page, if indeed you can find it.Nick mallory (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really lose your cool quite easily. Why do you keep asking 'are you kidding' or 'what are you thinking'? It's starting to sound condescending, sort of like the quip about finding your talk page. You are correct, this is about EV's RfB, and I was defending him against a very poor analogy. Communism as political idea and socioeconomic ideology is not the same as the now-defunct Nazi Germany, which the swasktika has come to represent. There are no Nazi governments, but certainly communism exists as a governmental entity. The diatribe was entertaining at best, but you sort of lost me, because I do drive a pretty sweet Benz. the_undertow talk 03:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entirely cool. I can also spell swastika. I'm afraid that the lessons of history compel me to entirely disagree with your assertion that communism is superior in either theory or practice to fascism. You have youthful ignorance on your side, alas I only have the body count on mine. Have you heard of 'The Great Leap Forward' by any chance? Chairman Mao managed to starve 50 million Chinese to death in pursuit of back yard iron furnaces which produced...well, nothing really. Another triumph. The fact that you cannot understand my simple economic example talks volumes I'm afraid. Your 'pretty sweet Benz' is the reason you are wrong. You asserted that communists have a 'kick ass' work ethic, I merely pointed out a real life example of the products of the motor industries of West and East Germany. One might also compare and contrast the relative economic performance of North Korea (gulags, mass famine, people eating grass) and South Korea (who built most of the consumer durables in your house). Communism doesn't work as an economic system because, among other reasons, there are no incentives. People don't work in a communist system for the same reason. As an old Soviet joke used to go 'we pretend to work, and you pretend to pay us'. I used to live in Moscow by the way and did my Economics degree at the London School of Economics, where did you do yours again? You didn't say. Pakah for now pal. 203.108.239.12 (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My policy is, and always has been, that unless I got a complaint about it, it would stay. As you're the first person to complain about it, I've removed it.[25] I still feel that context is important, but that's largely irrelevant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing it. Why you thought it appropriate in the first place is still beyond me and I just don't understand the whole 'context' thing but anyone reading this should note you were as good as your word and removed it when someone complained, so fair enough. Nick mallory (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the moment, based on the userbox. When did the Nazi swastika become appropriate for self-identification in any context? Personally, I think its unwise to identify anything or anyone as a Nazi unless he/she/it is in fact a Nazi, because of the implications. Tens of millions of people died as a result of what that symbol represents. I haven't completely decided, as yet, how much the presence of that userbox should influence me (i.e. is it enough for me to oppose?). I'll wait to see how this develops first. I should note, I was intending to support until I saw the above neutral. AvruchTalk 20:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Tens of millions of people, including quite a few members of my extended family. You may think its harmless, but it hits pretty close to home for many people even now. AvruchTalk 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Neutral until she answers my question. Will be moved to oppose if no answer by close of RFB. --Dustihowe  Talk  17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, EVula isn't a "she". :-) WaltonOne 18:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, sorry Dustihowe  Talk  17:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Dustihowe, your questions do say that they're optional. If they're not, you should indicate as such. GlassCobra 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my decision as to where I vote. My questions were optional for her to answer, and if she didn't have to answer them if she didn't want to. Her answers would help me to decide where I would vote. I am now moving my vote from neutral to support. Thank you for your concern though. Dustihowe  Talk  17:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Bad timing, I'm afraid, EVula. We have plenty crats to tackle backlogs at the moment. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not voting quite so early, but I note that may or may not change should Deskana be elected to ArbCom. --Charitwo talk 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually referring to WJBscribe (talk · contribs · rights · renames). -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but, he is also a relatively new bureaucrat and is making a really active use of the tools. Not saying there is anything wrong that with that, my point being, Andrevan was also really active when he got promoted too, and so on, so forth, etc.. Continued below. --Charitwo talk 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AD, there's no limit to the amount of bureaucrats. Do you think EVula will make a bad or good 'crat? Redrocketboy 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, but there is nothing wrong with a surplus. Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll expound. EVula is busy on several other projects; he has admin access on several others. I think we have enough b'crats on en-wiki, and I'm not sure whether EVula would prove at all active as a b-crat here, for the reasons listed above. This is my opinion. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah good reason. Redrocketboy 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I agree that it [me being spread too thin] is a good reason; however, despite my activity on other projects, my contributions here haven't suffered much. I'm confident that I can balance it all, but certainly understand if you're not; I'm rather biased, after all. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I disagree that it's a good reason. What next? Can't be an admin - we have enough and you might be busy. Can't have a registered account - we have enough and you might be busy. Can't edit via an IP - we have enough and you might be busy. Sorry AD, by all means be neutral in your feelings, but the possibility EVula would not use crat tools (unlikely) does not mean there's no point him having them. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I clarified what I thought was a good reason; I was talking more about being too busy to be here, though I do think I'd be an asset. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point exactly, I just don't think we need more inactive bureaucrats here. That's not to say that EVula will be, but EVula himself admits what I'm saying in his statement: "provided WJBscribe leaves some for everyone else" -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my above statement and moreso Pedro's most recent one, given the trend of new crats, EVula will not be inactive. And the comment about WJBscribe only backs this up. It's seems like a cycle to me. You may say something similar about the next, whenever that may be and providing this is successful, RfB candidate. "I was actually referring to ((bureaucrat|EVula))." Perhaps a little too much foresight, but that's just how I feel about it. --Charitwo talk 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but I feel that should WJBscribe become inactive, Deskana will be wiating, and even if Deskana goes inactive, there will be others such as Cecropia, Secretlondon, Warofdreams. We don't have a shortage. We seem to be bordering on a lineup. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's no biggie, and I respect that you're neutral rather than opposing over it.Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly it. That's why this is a neutral, not an oppose - not a good enough reason for opposition, by any means. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pending answer to questions. User:Krator (t c) 15:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Switched from oppose My comments in the oppose section still stand to a certain degree, but after pondering this nomination further, I can not in good conscience stand by my oppose. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't have a really strong opinion here, so I'm unlikely to support or oppose. Just thought I'd note that the "next step" comment in your statement bothers me a bit. There are plenty of things to do in the admin backlog. The wording here makes me wonder whether you're working in the bureaucrat areas specifically in order to become a bureaucrat. Perhaps it's neither here nor there. Good luck. Dekimasuよ! 04:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "next step" is strictly in reference to my level of involvement in the project; being a 'crat is more involved than being an admin, just as being an admin is more involved than (most) non-admin editors. No ulterior motive, I assure you. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty, there are many other ways you can take the "next step" other than being a 'crat. Medcom, ArbCom, OTRS, FAs, etc. etc. etc. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I heartily agree, but I feel being a 'crat is better suited for me. I'm not a heavy content contributor (as I've said, I'm a die-hard wikignome), which makes FA article writing rather boring for me (though I do some article writing, on occasion; I pretty much single-handedly saved Hannah's Gift from AfD with my rewrite[26]). ArbCom is utterly uninteresting to me (though I don't doubt its value). OTRS I've given some thought to, and may pursue in the future. Medcom I looked into after a recommendation on my last RfB, but I discounted it as I'm not 100% confident in my participation in drawn-out events like mediations, as I'm also quite active in theatre off-line (I'll often go on wikibreaks for when I'm doing shows[27][28][29][30][31]); while doing theatre causes me to go on short wikibreaks, they generally only apply to the weekends (and in the case of my last show, I brought my laptop with me and was able to do some editing), I don't perceive it to have any bearing on my potential bureaucratic work. I do appreciate the suggestions, however. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have concerns whether User:EVula has the proper temperament to become a bureaucrat. These concerns are based solely upon User:EVula’s user page. I currently have limited knowledge of User:EVula’s activities as an administrator. I will retain this neutral vote unless I have done sufficient due diligence to properly assess User:EVula’s candidacy for becoming a bureaucrat.--Dan Dassow (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. My hands are tied. I really don't know. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:55, 24 December 2007 (GMT)
  7. Neutral after some careful deliberation. I find the oppose comments generally persuasive, and some of the comments attached to them (not by the candidate) extremely off-putting. On the other hand, the answers to the questions are good and the discussion following 9 in particular shows that EVula is willing to admit mistakes and learn from experience, both excellent qualities in a 'crat. Best wishes in any event. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2007 (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.
Category