Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/EVula 3

EVula

Voice your opinion (talk page) (115/1/2); Scheduled to end 03:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Ladies and Gentlemen, fellow Wikipedians, I wish to present EVula as a candidate for bureaucratship.

EVula has been an editor since December 2005 and an administrator since November 2006; in his time here, he has made over 25,000 edits and some 3,000 admin actions. His performance as an administrator has been exemplary and his overall attitude is positive, kind, and caring. He is evidently one of our best and most valuable administrators here.

Why would EVula make an excellent bureaucrat? Well, for starters, he is a frequent participator at requests for adminship and its respective talk page. He appears to understand the criteria for promoting candidates at RfA, and has a good eye for consensus. Additionally, from his activity at the inappropriate usernames noticeboard, its the bot part of the noticeboard, and at the requests for comment page on usernames, he has a strong understanding of the username policy, and since EVula wishes to work at changing usernames, that knowledge will be very important, and even more so since changing usernames is the biggest backlog for the bureaucrats. EVula is also good at engaging other users in discussion, and is civil, and as bureaucrats need to be effective communicators, this is a crucial skill that he has.

This is not EVula’s first request for bureaucratship: he first nominated himself in June of 2007, and nominated himself again in December later that year. There has been a nice amount of time and space between each RfB, and EVula has not been in a rush to become a bureaucrat.

EVula has all the qualities and knowledge that a bureaucrat should have, and it’s because of this that I am honored to nominate him for bureaucratship. I now leave him in your hands for evaluation. Acalamari 03:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored to have such a great nomination. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. Not to be lazy, but I'm going to copy/paste my answer to this question from my second RfB; in the six months since my last attempt, I've had no experiences to suggest that the community has shifted away from what I stated last time. (though I am tweaking it a bit)
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 love numerical breakdowns, and the common amounts stated 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. As I've stated last time, I'm a fan of transparency: if it's a very tight RfA/B, I'd be more than happy to initiate a "'crat chat" to get the feel from my fellow bureaucrats. While I wouldn't jump into a contentious situation with guns blazing, I'd have no problem executing the consensus gauged; if there is any flak from my decisions, I'd be more than willing to discuss them with any and everyone that asked me on my talk page.

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 feel that I've got a well-earned reputation for being easily approached; even with people I disagree with, I never confuse a disagreement over a concept with a disagreement over a person themselves. I've been an administrator for over a year and a half, and in that time I've had very little evidence that my execution of Wikipedia's myriad policies and guidelines has been less than superb. I'm always quick to leave someone a message if there's a situation; an eagerness to talk is crucial in taking on any "trusted role" (which definitely includes being a bureaucrat, but is also paramount in an administrator).

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. Though I'm not quite the RfA gnome that I once was, I do currently pay attention to WP:RFA (and its talk page). The Bot stuff I, admittedly, am rather ignorant on, but am 100% willing to jump on if the call for more 'crat attention is put out. WP:CHU is going to be one of my standard haunts if this RfB is successful, as I feel my experience with our username policy will help out, in addition to having an extra pair of hands.

Optional questions from Avi

5. Based on intense personal experience, it is clear that the community requires a detailed knowledge of both the RfA process and the username changing process. For your benefit, can you please describe both the quality and quantity of your edits to WP:RFA, WT:RFA, WT:CHU, WP:UAA, and WP:CHU? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A. My breakdown:

WP:RFA - I routinely read active RfAs, patrolling for out-of-date tallies (not the most pressing thing in the world, but I enjoy it) and fixing broken formatting when I find it. I also participate in RfAs when I am able to properly guage the editor. I currently have 80 edits to the main RfA page itself.

WT:RFA - I am very active in the RfA discussion page; it's my most active project talk page, with 417 edits.

WT:CHU - My only involvement here has been to inquire about creating a "fast track" for WP:U-dictated renames, rather than self-requested name changes (this request stemed from my involvement at WP:UAA).

WP:UAA - I'm heavily involved here. I have UAA transcluded onto my admin page, which is my personal jumping-off pad for a lot of my administrative actions. I routinely block blatant violations (both hard and soft blocks, depending on the severity of the violation), initiate or participate in discussions over non-blatant offenses, and remove false-positives on the bot report sub-page. My edit count between the two pages is 213 (though keep in mind that most of my edits in respect to the pages is to place a block notice).

WP:CHU - I do not currently spend much time here. If my RfB is successful, I will of course place it higher on my priority list, as helping with the renaming backlogs is one of the reasons I'm running.

EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

6. Once again, based on the same experience, it appears that the community, with rare exception such as Redux3, requires a minimum of six months between RfB requests. Can you please explain why you feel that it is appropriate for you to run now, being that it has been less than six months since your last RfB? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Well, part of it was the fact that Acalamari, who I highly respect in such matters, felt comfortable emailing me to offer his nomination. I was willing to ignore my own guideline of six month downtime (though it's only been five, which isn't too far off) partly because I was rather unsatisfied with my second RfB; I don't feel like I got very much constructive criticism from my opposers, which left me with nowhere I could focus my attentions on when it came to self-improvement. My own belief that I was up to the task, combined with a similar belief by an editor I respect (as well as the supportive opinions of some of my on-wiki friends) and the fact that there seems to be a very real need for more bureaucrats (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Temporary bureaucrats) led me to go ahead and bite the bullet on my third RfB, despite it being a bit "early" in comparison to my last one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

7. Can you please explain what your current understanding is of the nature of the necessary consensus for an RfA vs. an RfB vs. an RfBAG? I understand it is somewhat difficult to discuss that while engaged in the process, but should you be successful, you will be making these decisions as well, and I believe it is important for us to understand your approach to these candidacies. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Broken out similar to my answer to question #6:

RFA - This is largely a matter of trust. "Do I trust -Candidate- to not abuse the tools? Will -Candidate- becoming an admin be a net-gain for Wikipedia? Will -Candidate- delete Main Page?" and the like. Evidence for and against their candidacy is presented, and everyone is welcome to voice their opinion. In some circumstances, some opinions are going to be weighed differently, when the community has made it clear that they don't consider it relevant (for example, the much-debated validity of opposition based of self-nomination). Additional detail on this I feel I answered in Question #1.

RFB - In this respect (and this respect only), RfB is rather similar to RfA. Trust is still the key element in a successful RfB. My answer for question #1 still stands for RfB as well, though the threshold for passing is higher (and the grilling is more intense). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RfBAG - I have to admit, I'm totally ignorant of bots and their workings. However, in researching this question, it seems that it is in a fairly high state of flux; Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership was redirected to the talk page less than two weeks ago, and there are no current requests running. I'm honestly wary of answering this question until a more concrete process is in place. Sorry.

EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Useight

We all knew these questions were going to be asked, so we might as well get it early on.

8. Do you think that confirmation RFAs should be gauged with a different measuring stick than regular RFAs?

A. To a slight degree, yes, but only because the chance for abuse is so much higher. Admins, if they're active enough, are pretty much assured to step on some toes; some of those people get very, very upset (something I'm all too familiar with), and sometimes that anger can get vented improperly. With reconfirmations, bureaucrats need to be a bit more "hands on", in the sense that they need to figure out which oppositions are coming from editors with legitimate concerns, and which ones have axes to grind (though I'd trust the community at large to do a good job of policing them). Any reconfirmation RfA needs to keep that in mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

9. How would you have handled ^demon's RFA?

A. I... well, I don't think I would have passed it. If I were in that particular (and utterly unenviable) situation, I would have initiated a 'crat chat. However, in looking over User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 15#Your close of RfA on User:^demon, it also appears that there weren't any bureuacrats around to confer with... so, at the end of the day, I don't think I would have passed it, though I do feel that WjBscribe's explination goes a very, very good job explaining why he closed it the way he did, which goes a long way towards decreasing the drama factor. I do, however, agree on the point of reconfirmation RfAs being very different beasts, which is something I touched on in my answer to the above (#8) question. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Routine optional questions from seresin

10.Say an administrator voluntarily resigns his flag. A month later, he decides he wants it back. For whatever reason, he goes through a so-called "reconfirmation RfA", although it is agreed that as per the ArbCom ruling, he should be able to get them back by asking because he did not relinquish them "under a cloud". For whatever reason, during the course of the RfA, he withdraws it early. He then asks for his flag back on BN. Do you believe that he should be able to get it back if the RfA was clearly going to pass? If it might have passed? If there was very little chance he would pass? Also, after deciding to discuss with your fellow bureaucrats, you find that the collective bureaucracy is split on the issue. Who determines consensus among bureaucrats?

A. It depends on a variety of issues. If Candidate withdrew because of exterior forces (real life, etc), and their RfA ran for at least half the time and looked like it was going to pass, possibly. If Candidate withdrew because it looked like it was failing, absolutely not. If Candidate withdrew with a high percentage but immediately after some rather damning evidence was brought to light, absolutely not. If it was likely to pass but Candidate withdrew for some arbitrary reason, most likely not (the wiggle room there would be allow for such evidence as an overwhelming number of people declaring the reconfirmation a waste of time, as well as any potential situation that I can't imagine right now).

As for determining consensus among the bureaucrats, I would wager that whoever initiates the 'crat chat would be the one to, at the end of the day, make the call (after considering all the options). If it happened to be me, I'd use the outline provided above. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

11.How much authority do bureaucrats, qua bureaucrats, have over the rename pages and procedures? Do you have an opinion on usurpation of accounts with edits (SUL usurpations)? Do you plan to actively get en.wp's policy in this area formalized; how do you plan to get the community involved after the several failed attempts? Who makes the decision if community input is minimal? What is your opinion on a bureaucrat violating a long-standing convention on renames?

A. The authority of bureaucrats extends only as far as the community allows it to. If a bureaucrat weighs in on a discussion, they are doing so as an editor; just as the position of administrator conveys no special authority, the same can be said of bureaucrats. If someone gives greater weight to a bureaucrat's argument, they should be doing so out of respect to the editor, not out of a misguided placement of faith in the "office".

My personal opinion on SUL? Well, as many may know, I'm extremely active across multiple projects (see m:User:EVula/matrix for an idea of my insanity activity). As a result, I have a "top-down" view of the English Wikipedia's relationship with the rest of the WMF sites. As such, I actually (personally) support the usurpation of accounts by whoever has the greatest number of edits (I don't put much stock in the idea that we should overly concern ourselves over someone that made four edits three years ago, versus a Spanish-speaking admin on another project with several thousand edits to their credit). However, my personal opinion will [always] take a back-seat to what the community wishes.

As for what role I intend in taking when it comes to hammering out a policy, I certainly plan on voicing my opinion, but I can't really say with any amount of certainty what I will or will not devote my energies to. As I said above, I don't consider my opinion to be significantly more valuable than any other editor when it comes to this. If community input is minimal, after multiple attempts to get a wider sense, we'd probably have to just push our way through it. When people yell about stuff, then that would serve as a pretty good (if extreme) guage for what people don't like. :) (in all seriousness, though, I'd prefer if a better sence could be gained; the hypothetical is a bit extreme) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

12.What role do bureaucrats have in governing the RfA page? Specifically other nominations — viz. checkuser and BAG. Do bureaucrats have a duty/authority to remove/govern/etc. these?

A. Bureaucrats should do whatever the community has tasked for them to do. I, personally, don't think that either CU or BAG should be in the bureaucrat's hands, as the first is a Foundation issue (that I'm not entirely sure that the local community can override), and the second isn't a user right (compared with flipping a switch for a bot, sysop, or bureaucrat) but instead a position of moderate authority (for lack of a better term). However, if that's what the community wants, so be it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

13. In light of recent discussions, (Riana's bureaucrat chat, the various discussions and polls, and the section about the RfB bar in the adminship poll page, Avraham 2) what do you believe the pass percentage is for an RfB?

A. Prior to Riana's RfB, the traditional numerical threshold was 90%. In the resultant discussion, while no clear number was given, the threshold seems to be 80-85% instead (though, again, numbers are only a rough guideline). I am aware that Avraham's second RfB was closed just a couple of weeks ago at 82%; again, the numbers are a guideline, not a fixed figure. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

14. According to the page history tool, you have a total of 21 edits to CHU and CHU/U over the past ~14 months. Do you really understand what goes on there? Do you believe you will maintain activity there in the long term?

A. I have very little doubt that I'll be able to maintain activity there. As WjBscribe mentions below, CHU experience has not (traditionally) been a prerequisite for bureaucrat candidates (though anyone is certainly welcome to consider it one). To pull a different example from my own history, before I was an administrator, I had very little experience tagging articles for speedy deletion. Now, I'm active in handling speedy deletions not only on here, but also on Commons, Meta, and Wikispecies (the latter two where I'm also a bureaucrat). EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from xDanielx

15. In your last RfB, some concerns were raised regarding IRC influences. Do you still frequent the various Wikipedia-centered IRC channels? What do you think of discussing RfAs (or similar discussions) you plan on closing with other IRC users -- good idea, bad idea, or circumstantial?

A. In my answer to question #6, I mentioned that I was "rather unsatisfied" with how my second RfB turned out; I'll flat out admit that it was because of the IRC discussion, because I (to this day) have no idea what the basis was for that opposition. I hang out on IRC to relax and chit-chat with people I know, not to bypass on-wiki processes. I have no intention of discussing RfAs with people, and wouldn't allow IRC to color my judgement. (anyone that is a regular on IRC can probably testify to my relative infrequency on there) EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Friday

16. (Sorry to be piling in questions, but..) Let's say you promote someone, and then later realize this was a mistake when they begin misusing the tools. Will you make some attempt to correct the mistake yourself? Yes, I realize crats are not historically expected to consider the full results of their actions, but do you think maybe they should start? Do you see it as a problem that giving someone admin access is one of the very few actions on the wiki that are not reversible by the editor who did it?

A. Ah, another question that I can easily answer while still at work. :)
Yes, I do wish that there were some sort of way to more easily remove the sysop bit in problematic situations. I am a fan of admin recall, though wary towards abuse of the system (which is why my recall criteria are insanely complex). Going through the motions of ArbCom seems excessive, but that's all we have right now.
However, I do not feel that this is the promoting bureaucrat's responsibility, in as far as they are not the ones making the judgement call about the candidate; the community is, and the closing 'crat is merely the executor of the community's will. The only discretion bureaucrats are allowed to use is in the individual !votes themselves (see my answer to question #1), not the candidate. Yes, it would be nice for the promoting bureaucrat to take the lead in removing a sysop's bit if they go rogue, but I wouldn't consider it "expected behavior", for lack of a better term, as they are no more responsible than any of the rogue's RfA participators. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Really optional questions from Vishnava

17. This is probably more for my education, but how will your thinking and attitude change, or not, by becoming a bureaucrat? How will it affect your basic administrative workload? There seems to be a great difference in the process of becoming an administrator and a bureaucrat, and people here seem to look at the two posts and the people who fill them very differently. I think administrators tend to be more forward and active, while bureaucrats seem more passive. How would you be different? Vishnava _talk 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A. I can honestly say that I have no idea how being a bureaucrat will change my attitude. My experiences as an admin make me a different person now than I was before I was an administrator (at the very least, I'm a *lot* more committed to Wikipedia and the WMF's goals), and I don't feel like I could say how I will change in the future with anything even close to resembling accuracy.

I do feel that you are right about the activity/passivity between administrator and bureaucrat, however. It's something I'm not particularly crazy about (when I ran my first RfB, I felt that the majority of bureaucrats were fairly divorced from the community; our current crop is better on that front, I feel). While I can't predict the future (and if I could, I'd spend my time on the stock market rather than on this RfB), I can say with the utmost assurance that I have no intention of letting my bureaucrat-level contributions negatively impact my editing in other areas. For example, I currently have about 30% of my edits in the main namespace; I am very proud of this fact, as I consider myself as being an administrator second to being an editor. Similarly, while I plan on being plenty active as a bureaucrat, I don't foresee it becoming such a massive time sink that I'm unable to contribute on all the other projects where I am active, or here as an editor or administrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

18. In what situations would you feel it wiser in your post to walk away from? Vishnava _talk 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A. As I noted in my second RfB, any situation where one of my on-wiki friends was in an RfX, I would recuse myself from closing it, though that stems largely from the fact that I'd likely support their request, meaning I'd be recusing myself regardless. For situations where I would walk away entirely... can't think of any. If someone I dislike (or rather, someone I've had multiple negative interactions with) comes up for RfA, I'd likely end up recusing myself via participation (if I was strongly opposed to their candidacy, I'd definitely present evidence I felt was relevant). If I was being attacked somehow, I suppose I'd just walk away, but I've got an established reputation of not allowing personal attacks to get under my skin, and I can't really think up a situation where I'd be getting attacked... maybe to deny a rename request to "EVula sucks"? Dunno. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

19. I remember that during the U.S. Senate hearing for the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, he declined to answer questions about abortion, which he said may come up as a case. Some questions above are asking you to discuss some prior cases. Do you feel comfortable answering those? Despite it being "optional," do you feel some obligation or need to answer them or risk more oppose votes? Vishnava _talk

A. Well, I can go ahead and say that "optional" is a hilariously inaccurate term. Even in my past RfBs, I've had people oppose (or go neutral) because I hadn't answered their questions (and I hadn't answered them because I'm only human and can only answer so many questions), and I've seen similar situations in numerous RfAs; "optional" is anything but. Even the initial three questions in an RfA are "optional", but there's only the slimmest of chances for someone passing without answering them. As for discussing past cases, I don't have much issue with discussing them, though there is only so much I can say without being tainted by the actual results, especially as I don't consider myself so narrow-minded that I can't be swayed by a sufficiently compelling argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Wizardman

20. (My support or oppose won't come down to this question at all) What is your track record at RfA? In other words, how many candidates have you nominated, and how did they do?

A. Sadly, none. Because I'm such a hardcore wikignome, a significant portion of my interaction comes from administrative areas (such as AN and ANI), most of whom are already admins. I do have a list of people I'd like to see become an admin, but some of them aren't quite ready yet (though one of them, ArielGold, has better nominators than myself lined up around the block). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from StewieGriffin!

21 How fast would you get to requests at say the WP:BN or WP:CHU? StewieGriffin! Previously SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please} 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A. As quickly as I can. ;) In all seriousness, I'm on Wikipedia every day (something I shouldn't be so ready to admit to, and certainly nothing the girlfriend is happy about). I'd like to see the turnover time on WP:CHU be reduced to a few hours, rather than the couple of days that it can become, but that is largely dependent on the number of requests; if there's a spike, there's only so much a single bureaucrat can do.

As for WP:BN, usually it's just discussions that are posted there, not actionable requests (aside from the occasional request for sysop restoration by former admins who have relinquished their bits). However, I'd like to jump on those as quickly as I can as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Al Tally

22. See this ongoing RfA. Since it is likely you will pass this RfB, you will be able to comment in the more than likely bureaucrat chat that will occur upon its closure. Please tell me how you would close that RfA, assuming it was due to end at the timestamp on my signature? Al Tally ^talk 22:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A. Note: I'll answer this question as soon as I have an opportunity to fully read the RfA. Just wanted to respond to acknowledge that I'd seen the question and wasn't ignoring it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See EVula's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfBs for this user:

• Requests for bureaucratship/EVula
• Requests for bureaucratship/EVula 2
• Requests for bureaucratship/EVula 3

• Links for EVula: EVula (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support

1. Keegan^talk 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, we need more crats and there's no reason to believe EVula will abuse or misuse cratship. --Rory096 04:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Support MBisanz ^talk 04:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Strongest possible support EVula would make a great bureaucrat. I cannot think of anyone more suited to be one than him. hmwithτ 04:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (ugh, edit conflict times 3... really? I thought I was going to be first)
5. Strongest possible support - Go you good thing !!! :DDDDD ......--Cometstyles 04:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Support SFU for everyone today, so there's going to be a lot of renaming done, I suspect. EVula's perfect for the job. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
7. I'd trust him with the additional tools, and there is an apparent need for them. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong Support As last time. EVula will make a fine 'crat. :) GlassCobra 04:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Nakon 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. I think EVula has continued to improve as an editor, taking criticism (even when it's sometimes been unfair) in stride, and still learning from it. Not concerned about only waiting five months instead of six months between RFBs. I also think he understands the expectations of a 'crat and would perform well in the role. --JayHenry (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong Support Per "DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH". Jmlk17 04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
13. Per what I said last time. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - as before. EVula was a fine candidate back then and has only improved since. No problems at all here - Alison ^❤ 05:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Great candidate for the position. (are non admins allowed to vote? if not, strike my comment) Undeath (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - I've always thought EVula would make a great crat. His comments are always thoughtful and his participation at RfA and the discussion page has provided me with conclusive evidence that he will do a fine job. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - Agathoclea (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
18. EVula should make a fine 'crat, and should tackle the username backlogs effectively. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
19. Heck yeah support. Has clue*infinity, knows what bureaucratship is about, will make for active and awesome 'crat. Also per Jmlk17, JayHenry, and hmwith. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 09:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
20. Support with no reservations. Great guy, great attitude, great candidate. Húsönd 10:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. No problem. Malinaccier P. (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
22. Support A fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. Trustworthy user. · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
24. Support. Evula's history demonstrates a sufficient understanding of wiki rules and guidelines in the areas of bureaucratic concerns. Past history together with the answers to my questions leave me comfortable with his understanding of consensus; there may be no one correct answer, but his answers are acceptable and in the bounds of "wiki-normalcy" (oxymoron that it is). As per his presence or absence at CHU, I am more concerned about a potential bureaucrat's ability to learn quickly and correctly and apply his or herself to the job, and I believe that anything EVula does not know now, he will pick up soon. There really is no such thing as the "perfect" candidate, and flaws can, and will, be found in any one candidate. In my opinion. bureaucrats should not be promoted or denied based on need, but on ability, potential, and trust, and it is my opinion that EVUla demonstrates the potential and ability to be a successful bureaucrat, and should be extended the project's trust in this matter. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
25. Fine with me. --Kbdank71 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
26. Just looking at the number of RfAs EVula has closed at WP:RFAF is astounding. Work with usernames and bots looks fine and reasonable for a non-bureaucrat. I'd also like to take this particular opportunity to thank EVula for all his work at UAA. Rudget (Help?) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
27. Strongest possible support - Having had much interaction with EVula over the past few months, I have gotten to know him well. He is a strong editor who keeps the goals of the project in mind, all while retaining a healthy sense of humor. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions on various matters of the project, and everyone is free to voice them. To judge them based on differing opinions is, in my opinion :), in bad faith. I happen to agree with the view EVula holds that has been pointed out in Pedro's oppose (which I don't understand). I believe that I know EVula well enough to trust in his ability to act fairly in such matters and I fail to see a connection between this view and an ability to judge consensus and close an RFA appropriately. Based on what I've seen from EVula's contributions, and all of the many interactions I have had with him both on and off-wiki, I have full confidence in EVula's abilities. Lara❤Love 15:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
28. Support- An Asset to the community. Besides, we need more 'crats :P. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
29. Support, per nomination rationale, the opinions of others, and my general opinion that EVula will make a solid bureaucrat. Anthøny 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - Good attitude, definitely trustworthy, will be a great help as a 'crat (there are not enough active ones, leading to backlogs, but that's for another day). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:40, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
31. Strong support - one of our best admins, sensible, responsible, and reasonable. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
32. Support per AGK. —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
33. Support - Excellent admin who should make an excellent bureaucrat.--Dycedarg ж 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
34. support —DerHexer (Talk) 20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. I think the candidate would be a net positive as a bureaucrat, and have no reason whatsoever to question the candidate's competence, skill, or dedication to the project. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
36. Extremely trustworthy? Check. Understands consensus? Check. Competent enough to figure out the tricks of the trade at WP:CHU? Check. Best interests of the encyclopedia at heart? Check. Well, looks like he meets my criteria. --barneca (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
37. Support. No concerns. henrik•talk 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
38. Support. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
39. Support as I supported the previous two RFBs. EVula really understands how RFA works and is involved there, and has the temperament to judge consensus and to answer questions from the community. He also has more than a year of experience as an admin and many edits and log actions both here and on other wikis. He also wants to help with usernames. Oh, and his answer to Friday's question was squarely on the mark. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
40. Absolutely, unequivocally yes. User has the dedication, user has the technical and meta- wherewithall. User is highly respected and trusted in several arenas, and yet still has managed to keep a sense of humor. In short, EVula is teh shit. (please don't heckle me, he'll know what I mean....) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
41. Support record is circumspect with solid work. He's got everything you want in a candidate for this job. Vishnava _talk 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
42. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
43. Support, yes. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
44. Three RfBs in the course of a year is a little worrying, but meh, EVula will do just fine as a 'crat. Monobi (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
45. Support AniMate 02:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
46. Support - highly qualified. :) krimpet✽ 02:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
47. Support. I'm impressed by both your work and your answers to the questions at this RFB. Useight (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Sure makes a lot of sense to me! _{1 != 2} 05:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
49. Support civility and diplomacy get a candidate a long way here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
50. Support, need more bureaucrats. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
51. Al Tally ^talk 12:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
52. Crats lately have been a little too activist in promoting questionable candidates . EVula isn't promising the kind of radical crat overhaul I'd ideally like to see, but I believe he will help fix this one particular problem. Friday (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
53. Support - All of my interactions with this editor indicate to me that they would make a great crat. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
54. I very strongly support this nomination, and for the reasons I gave in my nomination statement. Acalamari 17:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
55. Absolutely. This user will be a very good bureaucrat. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
56. Based on answers, support, I would have opposed this had it been say 3 months ago, due to the way I felt you handled some issues. But, that was yesterday's newspapers. I am happy with the way you have answered the questions and feel that you would make a great 'crat. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
57. Strong Support GO FOR IT. StewieGriffin! Previously SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please} 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
58. Support as last time. Evula is an excellent user, who's always pleasent and willing to help. His work at RfA shows he's ready for the role. He understands the username policy and I'm sure he'll do a great job at CHU. All in all, one of the good guys. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
59. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
60. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
61. dorftrottel (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
62. miranda 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
63. Support - trustworthy, knowledgeable, and bureaucrats are a scarce resource. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
64. --Maxim_(talk) 23:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
65. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
66. Support - We need more bureaucrats. I've no concerns about EVula. Bureaucrats don't have much more power than admins, so there is not much risk of messing up, and newly-elected bureaucrats tend to be more active than incumbents. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
67. Support one of the strongest, most trustworthy, and able administrators at Wikipedia, the additional responsibilities will go to good use here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
68. EVula's a proven commodity and definitely has common sense and my trust. east.718 at 06:04, May 29, 2008
69. Strong support - Fully trustworthy and civil - the definitive candidate for bureaucratship. Valtoras (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
70. One word. Trust. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
71. —Dark ^talk 12:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
72. kinda sorta wanted to oppose, but you're well qualified, so.. naerii - talk 12:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
73. Support - Wanted to let this pan out a few days before !voting, seeing issues that opposers might bring up. Reading all of them, particulary Pedro's oppose before recusal, I think some intereting issues have been raised. Thinking more about it though, concerns look great as examples of what makes this candidate not 100% perfect, but they don't concern me to the point where they outweigh the overwhelming evidence of qualification in various areas. I'm glad to support here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
74. Support, yes, will be fine. Neıl 龱 16:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
75. Support. EVula is well-qualified and well-mannered. I'm fairly satisfied with the answer regarding IRC... no red flags, anyway. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
76. Support Great editor. ElectricalExperiment 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
77. Support Solid community member and editor with a clear understanding of the role. Kuru ^talk 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
78. Support - Another one of the things I have to do before I go. Good luck Eric, do the community proud. Astral (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
79. Strongest possible support - I know that he will be a great bureaucrat, --Chetblong (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
80. Support Per Everyone Above me! LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 02:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
81. Sufficiently insane. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
82. Support no reservations. KnightLago (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
83. Strong Support Reliable and more than qualified. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
84. Support. I always thought he was already one. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
85. Sure SQL^{Query me!} 11:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
86. Support Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 17:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
87. Support In my observances of EVula, I have long ago formed the opinion that he is very thoughtful and involved as an administator. The same opinion still holds for me and I see no drawbacks in having him serve as a bureaucrat. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
88. No-brainer With a rep like his, it's a wonder he isn't ALREADY one. Better go look at the other ones to see what went wrong.... 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
89. Correct crat person. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
90. Support – I trust his judgment. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
91. Weak support, not a lot of raw experience where bureaucrats need to have it, but I trust you. Wizardman 23:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
92. Support I think we can safely say that EVula got his brain checked more than enough for us to trust him with the other tools. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
93. Support suited for the role. Spellcast (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
94. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
95. Support trustworthy, I can't see anything wrong. Good answers to questions. Hut 8.5 13:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
96. Support I would've liked to see more article building, but I think this user is trustworthy enough. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 15:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
97. Totally!-- Barkjon  17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
98. Support - I have great confidence EVula will make an excellent 'crat. Stardust8212 21:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
99. You again? I have some concerns that you haven't thought through the SUL engendered renaming/usurpation issues thoroughly enough, but third time's the charm, let us hope. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
100. Why not. I don't really like how he answered my questions, but nothing in them particularly causes me enough problem to oppose, and you seem as if you'll be a good bureaucrat. Just do renames. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
101. Support a good candidate --Stephen 23:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
102. Very strong support - I appreciate your honesty, openess and fairness - usually a rare set of combined attributes.--VS ^talk 00:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
103. Support John told me to. And rightly so, because as of now, I can't think of any fair reason to oppose. Fair.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
104. Support A longtime trustworthy editor. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
105. Support. Of course. bibliomaniac1</3font>5 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
106. Support Excellent judgment--and a proper degree of independence-- as shown both in Wikipedia generally and in the answers above. DGG (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
107. Support - Well this is the third RfB I have participated in of EVula. The first time I went neutral, the second time I supported, and for his third attempt I am supporting again. I have watched EVula for a long time while on Wikipedia. On review, I think EVula will make an excellent bureaucrat who has good knowledge of the RfA process and Wikipedia in general; who I am confident is trustworthy and will do a good job. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
108. Support - No reason not to. Nothing I have seen from Evula as an editor or an admin makes me think there would be issue with him as a Crat. Good luck. Trusilver 16:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
109. Support, without concerns Alex Muller 20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
110. Support - Very dedicated to project, dedicated to areas that are lacking. All around A+ :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 21:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
111. Support. What I see is entirely convincing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
112. Support. --jonny-mt 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
113. Support. I Have only seen good things from this user and I'm glad to support =) —Apis (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
114. Support No concerns raised for me by their actions or statements - my past observations and experiences of this user have been positive and I believe they would close RfAs in line with consensus and Wikipedia policies. Orderinchaos 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
115. Support EVula has my full trust and I'm sure he would do an exemplary job as a bureaucrat, despite the fact that he is clearly evil. ~ mazca ^talk 14:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Sorry EVula. I am afraid that I do not believe you will be dispassionate about closing RFA with consensus. I do believe that you have certain standards that will prejudice your ability to do so. You have stated, without equivocation, If someone submits an RfA after 300 edits, it gets closed, and then they get pissy about the whole thing, well... they weren't likely to be around for very long anyway. and 100% agreement. If they can't withstand a failed RfA, they're not likely to withstand some of the other crap that comes with being an admin. We're better off with a semi-retired editor than a potentially unhinged admin.. I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly with your view point that losing editors through failed RFA's is of no great concern. I accept an RFA default position is not to promote, and that we do not take into account hurt feelings when closing anything one way or the other. But I find your attitude in this regard to be both overly harsh and not to take account of the wider needs of the project - that is the retention of editors. Sorry to be unpopular opposer number one, particularly as I supported you last time. Pedro :  Chat  10:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment on your oppose, Pedro. I agree that losing editors through failed RfAs is a matter of great concern. There is a growing loss of community spirit on Wikipedia, and these days nobody seems to care if a user has failed an RfA. A couple of years ago, scores of users would promptly issue encouraging messages to the unsuccessful applicant, and he or she would work harder and try again a few months later. Nowadays, I believe it's much easier for a user to wonder what's the purpose of staying on Wikipedia after experiencing an unsuccessful RfA and being treated like a grain of sand. But I don't think EVula is to be blamed for this. Nor I think that the fear of a user leaving Wikipedia should be a factor to have in consideration when a bureaucrat closes an RfA. Húsönd 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Husond, that sadly there does seem to be a decline in encouraging messages (and not just after an RfA - in general). I totally agree this is not EVula's fault at all.And I certainly agree that a if a user chooses to leave Wikipedia after a bad RFA that's nothing to do with closing 'crat and indeed absoultely should not be part of a closing decision. However, although I supported EVula in the past, I personally have found his attitude to have become less than what I would expect of a bureacrat in terms of supporting new editors. I ask a simple question - how will he respond to a good faith usurption request by a newbie with a hundred edits? I am worried by the answer to my rhetorical question. EVula is a stunning admin, and his capabilities are amptly demonstrated by his user page and the number of wikis he holds accounts on (as editor, admin and bureaucrat). I think his vast experience may have made him jaded when it comes to newbies. And newbies are our lifeblood. I'm sorry if this oppose look to be in bad faith, but by defenition any oppose at RfX can look the same. Pedro :  Chat  12:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if it looks like bad faith to anyone, that person isn't me. :)
You're right that we disagree over this, but I also don't see how it is relevant to how I'd behave as a bureaucrat. The comments quoted above are only an explanation of my attitude towards not being over-concerned with the loss of editors; I'm not actively seeking to drive of people, but I see it as a simple "fact of wiki-life", and that (to a certain extent) it is inevitable. Some people just aren't suited to Wikipedia; while we should try to be accommodating to an extent (fresh blood equals new opinions and attitudes, which helps our policies and guidelines evolve), we shouldn't have to bend over backwards for people whose temperament is incompatible. If someone is going to quit after I close their RfA (and if I become a 'crat, we're talking about full RfAs, not snow-closed ones I've handled in the past), the only alternative is that we pass people willy-nilly based on the fact that we hope they won't quit (ignoring whether or not they'd do well with the tools; someone who is quick to edit war does not need the ability to block), which is a sub-standard solution in my book. I present it as a "well, this is how it is" type of situation, not a "yay, we're losing people!" declaration. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to opine here that Pedro's concern is (in my view) quite misguided. This is a recurring problem at Wikipedia- there's a huge bloc of editors who make great efforts to retain every editor who comes along. This is not helpful. We should try to retain the good editors, not every editor. We have plenty of good but inexperienced editors who need a helping hand. If a particular editors gets frustrated, this is often (but not always!) a sign that this particular editor is a poor fit for a collaborative project like Wikipedia. We all need to spend far less time making heroic efforts to hammer square pegs into round holes. Instead, find the round pegs and give them little nudges as needed. It's a far better use of our time. Friday (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect Friday, I'm not sure I'm that "misguided" when points three and four of the five pillars expresly indicate that anyone is free to edit and everyone should be open and welcoming. So whilst agreeing that we don't want to reatin every editor we do need to make efforts to retain all good faith ones. However this doesn't seem directly relevant to my oppose of this RfB which is based on concerns on how EVula will handle newbies with bureaucrat tools in all areas - particularly Usurption. I also noticed EVula was specifically concerned that RFB No.2 did not contain positive feedback from opposers. I suspect this will pass, and accordingly my feedback is given to him. Pedro :  Chat  15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose indented. Abstention I think, here. I still feel EVula needs to learn that this encyclopedia needs to be more welcoming, and I do feel that he has a (negative) prejudice to newbies and non-admins. I hope he will alter his thinking in regards to to this, but, at the same time, I also trust him to be dispassionate about renaming. His trustworthiness in general is without question. I wish I could offer my support, but I'm unable to. However, it will probably be unneccesary. Pedro :  Chat  19:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the concern. Though the !vote is struck, I would like to point out that I developed User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA specifically to give newbie editors all the information they need in a rather casual, non-bitey way that didn't make them feel like the were being given generic boilerplate (which can have just as detrimental an effect; nobody wants to feel like they're being "processed"). I may think that turnover is natural, but I'm certainly not out to make it happen. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. You've expressed in both prior RfB's that you are willing or expect to be spending time at WP:CHU, but I don't see anything more than reverting and commentary (I went as far back as about a year of your edits there, nothing more than a handful). Now, this is fine, but nothing that helped the actual process such as clerking. This edit (which was undid by a frequent editor and non admin) in particular gave me the impression that you are still learning, which is still quite recent. I'd expect that after accepting 3 RfB's that you would have spent more time in this area, as well as gaining an understanding with respect to bot's. These are both crat tasks you should be familiar with if you wish to be one. Pedro's examples (I think its only fair to note that "other crap" is a link to this) do not give me reason to doubt your impartiality toward granting adminship, but I haven't seen any examples of supporting this either. In fact, I share your view that some editors who do not have the ability to shrug off verbal threats, ignore attacks by random vandals, self reflect on failed RfA's, and who cannot accept the communities decisions, should in effect, simply not be a part of the community let alone an admin. Its their decision to make. You appear to be a good admin. I wish you luck. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As far a this edit goes, I actually think removing the request was a valid action to take given that (a) it was made by an IP, (2) there is confusion as to the name of the account to be renamed, and (3) the involved names are promotional anyway. Some quite inexperienced users volunteer to be rename clerks and so I generally prefer them not to remove requests but have no problem with a highly competent administrator such as EVula assessing that a request is so jumbled that it is best removed. As a more general point, bureaucrats appointed in the past have as a rule not had prior experience of participating on the rename pages - I believe I am the only one to have had such experience prior to becoming a bureaucrat. They have nonetheless quickly grasped the process and been effective "renamers"... WjBscribe 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose per WJBscribe. GreenJoe 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC) My apologies here. The one theme that seems to be consistent in the oppose is civility, and the approach to newcomers. This is critical for any new admin, and before I can support this user, I need to see some good cheer towards necomers, and of course, other users. GreenJoe 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Erm... I know it's bad form to 'badger' opposers, but WjBscribe was defending EVula's actions. I don't really see anything in his comment to base an oppose !vote on. Any chance of clarification? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 20:39, May 27, 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I'm somewhat confused as well. There's nothing about your !vote that tells me how I can improve myself, so I'm at a bit of a loss. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

   I think he means per SynergeticMaggot. He may have missed his sig in the text above, and only noticed WJBscribe's sig at the bottom, and assumed he wrote the whole thing. Al Tally ^talk 21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

   Ah, thanks for the clarification. I'm not entirely sure where the civility concerns are coming from; I don't do anything to bite newbies (and if you go through my user talk contribs, you'll see me welcoming newbies when I run across them, and sometimes placing a welcome tag with vandalism notices[1][2]), and developed a specific template when dealing with newbies that run across RfA so that they hopefully don't get their feelings hurt. The stuff that Pedro was talking about above was more that I have a hard stance on people leaving the site after an unsatisfactory experience, not on leaving after having uncivil experiences (which I certainly wouldn't blame them for, and do consider an issue we should address). I hope this clarification helps. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Furthermore, GreenJoe is talking about a "new admin", and the "theme" in the opposes as being civility. There were only two opposes prior to his, both recused and there wasn't really any mention of civility, Syn didn't talk about this at all, and Pedro also was talking about another issue. I don't normally do this, but it is hard to assume good faith for this oppose, GreenJoe seems to think he is voting in an RfA, not RfB, and connecting his votes to "Per x" opposes doesn't correlate. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Okay, I know I'm gonna get hell for opposing this, but I talked it over with my sexy picture of John Barrowman and decided to say my two-cents anyway. And to wear red more often. John says it brings out my eyes. ANYWAY... Most of my encounters with EVula have ranged from neutral to good, never bad. But, he's a wikignome. It's fine to be a gnome, but I feel that Bureaucrats shouldn't take to that kind of wiki-lifestyle. Crats need to be outstanding and assertive to get their job done. Having a gnomey Crat is like having a gnomey congressman. Aside from my rough-and-tough stereotyping, though, is the WP:CHU issue. A crat's gotta be able to do every aspect of his job like clockwork. "I'll figure it out when I get there" doesn't cut it for me. sorry EVula--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

... I believe I am the only one to have had such experience prior to becoming a bureaucrat. They have nonetheless quickly grasped the process and been effective "renamers"... WjBscribe 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Lara❤Love 04:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I can see where you are coming from regarding the role of a bureaucrat, but I think you might have it misunderstood. Certainly becoming a 'crat requires the utmost of community esteem and trust, but it is not a level higher than administrators. Administrators actually have more "power" over maintaining the encyclopedia. Bureaucrat work requires closing RfAs (98% of which are clear cut), assigning bot flags, and renaming users. I can't think of a single usergroup that entails more gnomish functions than that of a bureaucrat. Rollback causes more controversy. Heck, it's why we call them bureaucrats. As to the second point, what LaraLove said that WjBScribe said. Our renaming policy is probably the most cut and dry of all our red tape, for as much as that's possible. Like I said I can see your point, but perhaps there is a little too much gravitas you are assigning to the usergroup. Keegan^talk 05:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in addition to the comments left by LaraLove and Keegan, I'd like to point out that the actual actions that a bureaucrat goes through at WP:CHU... well... you can't really do them without being a bureaucrat. I've got a very solid grasp of WP:U, which is necessary, but as far as actually punching the buttons, I can't; even if I try to click the "rename user" link after each request, the system throws up a "you can't access this" message.
As for being a gnome, I don't seen gnomery (which is now a word) and bureaucratship as mutually exclusive; 'crats should never be forceful as bureaucrats, they should be forceful as fellow editors/admins. The extra abilities (promoting, renaming, adding bot flags) are all done exclusively at the request of others, which means that almost everything they do is in the background; rather than being mutually exclusive, wikignomery and bureaucratship are instead complimentary in my view. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, that a crat's work is sort of "behind the scenes". I guess my rationale for opposing here is sort of based on a child-like view of bureaucrats being elite (for lack of a better word) compared to everyone else. And, looking more into WP:CHU, it does seem like there isn't much to get involved in unless you are a crat. So, cutting down the child-ness and the CHU thing, there's really nothing left for me to oppose here, so I'll strike it.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral pending answers to questions. -- Avi (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral from oppose. My position is unchanged. I would have expected after saying to were going to spend time in an area, even though it is not a prerequisite for this request, you would have actually done so. We opose RfAs for this every week (lacking in knowledge of specific areas pertaining to the role in which is sought; bot's, I'm not questioning your competance in policy). To many, this might seem like a rather miniscule reason to oppose. To me, following through is one of the things I expect a crat to be solid in. But your activity throughout our project (rather, across our project) is what has changed mind. We don't always have time to edit everywhere. Your a fine candidate. As Pedro, I recuse myself. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Well, there's also very little that I can do that related directly to the renaming without being a bureaucrat. My knowledge of WP:U comes into play more in patrolling WP:UAA than WP:CHU, where (really) all I'll need to do is follow some handy-dandy links. I realize I could have been clerking there all this time, but I failed to see the relevance, hence my eschewing it for other areas. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   I may just have been overly concerned with the lack of editing there before the requests, not taking into account the possibility that you didn't wish to clerk, as well as perceiving that spending time there only meant "upon becoming a crat". Thank you for addressing the issue though. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral Per answer to #9. You mostly say you wouldn't have made the same call which makes me lean to support, but then you added just enough political backtracking to make it so I just can't.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   This has caught my eye. Would you please be so kind as to elaborate on what you mean? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I'd like a little more explanation as well. EVula's answer seems quite satisfactory to me; saying that while he understood WJB's actions and why he closed it the way he did, he wouldn't have done the same. I don't see any political backtracking here at all. GlassCobra 14:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Basically my point, not to open old wounds but I believe the close was clearly wrong. It's the "but I understand why..." that I refer to.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   So what you are actually saying here is (and correct me if I'm wrong), you would support but you don't like the fact that EVula understands why Scribe closed the way he did. Thank you for your promptness. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Close enough for this forum. And to further clarify when the word "understand" is used, it's not so much as an intellectual understanding (I intellectually understand a lot of things I disagree with), but the empathetic "I understand" as I read it. It's the softening of the whole reply.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Sure, and that's fair enough, I agree as well; I wouldn't have closed that RfA in the same way either. However, why should EVula be penalized here if he would have made the correct call? I say this only because you were about to support had it not been for this. GlassCobra 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   "Should EVula be penalized?", exactly why I put this in neutral and not oppose. I was assured enough that he wouldn't do it, not to oppose, I just wanted to see a clear no qualification answer to actually give support.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   I saw her his comment there as a plus. It would have been much easier to give a noncommittal answer on this. A clear expressions of opinion, and just enough of a hedge to not seem arrogant about it. Exactly the qualities we want. DGG (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

   Fixed my gender. ;) My girlfriend would be quite confused otherwise... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

   Well if you had a less girly sounding username... :p WjBscribe 16:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

   When I become a bureaucrat, I'll make sure to change my name to "Mr. EVula, Pinnacle of Masculinity, Embodiment of Male Virility". EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)