Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy 2

SoWhy

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (101/29/9); Scheduled to end 12:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

SoWhy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – So good I nominated him twice? I contacted SoWhy a few days ago, having noticed his calmness, use of logic and clear understanding of policy and its nuance. I asked him if he'd consider running for Crat ... and he reminded me that I'd made the same approach in April. Oops. Well, I'm here now.

I trust SoWhy to be a good Bureaucrat. To solidly ensure policy is followed, assess discussion consensus wisely, be careful with staying up to date with community consensus and be boring as hell like the rest of us. He clearly knows how to open discussions, is sufficiently humble that he's not above asking opinions and taking feedback but is prepared to take a firm stance when needed, including looking past number counting in his AfD closure work.

Whether or not there's a need for another Crat, whoever they might be, used to be a common theme at RfB, back in the days when RfBs were more common, but it's worth addressing. I'd say there's a case for adding to our numbers. Yes, tasks for Crats these days are fairly light, and our numbers have stayed reasonably stable down the years, but some of our Crats are less active these days and there have been times (Dec 16 re Godsy's Crat Chat and a March 2017 discussion about the Bureaucrat mailing list) when we've had to resort to pings and talkpage notifications to get a good number of Crats opining. Furthermore, I think a small addition of fresh blood is a good thing from time to time, especially when I look at the energy and thoughtful contributions I've seen from some of our newer Crats at BN.

All in all, I believe SoWhy is an excellent candidate to join the Bureaucrats and I do hope people will be able to support this nomination. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I have been familiar with SoWhy's work for some time, regularly cross-referencing the useful essays Common A7 mistakes and Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion. I've noticed their increased presence this year, and have spent time with them going over various processes and procedures. What I've discovered is that although we've sometimes disagreed on how to apply some policies, and at time expressed divergent opinions, I've always gone away thinking "well although I don't quite agree, SoWhy's been polite and courteous about it, and they've got a point". I am convinced that he can handle difficult decisions, and explain them thoroughly to those who disagree without any risk of inflaming a dispute.

Elsewhere, SoWhy has been a regular at RfA for many years. He has participated in 369 discussions, matched consensus 84% of the time, and put forward ten candidates who passed. Even on the occasions where consensus didn't agree with his !vote, he graciously accepted the result and moved on with the minimum of fuss. More recently, we were two of the nominators on Anarchyte's RfA, and SoWhy's co-nomination and thorough investigation into the candidate's history was a key factor in making the nomination pass with 97% support. It's a shame to see such a strong RfA nominator go over to "the other side" of closing discussions, but I have full confidence in their ability to do this, and am happy to endorse Dweller's suggestion that they should receive the 'crat privileges. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank both Dweller and Ritchie for their kind statements and accept their nominations. Regards SoWhy 12:31, 24 July 2017 (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: I began being active at RfA almost exactly nine years ago. Since then, I have !voted in almost 300 RfAs according to the RfA !Vote Counter tool, including many heated discussions. I am aware of the rough numerical expectations of when to fail (< 65%), when to promote (> 75%) and when to consider the discussion carefully (in between) but I also know that if numbers were all the community needed (like de-wiki does), we wouldn't need crats to judge these requests. In a nutshell, I believe consensus to promote exists, if - to borrow some terminology from German law - there is a degree of certainty that silences reasonable doubts ("eine Gewissheit, die vernünftigen Zweifeln Schweigen gebietet"), i.e. when no sufficiently reasonable policy-based reasons were mentioned not to promote. Like with deletion discussions, where a few well-reasoned !votes to delete can outweigh a lot of non-policy based keep !votes, so can a few well-reasoned oppose !votes outweigh a lot of "they are a great editor!" !votes.

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

A: My method when dealing with closing discussions has always been this: If I believe editors could reasonably have expected a different outcome, I will explain my reasoning very carefully and probably with far too many words (just to be sure). Explaining your actions is always preferable to defending them later. Examples include [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

I believe the same applies to RfX, although if it is a contentious nomination, chances are, I have an opinion as well, in which case I won't touch the RfX as a crat.

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: In my 13 years as an editor and almost 9 years as an admin, I have been criticized my fair share but, as far as I can tell, there has never been any reasonable complaints that I had acted unfair or unfriendly. Staying rational, methodical and calm even when something really annoys me has always been my goal, both on- and off-wiki. When I believe that I am somehow agitated, I might be tempted to comment, but I almost always manage to close the browser window instead. And I think anyone reading my talk page contributions will agree that I am pretty successful in achieving that. Also: I take WP:INVOLVED very seriously. I strongly believe that no admin or crat should act in their role if there might be the appearance of bias, broadly construed (except of course blatant vandalism, 100% support RfAs etc.). Random example: I relisted a recent AFD (won't name it since it's still open). After another week, more sources were provided and some arguments made that I found unconvincing, especially since I thought the sources demonstrated notability. I wanted to comment on it and !vote to keep the article but since I had previously touched the AFD in an administrative role, I stopped myself both from commenting and of course closing the discussion.

As for policy knowledge: Like most people, I don't like being wrong, not only because of my chosen profession. I can admit when I am but I prefer to avoid it if possible. That means, before I apply any policy or guideline I'm not 100% familiar with, I will read what it actually says (not just the WP:3LA often used). I am pretty firm in most policies that one needs in their daily wiki-life but more importantly, I'm very good in finding those I am not so familiar with.

Additional question from Amakuru

4. You had a previous RfB in January 2010, which finished as no consensus. Please could you explain why some people objected on that occasion, and whether there's anything different this time around (other than seven years more experience of course!), which might satisfy those objections?

A: Well, most opposes last time came from my involvement in WP:NEWT, which I have acknowledged as a mistake in the past RfB. I have not engaged in any similar projects since then, in fact, I have been much more careful. As for the other opposers who mainly cited disagreements with my opinions, I can only hope my actions will convince those who opposed last time that no matter our differences, I'm a stickler for the rules and will bring this to the role if the community wishes to grant this request. And for those who thought I was too eager, well, it's been seven years since I tried last time. If I forgot some specific comment, please ask a follow-up question. Regards SoWhy 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from RexxS

5. You say in response to question 3 that having relisted an AfD as an administrative action, you then wouldn't close the discussion. Can you elaborate, please, on why you feel that relisting disqualifies you from summarising and judging the discussion in order to close it, and on why relisting and closing an AfD would be admin actions?

A: I think you misread. Both relisting and closing are administrative actions, so relisting does not bar anyone from closing the discussion (I have closed plenty of AFDs I had previously relisted). In the specific example I mentioned in Q3, I had formed an opinion about the subject after relisting, basically because of the following discussion, so I found myself unable to close the AFD (as I now felt my close might be influenced by this newly formed opinion). Since I previously relisted the discussion, I also found it wrong to comment on it, because then my relist might appear to have been made only to prevent an outcome I disagreed with (even if I didn't have said opinion before, the appearance of bias is all that matters).

As for the second part of the question: Closing a discussion is an administrative action, for the reason alone that it's described in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions, but of course also because it involves an admin to assess a discussion based on strength of argument alone, which is what we are tasked with. The same applies to relisting which requires the assessment that the current discussion has not yet produced a sufficient consensus to close the discussion. Regards SoWhy 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up: I'm pretty certain I didn't misread. Perhaps you mistyped? More importantly, why do you consider that it involves an admin to assess a discussion based on strength of argument alone? Doesn't that disparage the excellent work done by so many experienced closers who are not admins? After all we do have Wikipedia:Non-admin closure § Appropriate closures and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion § Procedure for non-administrator close (other).

I did not mean to disparage non-admins clerking AFD. But they also act in an administrative role when handling such discussions and thus should not both comment and close/relist a discussion for the reasons mentioned above. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 04:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Martinp

6. In question 1, you say that in RfA, "I believe consensus to promote exists, if [...] there is a degree of certainty that silences reasonable doubts [...] i.e. when no sufficiently reasonable policy-based reasons were mentioned not to promote." How would you apply this in RfA's which are numerically in the discretion zone, where there are "reasonable policy-based" reasons against promotion that have been brought up, but those reasons remain perceived as important only by a moderately small (i.e. within discretionary zone) minority? (I am assuming no issues with invalid reasons or poor conduct, or that this situation persists after eliminating them.) Arguably, this is what occurred in GoldenRing's recent RfA. However, my goal in asking this question is not to see how you would have disposed of this specific RfA, but rather to understand better how you would approach situations like this when judging consensus. In particular, I'm unsure whether to interpret your answer in #1 as that you would set a relatively high bar for discretionary RfA's to pass (doubts must have been truly silenced and remaining opposition is not reasonable or policy based; if the opposition persists one cannot promote), or if this is an overly nuanced reading of your answer. Thanks for standing for RfB!

A: That must have been the jurist in me talking. Sorry for that. I try to explain my approach as best as I can but don't hesitate to ask follow-ups.

I am a big believer in WP:NOBIGDEAL, even if some editors might think some of my previous !votes at RfX indicated otherwise. That means the onus is on the opposition to make a convincing enough policy-based argument why not to grant someone the tools. Since we are judging consensus, however, merely making a policy-based argument is not sufficient. Others also have to agree that this is a good reason not to grant the tools. Since you mentioned GoldenRing's RfA, you probably noticed me opposing him due to some speedy deletion issues. However, I was pretty alone on that, so when it came to the crat chat, I opined that consensus to promote exists because my concerns were not shared and thus not sufficient to stop the RfA from succeeding. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 04:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from WJBscribe

7. A frequently leveled criticism of RfA is that the process is failing because - quite simply - not enough new administrators are being promoted each month/year. Do you agree? If you do agree, what role (if any) should bureaucrats play in addressing this issue?

A: Considering a success rate of 15 out of 23 (not counting SNOW/NOTNOW) RfAs this year, I think the problem is less with the process itself and rather with the lack of candidates. We should all consider which editors we noticed that might be a good admin and just ask them. Anna Frodesiak has proposed a good idea with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search which aims to finding and vetting potential candidates and ask them to consider WP:OCRP and I think it just needs some more people helping with such initiatives to get more people to run.

As for the latter part, even if there were a problem with RfA itself, it's not the job of crats to address it, at least not in their role as crats. They can use their fine-tuned consensus and RfA skills to vet potential candidates and nominate them but so can any other editor. Regards SoWhy 09:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from BU Rob13

8. Do you think "lack of experience" is a valid rationale to oppose? Does this vary based on how much experience is lacked?

A: "Lack of experience" is imho pretty much equivalent to saying "there is an insufficient amount of data to assess how the user will act if granted adminship". We expect admins to be role models in behavior and policy knowledge, so anyone who wants to be one, should of course have demonstrated why they fit these criteria. However, if there is sufficient data but the candidate only some arbitrary checkpoint (X years of service, >Y edits etc.), the argument becomes weak indeed. The community has, for good reasons, never defined certain "minimum requirements" for admins to meet because each candidate is unique. Sometimes it just needs 1,000 edits to be able to assess the candidate correctly, sometimes 20,000 edits might still not be enough. After all, is an editor who makes 10 edits, nine of which to fix the first, better than one who makes one edit but has nothing to fix? Regards SoWhy 09:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up: @SoWhy: I want to be sure I understand your answer here. Am I correct in saying that you would think "Oppose - less than 10,000 edits" would be weak while "Oppose - I don't see enough evidence among the candidate's contributions to make me confident in their role as an admin. I would expect to see strong evidence of competence in a candidate with only 2,000 edits" would be strong? (Note that both of these !votes are written solely for this question, and they are not meant to mirror any particular RfX.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

A: Basically, yes, although the second example would still also not be a strong rationale because it emphasizes that they have higher standards for someone with a low edit count instead of explaining why the contributions or low edit count are problematic. Regards SoWhy 07:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional questions from Maxim

9. What makes an RfX argument strong? I'm curious to see you expand on your answer to Q1: what makes a policy-based reason "sufficiently reasonable"? Some examples will be useful in your answer.

A: Phew, that’s hard to generalize but I’ll try: What I mean (and what I think is consensus when it comes to RfA), is that arguments need to be specific to why this candidate is not fit to be an admin. To borrow from the next question as an example: Pointing out that the candidate believes certain pages should be speedy deletable is not a reason to oppose itself even if they have tagged pages incorrectly as a result if they have stopped doing so and the community agrees that sufficient time has passed that those mistakes are no longer reflecting on how the user will handle the tools. Another example would be what I said above. Saying someone lacks experience might be a good reason to oppose but it stops being a reasonable argument if the candidate clearly has experience, just not enough to meet some arbitrary threshold. Similar to this are reasons based on content creation: Saying a candidate is unable to value how much work it takes to write a good article and thus might be quick to dismiss content creating users’ concerns is a fairly strong argument. Saying so because they themselves have not created X featured articles on the other hand weakens it because there is no policy that requires admins to be featured content creators. Regards SoWhy 09:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

10. This question goes in a similar direction as 9, so feel free to combine answers here. In several RfAs, you have brought up CSD tagging that you consider incorrect. CSD has, unfortunately, a certain subjectivity to it, where different administrators would reach different (yet still reasonable) conclusions as to the suitability of an article for summary deletion. Indeed, I've noticed a few RfAs where you bring up examples of poor tagging, but for articles that had been summarily deleted. How would you handle weighing arguments, for an RfA in the discretionary zone, that are based on subjective interpretations of policy? How do you reconcile the role of a bureaucrat to be a dispassionate judge of consensus while having to assess a policy-based reason as "sufficiently reasonable"?

A: That something has been deleted does not indicate that the tagging was correct. After all, examples of actual A7 deletions include Ed Sheeran [10], Lady Gaga [11] and Instagram [12]. As I said when it came to GoldenRing, see q#6 above, when it comes to subjective interpretations, it’s not only relevant which policies are considered but also how much people share certain concerns. Despite what some may believe, a single editor even providing dozens of examples of what they believe is problematic behavior of a candidate, cannot decide the fate of an RfA. Iif others don’t share them, then they are to be weighted appropriately less. Take my !vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralizationsAreBad 2#Neutral for example. I raised some imho problematic applications of policy, no one was swayed, so of course the request was successful. Regards SoWhy 09:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

10b. Follow-up question: But when Ed Sheehan was deleted in 2006, it would have been correct, yes? Surely the issues are not just with the candidate, but the CSD policy and the admin who deleted as well, assuming it was in error? Aiken D 18:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

A: Based on the content alone, one can argue that it was, although I cannot check what coverage might have existed back in 2006 (I probably would have sent it to AFD myself because there was the weak claim of significance was that his producer was Julian Simmons). My point was that the fact that an article was deleted does not retroactively make the tagging correct. Regards SoWhy 07:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: It has been pointed out to me that the Julian Simmons who produced the record is not the notable one we have an article on, so yes, if I had known that, I would have deleted the article as well in all likelyhood (if a quick Google search proved unfruitful). I have stricken that example from my original answer. Regards SoWhy 13:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Lourdes

11. SoWhy, hello and great to see this RfB. We have interacted multiple times at various Afds and I have personally been impressed by your approach many a time – so I guess you may already have an idea of my query. A couple of months ago, you commented at an Afd: "I never thought anyone having a certain job could be considered biased when it comes to others with the same job [...]" That said, I am interested in understanding your views on COI, with respect to the following cases: (In other words, what COI aspect do you perceive in the following examples? Brief explanations would be more than enough. On a request from Dweller, let me emphasize that the focus here is your orientation towards COI than on how to handle Afds.) Warmly...:

1. An editor who has identified himself as a scientist nominating another scientist's article for an Afd.
2. An editor who has identified himself as a politician nominating another politician's article for an Afd.
3. An editor who has identified himself as a judge nominating another judge's article for an Afd.
4. An editor who has identified himself as a lawyer nominating another lawyer's article for an Afd.

A: It always depends on the circumstances (yes, I know, clients hate hearing that too but it's the only correct answer). Usually, I wouldn't assume a COI in any of those cases unless there are further indicators. For example, I recently nominated a Swiss lawyer's article for deletion and I certainly didn't think I had a COI because while we both are lawyers, there is nothing I could possibly gain from his article being deleted. Which leads me to my point: To assume a COI, there must be any possible benefit from the deletion. A COI might exist if the scientist's rival's article is deleted to change the neutrality of coverage of certain scientific positions and if the politician's party might have a benefit from the opposition party's candidate's article being deleted. Of course, having a COI is not problematic by itself when it comes to AFD if you are providing a policy-based argument for deletion. After all, why you !vote a certain way is not relevant, just what you are saying. Regards SoWhy 18:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from JamesBWatson

12. (This is perhaps really question 10a, rather than question 12.) I came to this discussion convinced I would be supporting, on the basis of past experience of you. However, your answer to question 10 gives me pause, and I would like to invite you to clarify it. Question 10, as I understand it, is about the fact that decisions on some issues essentially have to be subjective. However, your answer does not seem to me to address that issue. You start off with a remark about whether a tagging is "correct", which suggests that you think there is an objective truth as to what is "correct", rather than that the issue is subjective and there is therefore no "correct" line. Sometimes interpretation of policy has to be subjective: for example, whether an article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" must be a matter of judgement. The rest of your answer substantially deals with the fact that if enough people share an opinion then that opinion will hold, irrespective of the value of the arguments for or against. Of course, there are times when there is an objective RIGHT answer and anything else is wrong, but you were specifically asked "How would you handle weighing arguments... that are based on subjective interpretations of policy", and instead of addressing that question you sidestepped the issue by referring only to the case where there is so little support for an argument and so much opposition to it that it can be dismissed, irrespective of the values of the arguments. That means that you did not say anything at all about how to weigh arguments, which is what you were asked about. Would you care to comment on how you would weigh arguments against one another when there is neither a clear preponderance of support for either side nor an objectively "correct" answer, so that it is impossible to avoid weighing the merits of one subjective argument against the merits of another subjective argument?

A: I'm sorry if you thought me side-stepping the question. I mentioned those taggings/deletions because it proves that of course a subjective policy can lead to different results. For Lady Gaga for example I would probably have considered being signed to and releasing an album through Interscope Records a sufficient claim of significance (considering that having two such albums is an indicator for notability per WP:MUSIC#5) while other admins might, equally valid, as it was the case here, find that alone insufficient grounds for not deleting an article as A7. Or take Instagram: Having two million users sounds like a claim of significance to me but another admin might - as it happened - consider that alone not sufficient. As for Ed Sheeran, I have explained and admitted my mistake above. Reasonable people can agree when a policy - necessarily - uses vague wording and I am the first to admit that my approach of erring on the side of caution has not always been correct, which is why I have also tried to moderate this approach in recent months by attempting to fix most A7s I decline (either by adding sources, redirecting them or using alternative deletion outlets). And yes, even if it does not matter here, I am resolved to no longer oppose candidates at RfA for minor divergences from how I would handled something. I've come to realize that tagging a book as A7 (when the policy explicitly does not allow it) is not the same as tagging a valid subject for A7 deletion with a fuzzy claim of significance (just to mention random examples).

Subjective interpretations of policy are also frequent at AFD, where notability is the key factor in many discussions and notability oftentimes requires subjective interpretation of what constitutes a reliable or independent source or substantive coverage. And as I mentioned on your talk page, I have closed many a close AFD as delete despite my inclusionist tendencies because I understand that when it comes to judging consensus, it's not important what I think but what the result of the discussion is (e.g. [13] [14] [15] [16]). If for example a predominant number of responsible editors considers certain sources as unreliable or non-independent, then I can't and won't close that AfD as keep just because I disagree with their analysis. What I personally think of a subject or a candidate is not always what the community thinks and I had hoped that my actions so far have demonstrated that I am able to distinguish between my personal beliefs and my admin actions (I have performed more than 10,000 deletions after all despite being despised as a hard-core inclusionist).

Unfortunately, it's near impossible to answer your question in the abstract because it really depends on the actual case. If all laws were clear, we wouldn't need judges and lawyers and if all policies and guidelines were clear, we wouldn't need discussions. And if all policies and guidelines were clear, consensus could never change. As Wikipedia:Consensus#Through discussion tells us, consensus through discussion means trying to persuade others using policy, sources and common sense. When judging such a discussion, all relevant arguments are to be considered, always with WP:NOBIGDEAL in mind and with those arguments that highlight systematic problems with the candidate being weighted more than singular instances of problematic behavior that is not generalizable. If it is still unclear, it comes down to the question, was a predominant number of responsible editors persuaded that a certain interpretation of policy is correct or not?

I thought about this question for two days now and I don't think I can give a better general answers to this general question. I apologize in advance if this still is not a sufficient answer in your eyes. Feel free to ask any follow-up questions.

Regards SoWhy 14:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from BU Rob13

13. Some editors have raised the point that you have stronger views on RfA criteria than most existing bureaucrats. I don't consider this to be an inherent problem, but it does beg the question: When would you recuse from handling an RfA?

A: As I said in answer to Q3, I would not touch any RfX in which issues I have strong views on were relevant in the discussion. I certainly would recuse myself from handling an RfA if a candidate's views on (speedy) deletion were a point of discussion. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

13a. Follow-up question: How would such a recusal work in practice? Are you saying that you would not close an RfA (or participate in a bureaucrat discussion) if errors with CSD tagging was a point raised by any opponent? It's a fairly common rationale, CSD tagging and XfD participation being usual ways in which candidates' understanding of the deletion policy is assessed, so I do worry that you are effectively excluding yourself from most contentious RfA closes... WJBscribe (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A: Iff the community trusts me with the additional responsibilities, I think they trust me enough to handle RfAs that are clearly successful or clearly unsuccessful even if the candidate's deletion related edits were a point of contention, on the basis that any other crat would have done the same (per WP:INVOLVED). However, I understand that there might be cases where me closing the RfA could be seen as biased (on both sides), so I would recuse myself from closing them. I would participate in any crat chat in order to help my colleagues find the right result but of course always making it clear that despite trying my very best to assess the situation neutrally (and I think my aforementioned comment on GoldenRing's crat chat's discussion page proves that I am capable of doing so), my comments might be influenced by my views on the subject. Regards SoWhy 13:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Optimist on the run

14. You are assessing an RFA candidate in the discretionary range. What weight would you give to oppose !votes with the following arguments:

1. The candidate has not produced any FAs
2. The candidate has only 30% of edits in article space
3. The candidate was blocked for a day two years ago for extremely insulting behaviour towards another user
4. The candidate failed to provide good responses to a list of UAA examples, despite stating that they had no interest in working in that area

(If you feel this contravenes the multiple question rule, feel free to pick just two from the above list)

A: Disclaimer: These are of course abstracts without claims to fit every RfA:

1. The candidate has not produced any FAs

   There is no rule that admins need to be prolific article creators, especially not FA creators which requires skills most editors (including myself) do not possess. So I would say such an oppose carries little to none weight, unless there was further explanation why this might be problematic in case the user gets access to the admin toolkit.

2. The candidate has only 30% of edits in article space

   This might indicate that the user is more concerned with petty fights in project space than with building an encyclopedia but it might also mean they are using project space tools to help build the encyclopedia. For example, Cullen328, who just became the first candidate to break WP:300, only has 31,5% of their edits in article space but that's understandable because they are very active at the Wikipedia:Teahouse helping others contribute to the encyclopedia. So the !vote alone without any explanation why this is a problem would carry little weight in my eyes.

3. The candidate was blocked for a day two years ago for extremely insulting behaviour towards another user

   Incivility is a big problem and detrimental to the necessary collaboration here, so a pattern of incivility is a strong reason against granting adminship. However, if there is no pattern of incivility, just an isolated, not-repeated incident two years ago, then the !vote carries little weight. After all, then it seems the candidate was able to learn and not repeat their behavior, which is what we are looking for in an admin.

4. The candidate failed to provide good responses to a list of UAA examples, despite stating that they had no interest in working in that area

   Even if the candidate does not plan to work in a certain area, basic knowledge of the main areas can be expected. Depending on how wrong their answers were, this !vote might carry some weight, because it might be indicative of how the user will approach their role. For example, I don't need to have UAA experience to know that the username "WeNeedAnotherHolocaust" is clearly unacceptable and I think any reasonable editor has the right to expect any admin candidate to know that, too.

Regards SoWhy 14:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from MrX

15. Thank you for your exemplary contributions and for volunteering for bureaucracy. What effect, if any, should essays have on determining consensus?

A: Depends on the essay in question, some are basically policy but not codified as such (like WP:SNOW) while others represent minority viewpoints. If you refer to an essay that is not enjoying widespread consensus, a comment that refers to an essay should probably be considered a shorthand for "What that essay says fits this situation, so my argument is the same as in the essay but I don't want to repeat it here, so I'm linking to the essay instead". Regards SoWhy 19:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Iridescent

16. Other than the WP:NEWT fiasco, which is far enough in the past to be disregarded (luckily, as you're well aware of my opinions of your atrocious conduct back then), can you give an example of any occasion recently in which you've invoked WP:IAR? If not, why not? (Fair warning; how you answer this will determine whether I jump to the oppose column, in which case I assume at least some of those who are currently supporting per me will follow. This is in direct response to the concerns raised in all three sections below about your rigid adherence to written policy over common sense. While per my comments below I generally see "rigid automaton" as a good characteristic in a crat, albeit an atrocious one in an admin, your wikilawyering answers above—in particular your non-answer to Q10—are giving the distinct impression that you see the role of a crat as to support people who share your ultra-fringe views on how Wikipedia should operate, not to neutrally judge consensus. I'm getting the impression that you are either unwilling or unable to grasp the concept that en-wiki operates on a common law system of accepted practice, not a statute law system of written policies, and that IAR is a fundamental part—arguably the fundamental part—of what makes en-wiki work while so many rivals and sister projects are moribund.)

A: First of all: Regardless of the fate of this request, I hope I made it clear that I do not consider my application of policy perfect and I’m happy for anyone to point out mistakes I made because it’s the only way I can improve, no matter if as an editor, admin or in any other role. I have previously changed my opinions and I can and will do so again if one points out that my actions have harmed the project, so please do not hesitate to tell me if and why you disagree with any of my actions (that goes for all editors of course).

IAR is important and I have always said so (see for example here (2011); I also found this exchanges we had in 2009, in which you interestingly assumed I would apply IAR too much if granted oversight). I also agree that it is probably the one policy that - used properly - allowed Wikipedia to work as good as it does. That sometimes the rules don’t fit a specific situation and that making them apply would be detrimental is the reason why every legal framework in the world (as far as I know) acknowledges the need to have a rule similar to IAR, no matter what it is called (like good faith, de:Treu und Glauben etc.) and I certainly spent a good deal of my professional time arguing along those lines for exactly those reasons. But IAR is - by virtue - an exception to the rules and should be treated as such. If a rule is ‘’constantly’’ ignored, this might be the new consensus but it also needs to be codified as a rule sooner or later. After all, new editors only have the written rules to refer to and should be able to know what to do based on reading them.

As for examples, Jeanne d'Arc au bûcher comes to mind. There was an edit-war on the article by several registered editors and one IP-hopping anon. The protection policy tells us that edit-warring means fully protecting a page if blocking certain parties is not feasible. Although the policy itself does not allow semi-protection for edit wars (because it favors registered editors over anon editors), I opted to semi-protect the page because it appeared a possible way to force the IP-hopping editor to discuss the issue. I did so because the ‘’spirit’’ of the protection policy is to protect as little as possible (“anyone can edit”) and in this case only one editor had to be forced to discuss the issue (with the others already ready to do so).

Also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Deletion of Micaela Schäfer could be considered a case of IARing Ritchie’s IAR deletion, although I had previously asked about it, I went ahead and reverted his deletion to fix the article without going through DRV.

Regards SoWhyMobile 20:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from TonyBallioni

17. If you had not !voted in an open RfA that was in the discretionary range or that could reasonably be expected to end up there, but felt that there were significant enough concerns with the candidate where you personally were opposed to them, would you participate in the RfA or would you not participate in it in case a bureaucrat discussion was needed?

A: If I were personally opposed to a candidate, I would voice said opposition in the RfA. I couldn't in good conscience abstain from !voting just to participate in a crat chat because any such participation would be tainted by my bias, even if the bias is not apparent. Regards SoWhy 07:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from TonyBallioni

18. Are there ever cases where you feel that a bureaucrat would be justified in closing as failed an RfA in the discretionary range without discussing it with other bureaucrats? If there are, could you describe what factors would lead you to make this decision if you were a 'crat closing the RfA

A: While crats are chosen for their skills assessing consensus, I think discussions should usually take place before deciding to not promote a candidate. Candidates face a quite strenuous process and the least we can do is to be very sure that the community wants deny them what shouldn't be a big deal. Exceptions might apply if the tide has clearly turned during the RfX and one can safely assume that a number of supporters would have opposed the candidate if the reasons for opposition were known at the time. For example, if after 70 support !votes in six days came 30 oppose !votes based on the fact that it has been now discovered that the candidate has verifiably published plans to vandalize the project as much as possible once tools were granted, it is probably safe to assume that a significant number of those 70 supporters would have changed their minds if they had seen the new evidence. Regards SoWhy 07:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Dennis Brown

19. Some of the answers are giving me pause, to be honest. I hate to throw this much on you, but please give me an idea how you would have closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Theopolisme 2, which was one I nominated and ended around 75% (before the threshold was lowered). Or optionally, give an argument for both sides, or critique the existing close.

A: With all due respect to Maxim, who I still respect very much, no matter his feelings regarding my skills, I think at the very least, the result of the discussion warranted a crat chat (also considering that back then the discretionary range was 70-80%). If I had to close it alone (or better yet, had participated in such an hypothetical crat chat) I probably would see a narrow consensus in favor of promotion. A significant number of opposers did not disagree that the candidate was a good editor, they just felt it was too soon for various reasons (or, in case of #1-3 and #11, no reason at all). Others raised more serious issues, like a tendency to hastiness and wrong application of policy (including CSD, although only a few examples without demonstrating any kind of pattern of mistaggings). Whether eagerness is really a bad thing in an admin is debatable, however in this specific case there was not that much support for the idea that the candidate was too eager to get the tools. Since even some opposers acknowledged though that the candidate was doing a good job and was willing and able to learn from past mistakes - which was emphasized by supporters as well - I think consensus was that the concerns - while well articulated - were not quite sufficient to overcome the principal assumption that adminship should be granted (WP:NOBIGDEAL). Regards SoWhy 14:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

While I respect Maxim and never questioned his close publicly (nor am I now, I just think this RfA is an excellent test for prospective Crats), your explanation here is very much in line with my view: a razor thin consensus to promote that would have best been served by a crat chat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Airbornemihir

20. This question is somewhat late in the day, since it arises in response to a number of votes already cast. SoWhy, what is your take take on the proper application of ignore all rules to the business of closing requests for user rights such as admin and rollbacker?

---

Discussion

RfBs for this user:

• Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy
• Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy 2

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom, in anticipation of imminent transclusion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Happy to support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Support as co-nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
4. I don't particularly like SoWhy, who has always struck me as a stickler for a letter-of-the-law interpretation even when it flies in the face of common sense, and for adhering to whatever a written policy/guideline happens to say even when "consensus as defined by what people are actually doing" is to disregard that policy and it's just the case that nobody has got around to updating the formal document. However, that without-fear-or-favor pig-headedness is exactly the trait one does want in a crat. ‑ Iridescent 12:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
   • Reiterating my support following SoWhy's answers to the questions, even if I may not personally particularly care for some of the answers. Were this a vote to elect SoWhy sole leader of RFA—or indeed, to grant SoWhy sole responsibility for virtually any area—I'd be unreservedly opposing, but this is electing someone to be one member of a team. Someone as obsessed with following written policy as SoWhy is not about to go rogue and start promoting his friends and allies without discussing it ([Crats] are bound by policy and consensus only to grant administrator or bureaucrat access when doing so reflects the wishes of the community is written Wikipedia policy). Given that he knows that he'd be immediately expelled if he stepped out of line—I assume the number of people in this discussion proposing desysopping him has served as a sudden wake-up call—I don't foresee him causing any problems. Yes, it may cause issues for someone to be a 'crat in the knowledge that some of his peers were adamantly opposed to him, but it's worth remembering that plenty of the 'crats are supporting as well. ‑ Iridescent 23:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

   Support - SoWhy has the qualities I want to see in a 'crat. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Moving to oppose. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

5. Support per Iridescent. The job is to promote and demote based on policy, not personal whims, so if that's SoWhy's character, then that's just what we want.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

   As a brief update to this, following the discussions regarding the opposes below, I'm sticking with this support for now. I think SoWhy's comments regarding his approach to IAR are spot on, and I don't see evidence that he will attempt to enforce a strict policy based decision where the community clearly does not desire it. From his answer to question 16, he has shown that he regards IAR as an important pillar of the project, but also recognises that IAR should be the exception rather than the rule, and that if a particular policy/guideline is being consistently IARd, then there is probably a problem with that policy/guideline, and we should be addressing that properly.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

6. Support SoWhy is eminently qualified - very experienced, calm, level-headed with a firm grasp of policy. Happy to support.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
7. Support - It's actually a little scary how much much of the co-nom and comments so far are basically reading my mind. All in all, I think I've disagreed with SW on a good deal more than I've agreed with them on, but I've never come away thinking that anything was had other than a level headed discussion. Happy to throw in my lot. TimothyJosephWood 12:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
8. Support Denisarona (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
9. Support SoWhy's unwavering work going back nearly one and-a-half decade is a stellar track-record of a level-headed, calm, and dedicated administrator. His reasoning and judgement, evidenced by a decade of admin work, is constantly sound, and you can click any random page of his talk page archives to get a sense how he deals with sometimes quite irate editors disagreeing with a CSD delete or decline, or an AfD close - by calmly providing his reasoning and his reading in policy, making his disagreements clear when needed, but never fanning flames with those who challenge him. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
10. Yes! I promised SoWhy years ago that I'd support him if he were to run for RfB a second time and, in the spirit of keeping that promise, here is that support. SoWhy has long been a reasoned and careful administrator with a plethora of experience; he is more than qualified and suitable for the role. There might not be much bureaucrat work nowadays but the position requires a level head, which SoWhy possesses, and that's what is the most important factor. Acalamari 13:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    Support per Iridescent. I don't think there is a Wikipedian I probably disagree with more things on than SoWhy, but those disagreements almost always stem from their desire to respect what they see as consensus, and always are the most conservative possible reading of it. This is the ideal outlook for a 'crat. He is also a lovely person even when you are disagreeing with him, which is a huge plus. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Moved to oppose TonyBallioni (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

11. Support: No issues overall with his judgement. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
12. Support Appears quite sound for the position indeed. Collect (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
13. Support as a good addition to the 'crat corps, whose active ranks seem to be thinning. Miniapolis 13:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
14. Support Per nom. SoWhy is an excellent candidate for bureaucratship, I've been nothing but impressed by his conduct and judgement. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
15. Support based on answer to Q2 and a record of helpful RfA participation. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
16. Support Thoughtful editor who definitely has the best interests of wikipedia at heart. I don't always agree with them, but that only strengthens my support :) The only downside is that we'll probably see them participate less in RfAs.--regentspark (comment) 14:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    Reiterating support. There is no such thing as perfect interpretation of policy and all of us have our biases when we serve as editor, admins, or bureaucrats. Few of us, however, have articulated our biases, and reasoned our way to them, as well as SoWhy has done in essays and in various RfAs and I can't imagine why that is being construed as a negative. I find it hard to believe that SoWhy will actively close the few RfAs that require bureaucrat discretion by solely examining the deletion record of the candidate and am unable to see why so many of the opposers think that he would do just that. Once again, a thoughtful editor who clearly has the interests of Wikipedia at heart and there is no reason why they shouldn't be a bureaucrat, even if you don't agree (and I myself fall into that "don't agree" camp) with their policy positions.--regentspark (comment) 18:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

17. Support on the merits, as I did in RFB 1. I see no evidence that the candidate's clue has diminished since then - quite the opposite. SoWhy will be a fine Bureaucrat. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
18. Support per Iri. I'll also add that I have no conerns with their judgement and I really have no personal feelings of like or dislike, so that part of Iri's support isn't germaine. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
19. Support - I've had many interactions with SoWhy and find myself asking why did it take them so long. Break out the fez :) - FlightTime (open channel) 15:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
20. Support - I've seen positive contributions all around Wikipedia from this user. And all the linked diffs make me trust his judgement even more. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 14:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
21. Support per RegentsPark. Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
22. Support I feel comfortable with SoWhy as Crat. Plenty of experience, good demeaner. I also trust Dweller's judgement in nominating him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    I do have some serious reservations, and I don't think this is going to pass but I'm staying with my support because the answer to my question above was just enough to keep me from withdrawing and my original rationale still applies. The opposers do raise legitimate questions, many that concern me, but I still trust him to use good judgement. We just have to let the process play out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

23. Support This user's excellence in closing and relisting AfD discussions got me on this one. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
24. Support. Solid judgment, will do well in the position. Spencer^T♦C 15:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
25. Support Would have supported the first time if I'd been around, and his record has only grown stronger since then. Layzner (Talk) 15:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
26. Support - No concerns, seems like a very suitable candidate for the role. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 15:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
27. Weak support - Like many users, I disagree with SoWhy a lot, but they are excellent at following policy. They sometimes give off the impression of not valuing consensus that isn't based on policy too much, which is why I appended "weak" to my support, but that doesn't effect things too much. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
28. Support - I've seen this user doing lots of helpful stuff, and I think he'll do even greater work as an bureaucrat.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
29. Support Am happy to support - looks quite suitable. Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 16:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
30. Support I don't think we have a lot of workload for crats, but there isn't any reason not to promote more. I've waited for this RfB for a very long time and I feel like SoWhy epitomizes the perfect candidate. With regards to Aiken D's oppose, it's a fair judgement call but I don't agree with it. CSD is one of the areas of adminship frought with the most (well-intended) abuse and very little oversight. We can't know what we don't know. CSD is often misinterpreted by new page patrollers and well-meaning admins trying to clear backlogs tend to move quickly resulting in pages being deleted after only one or two eyes on them when they really don't qualify under that criteria. SoWhy is trying to fix this systematic issue and being tough with admin candidates has a lot of affect (it had an affect on me).--v/r - TP 16:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
31. Support: No hesitation. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
32. Support. No concerns whatsoever about SoWhy's ability to fulfill this role. I don't always agree with his conclusions but I respect his level-headedness and willingness to explain his thought process, which are key skills in a position like this. I wish I had the ability to remain as cool under pressure as he has done over the past 13+ years (!) of editing Wikipedia. 28bytes (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    In light of the opposes that have appeared since I first !voted, I want to re-affirm my support here. Having a reluctance to deviate from our policies and guidelines – especially in areas likely to scare off well-meaning newcomers, such as CSD tagging – is a very different thing than failing to have common sense, and I have seen no evidence that SoWhy has a particular pattern of doing nonsensical things. (As opposed to coming to different, but still reasonable, conclusions in a discussion.) I am personally more likely to invoke IAR than the candidate if I think the situation warrants it, but I think that there is plenty of room for both approaches in the 'crat corps, and I think it would be a real shame to mistake "stickler for the rules" for "follows them mindlessly or foolishly." This candidate has not, in my observation, made a habit of behaving foolishly or mindlessly, and despite our philosophical differences I continue to believe he would make a fine 'crat. 28bytes (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

33. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 17:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
34. WhySo? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
35. Support - I don't recall interacting directly with the candidate before, but I've seen his work. Based on what I've seen of his judgment, I trust him with the tools. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    Support. I've read all of the supports so far, and there are quite a few apposite and insightful comments. I'll restrict myself to opining that SoWhy exhibits possibly ideal attributes for the bureaucrat role. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    I'm seeing some comments in the Oppose section that are seriously making me reconsider. They'd require investigating, and I'd need to examine the answers to questions posted since I !voted in order to re-evaluate my position. But my wikibreak forced by personal issues means I don't have the capacity to do that properly now, and so I need to just bow out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

36. Support- I've seen SoWhy around and he is a really good admin, so why not? Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 18:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
37. Support. Even though I've never actually interacted with SoWhy, I've seen that he's qualified enough to hold extra tools. epicgenius (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    Weakish Support Seeing the below oppose does worry me slightly, but other than that, everything else seems up and ready for bureaucracy. —JJB^ers 18:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    Moving to Neutral. —JJB^ers 19:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

38. Support I have never particularly interacted with that user or particularly know him, but from what I am reading, he seems very competent to judge borderline RfAs (I mean, what else do crats do nowadays?) ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
39. Support. I supported last time, and I'm glad to support again. A long-time and experienced admin, who has the right qualities for crat-ship. Dweller's arguments, including the one about there being room for more crats, are convincing. Although SoWhy does have a tendency towards rigidity, I've never felt that it gets in the way of being reasonable, and it actually is a useful quality for this particular role. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
40. Support SoWhy is one of our best admins, and I am sure that would be an active and responsible crat. The RfA votes are not really something that concerns me-I am sure that they would not put their opinion above community consensus. And yeah, we do need new active crats --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
41. Support. suited Agathoclea (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    In light of the recent opposes I want to expand my thoughts. But a reliance on rules and IAR are important foundations of a functioning wiki. The point made though that IAR are a) only exceptions and b) should only be used if the benefit of breaking the rule is rather obvious to others. As such I think SoWhy is well suited as a bureucrat. His clearly stated musings on how to apply COI in his own case also make him very dependable. I'll stick in this section. Agathoclea (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

42. Support - A process-oriented administrator with a proven track record of thoughtfulness. SoWhy is exactly the sort of person we want as a bureaucrat. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    It's been so long that I had forgotten about SoWhy's first RfB. What I said at the time still holds true today. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    As an update, I've considered the opposing points and am still inclined to support overall. While I agree with WjBscribe that putting process above principle is in fact detrimental to the role of a bureaucrat, I think SoWhy is more flexible than he's being given credit for. I trust him to abstain from closing RfXs in which his personal views might influence his decision-making abilities. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    Support - I'm another who disagrees with every closure SoWhy makes ... But FWIW I do think he's a great admin who'd make a great crat so support. –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC) (Moved to Oppose)

43. Support per Aiken D's oppose. Oh, yeah, and the fact that he actually closes AfD's by policy rather than nose count... Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
44. Support A bit nitpicky, but focused on the letter of policy and I think that is what we need in our crats. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
45. Support per Aiken D. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    I'm confused, are you citing Aiken D. in your support vote because you feel that his oppose rationale actually focuses on qualities which you view as desirable in a bureaucrat (e.g. strong opinions), or is it more in response to him qualifying it as a "protest" vote? Kurtis ^(talk) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    I don't acknowledge protest votes, that would be absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    Alright, thanks for clarifying. I was just confused as to what you were trying to convey. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    "And Now Back To Our Regularly Scheduled Programming" The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

46. What Iridescent said - it was my thoughts perfectly articulated. Cabayi (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
47. Support He may not have answered all the questions, but the attitude and the length in which some of the questions were answered are a necessary requirement when making a closing statement in a close RfA. He's certainly made some very detailed answers here. Minima© (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
48. Support per above. Overdue Imo. -FASTILY 23:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
49. Support: We need fresh blood in the 'crat corps. SoWhy's analyses in RfA have generally been incisive and illuminating. This is exactly the sort of person we need. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
50. Support of the zero tolerance to non-sense approach. Alex Shih^Talk 00:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
51. Support. Fully qualified. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 01:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
52. Support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
53. Stephen 02:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
54. Support. I don't see any red flags. —MRD2014 02:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
55. Support per noms, Iridescent, and TParis. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
56. Support. I first saw SoWhy at his RFA, it's actually what led me to talk with Dweller about nominating me. Over the 8 years (!) since I've always found his judgment to be sound. I may not always agree, but I want deliberative and contemplative people in this position and IMO SoWhy is one. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
57. Very weak support. There is a disquieting coincidence in the statements of both  Iridescent and TonyBallioni, and Aiken drum (below) which echo exactly the thoughts and feelings I have over SoWhy for many years, proving I have not been wrong in avoiding responding to their his posts on various discussions - which is sadly not the way it’s supposed to work. Did very little for his first four years after which three months of significant activity was enough to be awarded the use of the admin tools - which probably would not pass today. There then followed a burst of activity during 2008-2009 which ended after January 2010 when his first bid for bureaucrat failed and practically withdrawing from significant activity for the next six years , with less than 1,000 edits during full five consecutive years, starting to edit in earnest again only 6 months ago. Most of the larger edits during the long quasi hiatus appear to be limited to votes on RfA and various RfC.
    SoWhy has edited 367 Requests for adminship pages - Support: 195, Oppose: 71, Neutral: 35, Unknown: 66 , but unfortunately I am unable to locate the tool that analyses these votes showin a % of how many times the votes matched the results, but in some instances his votes are pile-ons, or deliberate searches for rare errors which are insignificant in view of the candidate's high number of operations - so I see a character of inflexible perfectionism.
    The previous RfB (I haven’t fully analysed it) appears to have largely failed due to SoWhy’s involvement in the controversial breaching experiment - in which most of the participants were admins anyway (or have since become ones) and which I didn't think was such a bad sting operation, but there were other opposes unconnected with that which are still today not entirely without merit.
    Finally and most importantly, his editing history depicts a pattern where he has been careful to avoid making enemies from doing his job as an admin by not participating in controversial areas. In my own case for example, a bid for bureaucrat would fail miserably on a large opposition from people who I have correctly sanctioned, blocked, or whose contributions I have correctly reverted or deleted, or whose RfA or RfB I opposed, or, because of my high edit count in deletions and NPP, my few errors would be used out of context and out of proportion. Especially, perhaps by SoWhy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Per my comments above, I see the inflexible perfectionism as well, but in Wikipedia's model the role of a crat is to be a letter-of-the-law stickler. Were this WP:Requests for desysop/SoWhy it would take a lot to persuade me not to support—while NEWT may be long in the past, SoWhy's intentional disruption of the deletion queues and hassling of any admins who fail to follow his WP:CCSI literalist interpretation of policy is very much ongoing. (I get the strong impression that if I edited a policy page to say "editors with usernames beginning with M are not permitted" SoWhy would immediately start working through ListUsers/M blocking them all until somebody reverted my change to the policy.) However, it's the very thing that makes SoWhy a poor admin that would make them a good crat—while a good admin is one who exercises common sense and understands that IAR is fundamental to why the Wikipedia model works, a good crat is one who will go with whatever the written policy says, even when they disagree with the policy or there's a large vocal crowd demanding that an exception be made for their buddy. ‑ Iridescent 09:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    I have noticed that on pretty much every time I have disagreed with SoWhy, he's been on the side of not using the admin toolset. I deleted Micaela Schäfer per WP:BLPDELETE, which isn't part of the speedy deletion criteria; although several other admins supported this, SoWhy thought a better option would be to restore and chop the article to a BLP-compliant stub, which he also offered to do. At User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 58#Walter van Dyk, SoWhy disagreed over opinions with CSD G11, though it was nominated for AfD by a third party soon afterwards and was deleted. I have not seen a case at an RfA where SoWhy has argued that something should have been speedy tagged but wasn't. Essentially, while he's got a strict adherence to policy, it's all in the direction of retention or towards the position of what ordinary editors can do without admin support. I suspect if SoWhy had the reverse attitude (eg: a hardline approach to blocking for WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL), my opinion of him would be dramatically different. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Stasis is data. Inaction when it's a conscious decision in an admin capacity not to take action (I don't consider this to be a personal attack and won't be blocking, I think this page should be kept and thus won't be deleting, I am declining your unblock request, the level of vandalism doesn't justify protecting) is just as much an admin action as something that shows up in the logs. ‑ Iridescent 09:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

    Strong Support per Iridescent and Tony. While personally I disagree with a lot of this users judgements, actions, and perceptions, his being such a strong follower of policy is precisely why he would become a great 'crat. Keira1996 04:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Moving to oppose - there's a frankly disturbing opinion rampant through the discussion here that SoWhy is frankly not even suitable for admin, and I'm uncomfortable handing extra tools to him Keira1996 02:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC).

58. Strong support - irrespective of my own agreement with SoWhy's rationale on issues of consideration, I am always impressed with his policy compliant manner of putting a matter forth, and his willingness to hear opposition with collegiality, and mutual respect. Throughout all, SoWhy has shown his character, in genuine form, and thereby, recommended himself well for this role. I have no concerns, and gladly give strong support.--John Cline (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
59. Support. He is a good editor and administrator. SoWhy not? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
60. Delighted to see you run again, I'm sure you'll make a fine crat. ϢereSpielChequers 12:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Support per Acalamari. Thoughtful and level-headed, and I'm sure you'll do well. :-) Katie^talk 12:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Katie^talk 11:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

61. Support :) Amalthea 12:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
62. Support - As one old-timer to another, I have no issues with this 'crat proposal whatsoever. Good luck SoWhy!   Aloha27  talk  13:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
63. Support - I saw SoWhy's name in the RfB list and immediately had this feeling like we've run into each other before in a way that left a bad feeling, but couldn't remember what. I think I did find it, it was an entirely civil and frankly boring disagreement about what different policies say about which is the correct venue for a particular dispute, which was left basically unresolved and in retrospect was a mostly pointless exercise which everyone agreed was over and left nobody really happy about the outcome - a perfect bureaucratic encounter. My real point is that in looking for that discussion, I came across dozens of other examples of SoWhy making straightforward arguments grounded in policy, considering an opponent's position, responding thoughtfully and calmly, and evaluating consensus rationally. I expect you'll be a fine 'crat. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
64. Support Why shouldn't I? ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
65. Weak support--Per the brilliant comments by Iridescent and Kudpung.I couldn't disagree more with his seemingly common-sense-lacking-rule-book-interpretations of CSD's, some closures at AfDs et al but as Ballioni points out--He is also a lovely person even when you are disagreeing with him.And these are the traits desirable in a bureaucrat.So make him one!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
66. Support - Per Winged Blades of Godric above; common-sense-lacking-rule-book-interpretations. So, in other words, a useless pencil pushing bureaucrat. We need more of those. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
67. Support based on the characterization of SoWhy by those who both like and dislike them. If your 'enemies' endorse you, you've got to be right for the job. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
68. Support Undoubtedly, a great contributor! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
69. Support. My only misgivings from your RFA nearly nine years ago were clearly unfounded (I supported then anyway). Since then, I have always respected your judgment as an administrator and thoughtful contributor here. In addition, I liked your answers to the questions posed--I think you will be a more than capable bureaucrat! Malinaccier (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
70. Support Quinton Feldberg (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
71. Support Great editor & I like the answers to the questions. Best of luck, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
72. Support Hmlarson (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
73. Support Great choice. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Just adding a note that the (to me) shocking number of opposes haven't changed my mind in any way. He'd do a great job and honestly I don't see him as overly rigid--rather I see someone to whom the rules are important but is willing to apply IAR as appropriate. I also fell that CSD is one of the most important places for admins to get the rules right as there is minimal review. Hobit (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
74. Support I'm in accord with statements by Iridescent. I have often disagreed with SoWhy's rigid interpretations -- and found that, at times, they lack the flexibility required of administering a fluid encyclopedia. However, I have no concerns with their capability to help Wikipedia, especially as a "stickler for the rules" bureaucrat. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
75. Yes. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
76. Support. I've been really impressed with SoWhy every time I have come across one of his contributions in WP-space. A broad knowledge of policy and a penchant for responsible use of admin powers. A Train^talk 00:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
77. Support. œ^™ 04:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
78. Support from the other end of the stickler spectrum. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
79. Per John Cline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
80. Support - great editor and great admin. I see no red flags, and the opposes du jour are unconvincing. 65HCA7 14:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
81. Support a good admin, no reason to oppose Atlantic306 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
82. Support Per nom. Glad to support. A good admin fit for the role.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

    Support. Good answers to questions. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Softlavender's oppose has rung some warning bells with me - I must admit I hadn't looked at the stats. Not enough for me to oppose outright, so I'm parking in neutral for the time being. Optimist on the run (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

83. Support - No reason not to, SoWhy not? Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
84. Support. There seem to be very few contentious actions unilaterally made by 'crats. It seems like the vast majority of the time if an RFx is in the discretionary zone, and there are valid arguments on both sides, it goes to a 'crat chat. Because he is so rule-bound, I would be surprised to see him ignore this convention and promote someone who is below the 'automatic pass' (which, while it isn't technically... it really is an automatic pass) threshold without very sound reason, or more likely a chat. In the case of this chat (as well as in the case of interactions on BN), I believe that he would provide a unique and valuable voice to the existing group. I don't want every bureaucrat to have the same philosophy, just like I wouldn't want a legislative body to be all made up of one party or a top judicial body made up of people who see the exact same. In my opinion, it is out of diverging approaches that the best decisions are made. I want someone with the mind (and training, in this case) of a jurist keeping an eye on the policy, just like I want someone free-spirited who embraces IAR ensuring that we do not become slaves to the policies. I think SoWhy would make an excellent addition for this reason, without any concern that he will misuse the toolset. PGWG (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
85. Support A pun? SoWhy (i.e. So why) should this user be a bureaucrat? This user has asked a question at an RfA, and responded to an ORCP for Insertcleverphrasehere. I would trust SoWhy to close RfAs as a bureaucrat correctly. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 02:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
86. Support - seems to me the focus of the opposition is that SoWhy is quite rigid in interpreting policy. I don't perceive that as a problem. If one doesn't like policy, change the policy, not criticize someone else for following it. Banedon (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
87. Support An excellent choice. Used to see SoWhy around a lot back when I was more active ~2009-2014; they didn't seem excessively inflexible to me at all. I like how they've retained the same friendly & fair outlook across the long years. That takes a strong character. With sustained activity on a project like this, it's the unavoidable fate of a strong character to rub some other strong characters the wrong way, even ones who are equally good natured. Hence one or two seem to personally dislike the candidate. But can't see any reason to think they'd misuse the extra tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
88. Support as per nominee. --Human3015 ^TALK  10:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
89. Support. A good choice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
90. Support Per Iridescent (I have nothing aginst SW, but per her comments below) and 28bytes. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    Clarified L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    What's clarified where? Sorry, I have no idea what this !vote means. Apologies if I'm missing something obvious. -- Begoon 14:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    I assume they mean per my reply to WBJScribe in the oppose section (do a ctrl-f for I have no issue with the crat corps including a strict-constructionist stickler) in which I clarify why I'm in the support column despite my support comments looking like a reason to oppose. ‑ Iridescent 14:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    Thanks. That makes some kind of sense, now I think, maybe. -- Begoon 15:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    Yes, sorry. the clarification added the part in parentheses to my original !vote. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

91. Support A bureaucrat, as far as I understand, especially on the English Wikipedia of all projects, must follow rules more strictly than other administrators, because of their line of work. The job seems difficult; the editor in question, capable. Inatan (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
92. Support SoWhy is the 'crat we need, although maybe not the one we deserve. The opposers really helped me make up my mind on this. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
93. Support. Candidate seems highly qualified and – most importantly – levelheaded. SaAnKe (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
94. Support per Amakuru (#5 vote). I have come across the candodate's contribs many times, no issues/doubts. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
95. Support, Wikipedia does need more bureaucrats. SoWhy is an excellent candidate who is unlikely to break the wiki orgo off the deep end. The opposes are entirely unconvincing, although I trust he'll recuse himself when necessary. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
96. Support. Had to weigh a lot in coming to this decision. First off, I do not think SoWhy is as rigid as some claim; I detest admins like that (and too many of them come from the legal profession), so I would oppose, and strongly, if I felt that was the case (I quit Wikipedia for a year because of such an admin). Claiming this candidate is excessively rigid then supporting on that basis is clearly wrongheaded when it comes to RfB; some of the opposes below explain this well. But I'm not going to penalize the candidate for critical-thinking failures on the part of some supporters. Second, whether SoWhy is in perfect agreement with the general-consensus interpretation of every policy and practice is immaterial. I often say that there is no line item in all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with unanimous support among editors, and no single editor is in favor of every single line item in them. (I really do often say this because people so often don't realize it.) Our P&G would never change otherwise. What matters here is whether someone with an opinion one way or another has the sense to set that opinion aside and judge what the consensus is without their input, or recuse and go give their input. This candidate can clearly do so, and has sufficient experience for the "job", and does a tremendous amount of closure work, which is exactly the kind of prerequisite experience needed. I'm satisfied by the answers so far, given that the answer to Q12 clarified the missed-the-point answer to Q10. I'm also in support of the position that we need at least a few more 'crats. I read over the original RfB, am satisfied that the candidate has learned and grown remarkably since then, and consider the oppose matters raised back then to be of no current relevance. (Besides, not everyone thought NEWT was a bad idea.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
97. Support (Moved from oppose). SoWhy's level-headed response and willingness to explain himself further in regards to my initial oppose has convinced me that he has the temperament needed to remain even-handed and neutral even in situations where people are misreading him or failing to understand his point. I have enormous respect for that and have stricken my oppose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
98. Support I've seen SoWhy around frequently and I thought most of the question answers above were reasoned and appropriate. I think at this point, SoWhy would be a good choice for this role. South Nashua (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
99. Support - I have no doubt that SoWhy will be a useful addition to the Bureaucrat staff. It is important to bear in mind, this is not an effort to make SoWhy the sole 'crat for all of Wikipedia, or to give him the power to make unquestionable and unreviewable decisions, although he certainly has the capacity to make good decisions. bd2412 T 16:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
100. Requiring that 'IAR' be always applied (when there isn't even anything concrete applicable)... defeats the purpose... -- Mentifisto 21:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
101. Support, good answers to questions and seems eminently qualified. Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I don't feel that SoWhy would be a sufficiently dispassionate judge of consensus at an RfA. There's an expectation that bureaucrats assess overall community consensus, whereas I fear that SoWhy would at least have the air of weighing some arguments (e.g. CSD-related) more strongly than what would be considered reasonable. To further emphasize this point, in Q10, all of the examples struck me as red herrings, as while they are clearly notable now, summary deletion was not applied unreasonably based on the article contents. Whether or not SoWhy has an axe to grind with regards to CSD, it would imperil the appearance of neutrality when closing an RfA. Additionally, I find he is too inflexible in applying policy, which has also been mentioned in the supports. From my experience as a bureaucrat, there's a lot more problem-solving and thinking on the spot than blindly following the letter of a policy. In summary, I don't feel that the role of bureaucrat is suited for SoWhy based on his philosophical approach to policy, including but not limited to CSD. Maxim_(talk) 00:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Maxim. I'm concerned that SoWhy would give stronger weight to !votes which align with his own interpretation of policy. I want a closing 'crat to evaluate the consensus, not to determine whether the consensus is right. Furthermore, I can't go along with the argument that bureaucrats are supposed to be inflexibly bound to the rules. Those entrusted with advanced permissions should be able and willing to use common sense even if they have to bend the letter of the law on occasion. Lepricavark (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   Most reluctant oppose Apart from what Maxim writes, this oppose is given most reluctantly, per responses to Que #5 and Que #11. SoWhy is connected in real life to the field of law. He has also been involved significantly in various Afds related to the same field in differing capacities. The fact is that not only is his involvement significantly high over the years in Afds related to this field, there are a few Afds where I feel his involvement may have been influenced by his profession. Taking some of his very recent Afds for example, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Blood, an attorney's article, I would have expected a relist; in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cochran (Survivor contestant) (former Harvard law student), I would have expected a no consensus result than what SoWhy wrote; in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Nerren, a judge's article, I would have expected one more re-list than a close; in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher M. Simon, a lawyer's article, I would have expected SoWhy to recuse from handling the speedy; in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieter Neupert, the Swiss lawyer SoWhy acknowledges in his reply, I would have expected him to not nominate the same and allow someone else to take it up. My view on these recent Afds is similar to my view on SoWhy's law-related Afds over the years; for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NABARRO LLP, I would have expected a re-list. There are many other recent law-related Afds where SoWhy has simply re-listed or closed, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Christian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Kahn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham & James, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael F. Carroll, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Rivera (lawyer)... These are re-lists/closes I agree with; however, combined with his judgmental handling of certain Afds related to his field, and his large association with Afds in an area related to his profession, I would be more comfortable if SoWhy either recuses from associating with such Afds or at least provides a general CoI disclosure (CoI disclosure for those who don't have financial COI) in such Afds that he is handling. As per SoWhy (in his response to query #5), "I had formed an opinion about the subject after relisting, basically because of the following discussion, so I found myself unable to close the AFD." As per him again in his response to query #11, "I recently nominated a Swiss lawyer's article for deletion and I certainly didn't think I had a COI because while we both are lawyers." SoWhy's assessment of self-COI seems to exclude our COI guidance, which mentions: "Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing." I would have expected SoWhy, apparently a stickler for the word of policy/guideline, to have acknowledged the situation thus. COI is more about how others perceive your actions than about how you perceive your own actions; something SoWhy does not seem to acknowledge (but maybe he does realize this; unfortunately, his answers don't give me that confidence). To exemplify, I paraphrase SoWhy's reply to me in a recent Afd: "I never thought anyone having a certain job could be considered biased when it comes to others with the same job (I'd happily delete an article about myself for example)." I found it odd that SoWhy was confident that his deleting an article about himself might not constitute a COI issue. In Rfa closures, as a bureaucrat, there would be instances where SoWhy would have to assess his own or other's involvement with the candidate before closing or getting into a crat chat. I am not confident whether SoWhy has an expansive understanding of COI as perceived by others, like me. I am sorry to put in this most reluctant oppose to a brilliant administrator, one whose various actions I applaud. Warmly, Lourdes 04:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   Please forgive me for picking on you Lourdes, but you've coincidentally hit on a topic that is one of my current pet peeves. I simply don't agree with your interpretations of those AfDs, and in particular I'm surprised that you think more relisting is the answer to them. It is long-held policy and practice that even a relatively low participation AfD with a unanimous keep arguments can be deleted, with the knowledge that the article can be reinstated upon request due to the low turnout.

   AfD has two major problems right now: low turn-out for discussions, and relist fever. Relists were intended as a remedy for the first problem, but the simple fact is that AfD is nowhere near as well attended as it was in years past, and an alarming number of AfD discussions get relisted two and even three times (something that's supposed to be a rare extraordinary measure) with little discussion. With things being as they are, and admin who is willing to be decisive and apply policy to arrive at a non-relist outcome is a great thing for Wikipedia. Kicking the can down the road with a relist clogs up AfD and dilutes the participation of the precious few editors who are willing to weigh in there.

   As to the suggestion of bias, what exact bias are you suggesting that SoWhy is showing? All of the AfD closes you cite are within policy, and moreover, they have different results. Is SoWhy biased towards keeping lawyer articles or deleting them? You haven't shown any pattern of behaviour that is consistent with any particular bias. A Train^talk 07:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I reviewed your oppose half-expecting to be swayed by your extensive collection of AfDs in which SoWhy had some sort of diluting influence. I'll address each of them individually:

   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Blood - A clear-cut case of a biographical article failing even the most basic notability guidelines. This one could have been prodded. No need to relist here.
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cochran (Survivor contestant) - By convention, any winner of a widely popular reality show competition is notable enough to have their own article. There was a pretty clear consensus to keep; the argument for deletion hinged on the article being poorly sourced, a problem which could easily be (and has since been) rectified. SoWhy even suggested listing it elsewhere to discuss whether the article ought to be redirected or merged, implying that he had no dog in the race.
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Nerren - An additional relisting of this one probably wouldn't have hurt, but closing it as no consensus is perfectly reasonable when you consider that the AfD had little prospect for a higher turnout.
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher M. Simon - SoWhy declined an A7 tag that had been sitting there for over 24 hours. As he mentioned at the start of the discussion, the article's subject has apparently worked with high-profile clientele in the past. Bringing it to AfD was the obvious solution; SoWhy's legal background has no relevance here.
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieter Neupert - Anyone can nominate any article for deletion. Even if they have a conflict of interest, the community can usually detect attempts to game the system, which is one of the many reasons why we have AfD in the first place. Again, SoWhy's legal background is irrelevant.
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NABARRO LLP - This is the only AfD you've listed thus far where I feel that SoWhy could have handled things a bit better. While those supporting deletion outnumbered those who voted keep, the arguments made by both sides were substantive enough to warrant relisting for broader input. However, the most important detail to take away from that AfD is that it was almost nine years ago now. SoWhy had barely been an administrator for a month and a half at that point. I think it would be grossly unfair to hold something so minor from such a long time ago against him today.
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Christian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Kahn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham & James, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael F. Carroll - These are all simple relistings of AfDs in which there had hitherto been little to no participation. I can't imagine anything more benign than that.
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Rivera (lawyer) - The AfD participants unanimously voted to delete; SoWhy just carried out their wishes.

   All in all, I see absolutely no evidence of a COI arising from him being a lawyer. I don't even see it in the excerpts you've quoted from his answers above. When he says he would "happily delete an article about [himself]", I doubt he meant for it to be taken literally; it was his way of saying that he feels his legal background has no impact on his ability to be an impartial judge of consensus. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but the evidence provided so far has, if anything, only strengthened my support for SoWhy as a bureaucrat. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   Lourdes, being a lawyer is in no way a COI requiring one to refrain from editing related to law or lawyers. Think through the implications of such a notion and I'm sure you'll quickly see how it collapses in a puff of illogicality. -- Begoon 12:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   I also agree that being a lawyer (as is well-known I am one myself) does not constitute a COI with regard to editing articles about lawyers and law, nor taking administrator actions in the topic-area. I can imagine that my RL legal career might create a COI or require me to stay away from certain specific articles—for example, I wouldn't close an AfD about a lawyer who practices in my field in my city, or substantively edit an article about a judge I appear before—but that's a heck of a long way away saying that I shouldn't edit or administrate about law and lawyers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   A Train, Kurtis, Begoon, Newyorkbrad, that's a fair and lucid analysis by you all; it gives me a good perspective that perhaps I have been viewing the COI issue from a comparatively narrower perspective than it should actually be. Newyorkbrad, I think your view gives a better context to SoWhy's answer (about the relative degrees of freedom, below which COI may be evident). Kurtis, thanks for taking the time to analyze my examples. With such a clear analysis, I am bound to withdraw my opposition. Regards. Lourdes 02:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

   No problem. I can never pass up the opportunity to invest time and energy into writing out something lengthy, even when it serves a somewhat limited purpose. ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 06:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I've "ummed and ahhed" about this, but I'm landing here. I appreciate the "I don't like the way he operates, but bureaucrats are supposed to be rulesbound automatons" opinions, but I'm sorry, I'm not convinced. There is a requirement for flexibility and interpretation in the role, and I'm not sure the candidate meets it. -- Begoon 12:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I've been struggling with this one for a while. SoWhy has very strong views about CSD tagging, and has deployed them in opposition to numerous RfAs. I do worry about someone with such a clear RfA "agenda" becoming a bureaucrat. That said, having considered carefully SoWhy's answers to the questions, I was leaning towards the conclusion that he understood the importance of judging consensus as to whether opposition was significant, rather than assessing it himself. The more I think on it though, SoWhy doesn't do that when applying CSD policy as an admin. My impression is that SoWhy does not approach a CSD tag with the mindset of applying a community consensus as to the meaning of the applicable CSD, he applies his own much more rigid interpretation even when he knows his is view is very much in the minority. And it seems to me that SoWhy will oppose an RfA candidate for adopting a particular approach to CSD that he disagrees with, even in cases where a significant majority would probably agree with the candidate. I worry about how such an approach might filter into his work as a bureaucrat if this RfB is successful. Rigid insistence that rules are followed becomes particularly problematic if your interpretation of the rules is a niche one.
   More importantly, contrary to many others in the support section, I believe that effective bureaucrats need to be conscious of the spirit of the policies they apply, rather than focusing on the letter of them. I find myself frankly horrified by many of the comments made by those in the support sections (and expressly endorsed by others):
   • “always struck me as a stickler for a letter-of-the-law interpretation even when it flies in the face of common sense” (Iridescent + 7 "per")
   • “sometimes give off the impression of not valuing consensus that isn't based on policy too much” (RileyBugz)
   • “SoWhy does have a tendency towards rigidity” (Tryptofish) Struck - see below. WJBscribe (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
   • “I see a character of inflexible perfectionism.” (Kudpung + 1 "per")
   • “His seemingly common-sense-lacking-rule-book-interpretations of CSD's” (Winged Blades + 1 "per")
   • “they lack the flexibility required of administering a fluid encyclopedia” (Cactus Writer)

   It astonishes me that people hold those opinions and support this RfB. Frankly, it makes me very worried about the current perception of bureaucrats by the community. In explaining why they support this RfB notwithstanding their views, Iridescent explains above, “I see the inflexible perfectionism as well, but in Wikipedia's model the role of a crat is to be a letter-of-the-law stickler.” I disagree. I disagree quite strongly.
   I accept that an appreciation of the need to take care when considering whether a principled departure from the strict letter of a rule - and to ensure that such departures are gradual, incremental and reflect consensus (i.e. evolution not revolution) - is important in a bureaucrat. However, inflexibility is in my opinion a bad characteristic in a bureaucrat candidate. Common sense needs to be applied appropriately, and bureaucrat actions should not fly in the face of it. WJBscribe (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   Only thing I would say to that is - I'm kind of the reverse of SoWhy, a use-common-sense, IAR if you need to, explain why the rules are not helpful, or why consensus might be heading in the wrong direction, if telling an admin to pipe down in blunt language does the trick and carries minimum disruption - do it. I haven't got a hope in hell of being a crat. So it strikes me with somebody having a different mindset might be. But I have noticed that a lot of crats seem to be very inactive, and I'm worried we might reach a point where we need one quickly and none are about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) @WJBscribe: Regarding mine, see my Q16 above (which is currently awaiting an answer). Per my comments above I think SoWhy is a very poor admin for the reasons you state (he regularly closes according to his own fringe views, not according to community consensus), and I'd almost certainly support a desysop motion. However, I don't see that as much of an issue in a crat—since the structural changes a few years back, the role of the crat is adding and removing the bot flag (which nobody has raised any issue with) and adding the admin user right (and a few others like IPBE but those are relatively trivial). I have no issue with the crat corps including a strict-constructionist stickler, any more than I have an issue with Arbcom including NYB. At the time I made my comments above, SoWhy hadn't given his non-answers to the questions, which have made me waver significantly, as he's now giving the strong impression that he sees the crat role as a bully pulpit for him to promote people who share his fringe views. Depending on what answer is given to Q16 I may switch to oppose, in which case presumably some or all of the +7 will also switch which will tank this RFB, so it's not a decision I'm going to take lightly. (That there are current and former crats in the support column, plus at least three current arbitrators, indicates that at least some of your colleagues don't consider his position problematic, so this isn't a clear-cut case—if every current crat were in opposition, that would be a huge red flag that maybe I'm missing something.) ‑ Iridescent 15:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   As someone who supported per Iridescent and who has been quoted by others, I'll say this: I'm actually far more concerned with things going on at BN, which is where current 'crats do much of the work. I think If SoWhy were just to camp there and point out the issues anytime someone requests a resysop or desysop (which he already does to some extent), it would be a firm net positive to the 'crat corps: re: RfA: I think his participation in the GoldenRing 'crat chat would have likely given the community more confidence in the outcome (the only "promote" opinion that made any sense to me was xeno's). Both Will and Maxim opposing has given me pause to reconsider my !vote above. I too will wait to see his response to Iridescent before reconsidering my vote. I don't plan to change it currently, but I do trust two respected bureaucrats enough to think that my analysis might need revisiting. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   I feel that the quote of what I said left out so much of what I actually said in that sentence that it altered the meaning. I said: "Although SoWhy does have a tendency towards rigidity, I've never felt that it gets in the way of being reasonable..." Leaving out that "Although" really changes the meaning, and an examination of what I actually said should leave no one "astonish[ed]" that I would "hold those opinions and support this RfB". It's fine to disagree with me, but I hope that I quoted you fairly. I do, however, appreciate the argument that crats need, in fact, to show some non-rigid understanding of the spirit as well as the letter of community norms. I hope that the current crats have not felt stereotyped by some of the comments in this RfB. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   I apologise. It was not intention to distort your meaning and you are quite right that when your comment is read as a whole, it is not astonishing that you have ended up on the support section - I have struck that example from my list. WJBscribe (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks, and no worries. RfX discussions, when opinion is divided, are difficult, and I really do think hard when crats are moved to oppose in an RfB. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

5. Oppose I too am surprised at the support !votes - this is the first RfX where the supports seem to provide clear reasoning as to why the candidate would not do overly well at the role. I'm not filled with confidence at suggestions that the candidate would do better as a 'crat than as an administrator, as fundamentally the role of a bureaucrat requires level judgement and the flexibility to stand aside of their own convictions. I don't see this, so I can't support. Utmost respect for your contributions here -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) see above. C'mon There'sNoTime, you know I don't rush into RfX nominations unless I have examined issues carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   I know, and I respect that you must see something - I just don't see the qualities I believe our bureaucrats should (and do) hold. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's an opinion I'll stand by -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

6. Oppose I thought I was alone in this so removed my initial oppose as I thought perhaps I was going mad. But I would be uncomfortable leaving it at that now I see several others share my view. So, per my previous remarks, and also per WJBscribe, who sums the issues up in a way I was not able to well enough before. Aiken D 21:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose - I read over all of the supports and opposes as well as researched the candidate quite a bit. A common theme seems to be their rigidity and inflexibility with the rules. I agree that they need to be followed but there are situations where WP:IAR makes sense. I'm also concerned about the candidates ability to accurately determine consensus (by weighting things differently) on important things like RfA's per Maxims comment. I support the candidate as an administrator but I regretfully cannot give my support at this time to their RfB. -- Dane ^talk 23:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose due to the answer to the follow-up from question 8. I'm not comfortable with a bureaucrat who would discount the mentioned opinion. In particular, I consider it a wholly valid rationale to state that a candidate has not shown enough competency to overcome a lack of experience which makes it difficult to evaluate a candidate. It's wholly sensible to look for high reward (competency) in a candidate that is inherently high risk (difficult to judge potential as an admin due to lack of history). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per WJBscribe. CSD is a common job for many admins (I deleted 25,000 of them as an admin and nominated several thousand more). A candidate who says he would possibly have to recuse himself from closing an RFA for CSD-related reasons sounds too close-minded to be a good 'crat. lNeverCry 00:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

   INC: Would you trust someone more or less who was sufficiently unaware of or unconcerned about their own potential biases that they would not publicly state that they would recuse themselves from certain situations? TimothyJosephWood 23:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

10. Reluctant oppose. SoWhy is experienced, levelheaded, communicative and civil, and has demonstrated the ability to set aside his own opinions and judge consensus (see for instance his comments at the Bureaucrat chat talk page for GoldenRing's RFA). These are all great qualities for a bureaucrat. And I like many of his answers to the questions in this RfB. Unfortunately, I think at this stage of WP's development, we also need to choose bureaucrats for their ability to see the big picture, the forest for the trees as the saying goes. In an idealized en:wp where adminship is truly WP:NOBIGDEAL (both to gain and to lose), a bureaucrat with the qualities described by Iridescent and others in the support section is exactly what we would need. But community-driven RFA reform is a messy business, stuck in the weeds, and WP:NOBIGDEAL is an aspiration but far from reality. We need bureaucracts who don't substitute their judgment of the candidate over the community's, but are flexible and prepared to look broadly and with good judgment to divine consensus under the surface. I look for evidence of this in SoWhy's corpus of discussion participations and am left insufficiently persuaded. In particular, the repeated civil but firm opposes in RFAs based on exactly what CSD criteria an RFA candidate used in a few deletes that (nearly) everyone agrees were uncontroversial, weigh on me. Not due to their substance and my disagreement with it -- that in itself is immaterial, especially given how SoWhy has demonstrably been able to later say "I'm sad the community doesn't agree with me, but I do see consensus support in spite of my opposition" -- but since I don't find it reassuring in terms of ability to see the big picture, past the "letter of the law". And fundamentally I think that is crucial for a good bureaucrat. [I originally wrote this offline, when the count was approx 80:0,. But as I come online to post it, I see oppose votes similar to mine have appeared. And the opposes from 2 bureaucrats who I respect exactly for their big picture ability amplify my regretful concerns.] Martinp (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
11. Oppose primarily along the lines of above opposes mentioning that at least one important bureaucrat role is dealing with the cases for which there's no firmly pre-established policy answer and 'crats are left to sort out murky, divided community opinion (...the basis for policy in the end, anyway), as at a borderline RfA; in these situations, letter-of-the-law isn't much help. Within that role, I also have the impression SoWhy and I take differing views of whether silence implies consensus, which isn't a knock on SoWhy, just a philosophical difference about how I'd like to see 'crat chats approached so I'm opposed but I want to be clear I'm not opposing for any broader concerns. (For the record, SoWhy was helpful to me in the sole instance in which we've interacted about CSD.) Innisfree987 (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
12. Oppose - This is one of the few times I can use both the opposition and the camaraderie to provide clear rationale for my own rationale. Inflexibility is not a trait I would like to see in a 'crat who is handling cases that sometimes have no pre-determined, policy-based answer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose as per Begoon and WJBscribe. Supporters are citing strict adherence to policy as a selling point, but I don't think it's a beneficial trait. Difficult RFA/RFB closes - especially those resulting in cratchats - require lateral thinking, not "rigidity" or "inflexible perfectionism". And 'crats do far more than just RFA/B closes. (FWIW, NEWT is not a continuing concern for me.) GAB^gab 01:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
14. Oppose - Moving down here from the support column. There's a disquieting opinion slowly developing that SoWhy should not be an admin, and I fail to see how this means he should be granted the 'crat rank instead? His strong adherence to policy, while probably a good thing in most cases, ignores the primary policy of WP:IAR that essentially says apply common sense - this is an important policy for an admin to understand and apply on a case by case basis, and I do not believe that a user who is so rigid in his thinking that he is unable to apply it is qualified to judge on a case by case basis whether consensus is reached. If a 'crat was purely required to look at the numbers, anyone could do it. It's judging the merits and strength of arguments for and against that a 'crat needs to be able to do, and I no longer believe that someone unable to apply common sense even when it hits him in the face is suitable to take up the 'crat role. That said, there is a certain irony that the flexibility we need is in a role called a "bureaucrat" - literally the embodiment of unshifting conservatism. Keira1996 02:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
15. Oppose, also reluctantly, as I do have respect for SoWhy as an editor and administrator. The arguments made by Maxim and others above are compelling. The name "bureaucrat" on Wikipedia is somewhat of a misnomer. To a certain extent, the work of bureaucrats does involve adhering to established procedure, but that Wikipedia has no firm rules is one of its fundamental principles, and judging consensus at RfA is not really something that has an objective set of procedural qualifications for. It requires someone who is exceptionally dispassionate, and based on the information presented, I'm afraid SoWhy isn't a good fit for that role at this time. Mz7 (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
16. Oppose Recent decision at AFD left me the impression that a consensus that didn't fit the candidate's personal opinion isn't given the weight that it should be. [17] Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    What, the decision to relist a discussion that had only five participants and was already low on actual evidence that there were no sources available? And then delete the article as per consensus a week later? Seems entirely reasonable to me. As was mentioned to you at the AfD, Spartaz, the fact that you think something does not automatically make it a "fact". That's why we give time to discuss things fully.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    No quorum and clear consensus. Its my opinion and that's enough for me to oppose. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    The second to the last comment introduced two new possible sources. Relisting was reasonable to determine if the new information would change consensus. It didn't and was reasonably closed. The level of nit-pickiness that this oppose devolves into is shocking and appalling. Simply, the conclusion does not follow. SoWhy made no comment on their motives, but you've determines that their actions say something they do not. That speaks far more to you than SoWhy.--v/r - TP 15:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

17. Oppose SoWhy seems too inflexible to me; rule following is not a bad thing, but [arguably] one of the core tenets of Wikipedia is ignore all rules, that if one thing is against the rules, but obviously better, it should be done. I don't believe SoWhy to be flexible enough to allow this, which would make 'Crat-ing him a serious mistake, especially given that we already have enough bureaucrats as it is, even if activity is somewhat low, we aren't truly lacking. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
18. Oppose I moved here from support for two reasons. First, I cannot ignore the oppose !votes of two seasoned bureaucrats whom I respect. If they were kind of borderline, 'maybe he'll do okay, I don't think so but YMMV', that would be one thing. But these are impassioned pleas, and I've taken them to heart as the days have gone by. Second, I don't like the answer to question 8, but I really don't like the answer to question 16 18. He's willing to give more weight to more recent !votes based on his own assumptions. That's ridiculous. Let's all wait until the last day to participate, because those opinions count more? No. Katie^talk 11:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    KrakatoaKatie, SoWhy hasn't answered #16 yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    Ack - question 18. Sorry. Although now that I see he's skipped 16, I'd like to know why (unless it's a time issue, of course). Katie^talk 12:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    More likely he's taking his time over it, given Iridescent's comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    Yes, I am. It's an important question and I want to give the answer the time it needs. Sorry for the delay. As for Q18, fair enough, although I had hoped it was clear that this was only meant to apply to extreme examples where no reasonable editor could possibly disagree that consensus would have changed dramatically if the clock hadn't run out before. Point was, the order of the comments might be relevant if (and only if) it's crystal clear that support !voters would have been swayed by them to oppose if they had read them. Regards SoWhy 12:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

19. Oppose - I was initially swayed by the nomination statements, but the opposition, particularly that by Maxim and WJBscribe, gives me pause. The answers to some of the questions, and the arguments and evidence presented since my initial support, have changed my mind. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
20. Oppose When I posted question 12 it was perhaps more to express a slight unease than because I thought there was any chance that I might finish up opposing. However, what has followed has raised more serious doubts in my mind. SoWhy appears not to grasp the point raised in questions 10 and 12 about subjectivity, apparently because he actually does not fully recognise the difference between subjective and objective arguments. I have known editors who have that problem, and insist that such-and-such a view is the truth, and anyone who thinks not is just wrong, rather than saying that in their opinion the view is a good one, and accepting that other people may reasonably disagree. Both SoWhy's answer to question 10 and a question he posted to my talk page indicating difficulty in understanding my question encourage me to fear that he is such an editor.

    In addition, SoWhy's question on my talk page prompted me to look back at the RfB discussion and check the deleted articles he cited to illustrate the fact that sometimes articles are speedily deleted even though the speedy tagging was wrong. It seems to me that the speedy deletion of the article Lady Gaga was 100% correct, without any doubt whatever. SoWhy said "That something has been deleted does not indicate that the tagging was correct", but SoWhy seems to have failed to grasp the rather similar, and equally important, point "that a subject has subsequently been seen to deserve a Wikipedia article does not indicate that the tagging was incorrect." I am not an expert on Lady Gaga's career, so I may be wrong in my impression that in May 2008 (when the deletion took place) she was probably not notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, but whether that is so or not nobody could reasonably see the article about her as containing any claim of significance. (Apart from the titles of three records the full text of the article was "Lady GaGa is an american singer from New York currently signed to Intersope. Her first single Just Dance features Colby O'Donis and is available on iTunes along with the video. Debut album is set to release in summer 2008, it's gonna be called The Fame.") Similar remarks apply to Instagram, and SoWhy has himself accepted that he was mistaken in including Ed Sheehan. So, SoWhy chose three examples of speedy deletions and all three of them turn out to totally fail to support the point he was trying to make. Furthermore, he was trying to make a point about speedy deletion tags not being "correct", when the whole point of the question was about times when arguments are subjective, so that the question of being objectively "correct" or "incorrect" does not apply. All this suggests a lack of clarity of thought regarding the issues involved, which I think is unacceptable in an administrator or a bureaucrat.

    If someone acting in such a role as an administrator of bureaucrat cannot understand the distinction between subjective and objective arguments then he or she is likely to give low weight to an argument which he or she personally disagrees with, because he or she perceives that argument as objectively "wrong" rather than just as an opinion he or she disagrees with, and vice versa for an argument which he or she personally agrees with. The result of that is that, although believing in good faith that he or she is objectively assessing consensus, he or she is in fact allowing his or her subjective opinion to overrule the equally valid subjective opinions of other editors. This is not just a theoretical possibility: I have seen it in various situations, perhaps most commonly in AfD closures.

    I wrote the above comments without reading the other "oppose" comments, but I have now read them, and I see that numerous other editors have expressed very similar concerns about the candidate's ability to judge consensus without allowing his own opinions to intervene. Very reluctantly, because SoWhy has many excellent qualities, I have to oppose. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    I think the CSDs in question came from User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7#Historic A7s and were (at least when I wrote them) simply lighthearted examples to show the reader that A7 is not binding and something meeting the criteria now may not in the future. I checked out Ed Sheeran and agreed the two A7s in 2006 were correct and done within the appropriate bounds of policy. I haven't checked the others. I realise it's poor form for a nominator to join in with an oppose !voter and agree with them, but since we're here and having a discussion, we might as well raise these points. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    Your comment caused me to check those CSDs. Both revisions at the time tagged contain claims of importance and significance. CSD A7 was invalid. If you have a different opinion, then we may need to revisit your CSD deletions to see what kind of no-consensus deleting you've been doing.--v/r - TP 15:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    The important part there is "within the appropriate bounds of policy". Some might think it's worth an A7, some might bounce it to AfD. Without knowing what sources were available at the time, I can't really speculate much more, but from looking the article it does appear to be something that I would consider an A7 speedy. More important (and I think we need to bring this up more often at RfAs to be honest) is the attitude towards deletion. If somebody posts on my talk page complaining I've deleted an article, I will usually restore it one way or another, and try and explain policy as best as I can, in the hope I get a satisfied editor at the end of it. Somebody who just shruggs off complaints about bad tagging and deletions is far more dangerous. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    If you're concerned about sources when determining whether to apply CSD A7 or not, then you've failed to understand the CSD policy. The threshold is "makes a claim of importance". If sources are the problem, use BLPPROD. That's the avenue for a BLP w/o sources or where no source exists. If you have a question about notability, AFD or PROD is the appropriate avenue. CSD A7 is for no claim of importance. The claim is what matters. CSD's threshold for deletion is so tough because of the low participation needed to delete an article. That's why it's so specific. Once it's deleted, there is no oversight because most of the community can't view the material and there is not enough manpower to request copies of every deleted page. That's why the material is so tough. We must have consensus to delete a page. The existing consensus states that a page must make a claim of importance. If it does, you cannot delete under the CSD policy's consensus. At that point, you have to develop a consensus to delete.

    In other words, CSD is the community's pre-determined consensus for a list of very specific reasons to delete a page without a discussion. The particular one, A7, is about claims of significant or importance. A much much lower threshold than notability. It's troubling that so many people don't understand that - especially administrators. Makes me think that SoWhy needs to bring the question of A7 up much more than he already does.--v/r - TP 15:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    You misunderstood what I was getting at. If an article doesn't look like it's salvageable on first glance, I'll look for sources, if I get lots of them, that's an instant decline of A7, even if the text says "Norman Nobody is a singer, he is popular on YouTube". The problem, as I documented at User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 is that "importance" and "significance" are worthless subjective terms, and you're far better off coming at it from the angle of "could anybody improve this article to the minimum standard of inclusion"? I agree with you completely that people are far too trigger-happy with speedy deletions, and I decline many of them day-in, day-out. I especially get annoyed with people tag-bombing the same article again and again - examples : [18],[19],[20] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    I empathize with you, having spend a significant amount of time in CSD as well. But I don't think it's that subjective. "Does the article make a claim of significance?" is a lot difference than "Is the subject significant?" Whether or not it makes a claim is much more objective, although not distinctly black and white.--v/r - TP 18:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

21. Oppose as per WJBscribe. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
22. Oppose per KrakatoaKatie's analysis of SoWhy's response to question 18 and Ritchie333's comment on There'sNoTime's talk page. Either on their own would have kept me in the support column because 'crat chats are very rare and I really do think that SoWhy would be the perfect person to do virtually everything at the bureaucrat's noticeboard. Katie's analysis of his answer to my question shows what I view as an improper weighting of things near the end and an assumption that people who supported at first are incapable of changing their mind. Given some of my past interactions with SoWhy at AfD, I unfortunately think this is likely true. That alone would not have been enough to sway me, but that a nominator thinks that the candidate's behavior in RfA could lead to an arbcom case requesting a desysoping is a huge red flag. I'd seen this yesterday but decided not to say anything about it, but with Katie's comment, I can't ignore it. Even if Ritchie was joking it shows that there are significant trust issues in the community with SoWhy's RfA behavior, and promoting SoWhy to 'crat as a way to prevent him from derailing future RfAs and potential sanctions is a strong argument simply not to promote him. Sorry, SoWhy. I am very appreciative of your thoughtful answers to my questions and the positive personality you have even when we disagree (which we do quite frequently). I really do mean it when I say I have high respect for you as a person, but unfortunately I cannot support at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
23. Oppose (Moved from support) as per everyone above - Having thought long and hard as well as re-read every !vote here the main issue I too have is the inflexibility - We have policies etc but these don't necessarily need to be followed letter by letter, As noted above IAR should be used where and when needed and if I'm being honest I don't believe SoWhy would ever use IAR at all, I'm not saying SW should follow IAR everyday but there needs to be a balance and flexibility and unfortunately I'm not seeing that here - I'm just seeing strict letter-by-letter policy enforcements which is not something I really want in a bureaucrat. –Davey2010^Talk 16:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Per Maxim, WJBScribe, and others above. We have 1 B nominating and two others opposing. I want Bs to be stellar, and this RfB seems a bit off that mark. I've appreciated SoWhy's comments at RfA, but I was a bit surprised about Q1's "active" claim because I thought the candidate's participation was only recent. Yes, I believe the 300 number because there's a link. If I follow the link, I find active in RfA since 31 December 2016, but there's a year gap before that (21 August 2015 to 31 December 2016). Only 2 RfAs in 2016 (the ones in December), 3 in 2015, 1 in 2014, 0 in 2013, and 1 in 2012. I don't like literally true statements that suggest something else. Q3 claims 9 years experience as an admin, but X!'s tools show low activity from 2012 to December 2016 (almost 5 years). I'm seeing political spin where an explanation should exist. I get a worrisome, inconsistent, vibe about closing RfAs. There's a strict heavily-weighted-policy angle intertwined with an easy-going NoBigDeal. The how to determine consensus explanation does not fit a judicial view of discretion. I also expect Bs to have broad experience and insight. I see terrific depth, but I'm unsure about broader handling drama or reading players. Glrx (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    Oppose. (Moved to support) It gives me pause that two respected 'crats have made strong arguments against SoWhy being given the 'crat tools. It gives me significant pause that even his supporters have made comments about supporting de-sysopping him due to his "intentional disruption" in deletion-related areas. But what really bothered me enough that I had to come here to comment was the last portion of this comment at the current RfC for expanding G13: Also, currently some editors use draftifying - without consent - as a way to circumvent the deletion policy and this proposal would basically open the door to speedy deletion of any article. That is a troubling and serious allegation to make, but he provides zero examples of it actually being attempted, or by whom, which is extremely disturbing to me. I would expect that someone who had seen repeated instances of these serious attempts to "circumvent the deletion policy" would be eager to give evidence in the form of move logs, deletion logs, or diffs of attempted CSDs on draftified articles showing just how often people tried to get away with that kind of thing. Even a link to a previous discussion on the matter would have sufficed. Anything at all to indicate this is actually a practice we are regularly fighting against. Without evidence to back up this claim, his comment amounts to a scare-mongering urban myth. I am extremely uncomfortable with putting my trust in any editor who would casually make such strong allegations of wrong-doing without presenting equally strong evidence to back up their claims. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    I imagine the fact SoWhy didn't feel the need to give examples of forced draftifying is that there's a reasonable presumption that anyone with even the vaguest interest in Wikipedia's deletion policies is aware of the numerous places at which it's been discussed ad nauseam. The incident discussed here is probably the highest profile recent case. ‑ Iridescent 23:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    PMC, this is not an accusation, but a common practice by the most compassionate of patrollers, who well understand that the article currently meets CSD criteria, but that the author has expressed a good faith intention to fix it. That you are so appalled by this signifies a disconnect between yourself and NPP, and not between that and SoWhy. TimothyJosephWood 23:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but I think both of you have misread my oppose. Timothyjosephwood, draftification by NPP in order to avoid CSD is the opposite of what I said. I have no problem with it. Iridescent, I'm not talking about forced draftification-deletion as a result of situations like SvG or CXT. Those remedies were decided on by the community as a response to specific unusual situations. They weren't efforts to delete for deletion's sake, but to remove potential BLPs from the mainspace in order to assess them for appropriateness in draftspace. In fact, the mass draftification of both was an effort to avoid mass deletion without checking for preservable content first. I'm talking about the quoted suggestion that draftification is specifically being done, at present, as an end-run around our deletion policies in order to get things deleted in draftspace. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    PMC, I'll agree that at least one of us is fundamentally misunderstanding the argument. Maybe it's me, but when I draftify an article I am intentionally doing so specifically to circumvent the deletion process, because when I mark it for CSD, I patrol it, and I am therefore personally the arbiter of it until an admin sees it. I am draftifying it specifically because I think the reviewing admin will delete it (rightfully), but I have had some personal communication with the user that the admin browsing through CAT:CSD hasn't. The intentional circumvention is done by those who are most prone to, and most keen to avoiding BITEing, and for that very purpose. The apparent concern, from what I see, is that others could use my good faith draftification as a way to delete their good faith contribution, when the user may return in some time to continue working on it. The idea that it is currently being done seems silly, since it is pretty clearly a hypothetical based on the proposal. TimothyJosephWood 01:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    @Premeditated Chaos: I did not want to comment on certain !votes individually but I fear you somehow got the wrong impression of me in a way that is hard for me to accept. While I am known to criticize users from time to time, as a principle I do not make unfounded allegations, not only because being wrong will make me look bad but because it's dishonorable. The reason I did not link to any examples was that I was told that this was common knowledge to be current practice just three weeks(!) ago on that very talk page (see also the previous discussion SmokeyJoe linked to). While ideally such moves are to prevent speedy deletion in mainspace, judging from the discussion a couple of users seem to hold the view that the only criteria should be whether it's "ready for mainspace", not whether it fits the speedy deletion criteria, which in turn leads to the danger I pointed out of non-speedyable articles being moved to Draftspace where they would then be speedy deleted after six months, thus effectively circumventing the deletion policy. Again, I did not want to make unfounded allegations and I am sorry you perceived my comment as such. PS: I do see from your comment that there is a potential for misunderstandings, so I will edit my comment and point to the examples I linked to above to make it clear for others. Regards SoWhy 05:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate the clarification and I can see that I did misinterpret your comment; I conflated your hypothetical about little-read articles with the reality of what some at NPP have been doing with new articles and mistakenly thought you were alleging that people were quietly stashing established articles into draftspace for deletion. I have moved myself to support - I respect the level-headedness of your response to what must have been a frustrating comment to read, and I'm confident you will maintain that evenness when acting as a bureaucrat. I apologize for any distress my misreading has caused. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

25. Oppose I don't believe this candidate has the temperament and the personality to properly handle this responsibility. Plus, you know something is very wrong when many of his supporters openly admit he is deeply flawed in his administrative duties. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    I openly admit that every single administrator, crat, editor, anon, and WMF employee is deeply flawed in someway regarding the responsibilities we entrust in them. Find me a single person who is even remotely close to perfect or even ideal. It's a collaborative effort and we each have to be there to support each other's shortcomings. If you can't get over that, you have standards that are much too high for any human being.--v/r - TP 15:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

26. Oppose per Kudpung's comments here; SoWhy pulled a disappearing act for approximately 7 years after his first RfB failed, only returning to significant activity in the past few months [21] (making it appear as if his presence on Wikipedia has perhaps been solely geared around attaining 'cratship, which isn't a good look). I'd feel more inclined to support after 2+ more years of solid commitment to Wikipedia; also lots of things (and attitudes) have changed on Wikipedia in the past 7 years so I'd want more assurance that the candidate is not stuck in a 2010 mindset. Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    @Softlavender: I didn't think I had to address this but it appears a clarification is in order. My lack of activity in the last years was entirely real-life based and not a result of the first RfB failing (which was two years before my activity really declined). As the edit counter shows, my activity went down in 2010 but that was because I was busy learning for my first Staatsexamen in September 2010. After I passed, my activity went up slightly because I had more free time the first year of my Referendariat before having to prepare for my second Staatsexamen in December 2012. Since then, I was busy with work and real life before being able to start editing in earnest again in December 2016. I can assure you though that this rise in activity had nothing to do with this request, I was rather surprised when Dweller approached me (twice) about it; of course, you don't have to believe me on that. As for the latter part, I don't think I am stuck in a "2010 mindset" but I understand that it might appear so just from the editing pattern alone. I can't change that although if you could point out specific examples of such "stuck-iness", I'd be grateful. I don't think I'll have the nerves to do this process again but time will tell. Regards SoWhy 08:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    Whatever the reason, a 7-year absence (only recently returned) is a dealbreaker for me for bureacratship. Kudpung gives several more examples of prior low participation and various other editing issues [22]; I merely pointed up one issue so as to avoid repeating his entire 2,578-byte post. I expect even an adminship candidate, and much moreso a bureaucratship candidate, to have an immediate history of at least 2 or 3 years of solid recent participation. Softlavender (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

27. Oppose Others have expressed some of my shared concerns. I feel this request was submitted too shortly after your return for you to establish a pattern of sustained productive editing and to build up the confidence of the community to meet the demanding trust requirements for an appointment as a bureaucrat. Would reassess in one year's time. Mkdw ^talk 15:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    "Would reassess in one year's time." No point - pretty sure this is the last RfB SoWhy is ever going to run. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    I wanted to express that the door was open to them in regards to my !vote if they ever decided to make their own choice on the matter. Mkdw ^talk 16:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    Offer only available in the next 10 minutes? I've seen those ads, Ritchie, and I bet you can call later, really. Joking apart, there's nothing wrong with saying you'd perhaps support later, especially when so well explained. (There's also nothing wrong with you thinking this is some kind of last chance saloon, although I disagree) -- Begoon 17:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

28. Oppose largely per Maxim and WJBscribe. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
29. Oppose per the numerous and varied arguments presented by colleagues above. I have significant concerns about their ability to fairly and sensibly deal with situations not covered in detail (or at all) by existing policies, which is alone sufficient to Oppose, but for a Bureaucrat candidate now, I'd want to see more interest in the role. I note (in my view) there's insufficient activity by SoWhy at RfA to assess how often they and the community agree on candidates, and little evidence their activity at RfA has attracted community interest (be they 'per SoWhy' !votes at RfA, or more serious involvement with discussions at WT:RFA or WP:RFB). Nick (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    I dunno, 31 "per SoWhy" comments in RfAs since 2008 doesn't seem that bad to me, considering that's a higher number than most current 'crats have, including me and all the other 'crats who've commented in this RfA. (Except for Acalamari, who ties him at 31.) 28bytes (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral (moved to oppose) for now. I'm inclined to support provided answers are reasonable. I'm a bit perplexed why this RfB was transcluded when the candidate did not have time to stick around to answer questions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

People have real lives, well some of us do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The first unanswered question was asked less than six hours ago. People should be generally "around" for their RfA/RfB, but I don't think there's a requirement to be on-Wiki 24/7, even for those who transclude their requests on the date 24/7  — Amakuru (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project, if people transclude RFX and then go absent for days, it shouldn't be a problem at all. Especially in this case, we're not exactly gagging for the attention of 'crats every second of every day. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Obviously an entirely moot point here, but the guidance at WP:RFA#During_the_nomination does say "Administrator nominees should stay involved on their RfAs so that they may answer these questions or any other comments raised on their RfA. Absence by the nominee from the RfA process during the seven days it is open can harm the chances of success." If you are going on vacation, or have a particularly busy off-Wiki project of some sort, it's usually judicious to postpone your RfX until you're less busy!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

And life happens. It may be that you all have nothing better to do than be on Wikipedia 24/7, but some of us have families, lives, etc which means a dynamic that is unpredictable. Being perplexed that people have a life outside Wikipedia is more a commentary on the commentators than the candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring to the fact the editor went offline two hours after transcluding. It's very typical to wait to transclude until you'll be around for a longer stretch. It's not a negative; I just found it to be odd. The "some of us do" comment was very endearing, TRM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. It's worth remembering. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Define real life? I will make over $1,000 in book royalties this month and my next book project includes a short story about a cow that is coming on 150 years old. That an author can make money and write what I just described (not to forget another recent tale that had an elephant wearing pajamas) may sound like an alternate reality to someone....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

"we're not exactly gagging for the attention of 'crats every second of every day" You mean the internet isn't just a giant popularity contest? Teelosdomain (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I thought I had the time but when I came home yesterday after preparing for a case today, my internet was down and I spent the (short) rest of the evening wrestling with my router to get it back up. I read some of the questions on my phone but it's not that easy editing an RfX on it. I'll hopefully be able to answer the rest of the questions within the next hours. Regards SoWhy 06:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no rush. My comment was just an aside not a criticism. I threw myself in neutral while mentioning the questions mostly in the hope it would slow the RfB down a bit so we didn't have 100+ supports before we got answers. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

But SoWhy's response was exactly the point: Who knows whose Internet will go down, or what else might happen? Look, as it happens I am Sabbath-observant (obvious from my user page). So if I ever went up for RfA here (which I won't, so nobody should start fussing), I would unquestionably have one day within my RfA stretch where I would be off-wiki. I wouldn't start my RfA on Thursday or Friday because of that, but I absolutely would be off-line for one day of my RfA. So would that (in and of itself) disqualify me? I don't think so. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. If you started your RfA the night before the Sabbath, I'd be a bit confused, though. That's all I was here. A bit confused. By now, I'm more confused by how that comment turned into this large a response from a few editors. This will be the third time I'm saying that the comment was not negative. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Some people might've been rubbed the wrong way.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 23:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Neutral Seeing not only Aiken drum's comments before, but now plus Kudpung's and Iridescent's supports, I deiced to move to neutral due to the fact that while SoWhy has his problems, his pros equally weigh against them. —JJB^ers 19:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Neutral for now, as above. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Neutral. On the one hand, SoWhy's RfA comments have occasionally brought down many a promising candidate in the past and contributed to the impression that RfA is a nasty place to be, so it doesn't feel right to promote him from participant to judge. On the other hand, as Iridescent noted, this legalistic pig-headedness might just be an appropriate quality for a crat. Deryck C. 12:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   Neutral Till I finish reading everything. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Finished reading everything. I treid to remove the number sign but it broke the Neutral counter. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

   moved to support, finished reading everything. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

4. Neutral. I honestly don't mind, but hey surely more crats is better than no crats. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   …and "Oppose, an admin user name should be more fear inspiring than this candidate's" has a new competitor for the coveted "stupidest comment I have ever seen at RFX" award. ‑ Iridescent 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   Was that from the RfA troll last week? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   No, that was a genuine oppose reason someone gave once. ‑ Iridescent 21:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   Surprised that you haven't seen worse. I know I have... Kurtis ^(talk) 06:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

   I'll just drop this here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

5. Neutral It's the rare Wikipedia discussion where both sides are making perfect sense. Valid points and strong arguments coming from both camps, none of which seem to be able to pull me off of the fence. Parking my ass here. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Neutral per Iridescent. Enigma^msg 17:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
7. Neutral, Moved from Support, after consideration of Softlavender's comments. Optimist on the run (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
8. Neutral: I was going to support but a couple of oppose votes and answers by the candidate to some questions, especially numbers 8 and 16, concern me. My CSD ideologies differ from SoWhy’s but that doesn’t make a difference to my !vote as their arguments are always well-supported by policy, something needed in a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats need to be uncontroversial and that’s something I think SoWhy isn’t, particularly per Iridescent’s comments. They are however a fine administrator and I have never disagreed with their judgements on consensus but as I say, the answers to some of the questions make me wary of potential RfA judgement impartiality. However, these concerns are not pressing enough to warrant an oppose vote for me. DrStrauss talk 21:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
9. Neutral: Some of his/her answers were a bit questionable, and enough so that I don't feel comfortable supporting, but I do feel we need more Bcrats, and some of the answers were good. Neutral for now, but may change later. Jocke is the best!(Metalhead309) (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• Wasnt this user an admin before? I am pretty sure he was, or I was hugely mistaken. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is an RfB, not an RfA. Duh. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Protest opposecomment I've put myself here at the risk of making myself unpopular, but so be it. First off, SoWhy is certainly one of our best admins, and I would support an RfA for him again without any hesitation. My main issue is that bureaucrats are supposed to be neutral and unfortunately SoWhy is one of the least neutral people when it comes to candidates with speedy deletion errors. Obviously bureaucrats can hold their own opinion but, for want of a better word, SoWhy appears to have an agenda with RfA candidates. Collections of diffs containing small mistakes, often from many months back, are used to bring an otherwise solid candidate down, even including articles which other admins have deleted, which makes it clear that the issues are not just with the candidate but with the CSD criteria themselves. This seems to be an ongoing trend at RfA, and unfortunately SoWhy seems to be a big part of it. What if, for example, SoWhy discovers, just as he is closing an RfA with no opposition, that the candidate tagged an article with A7 four months previously, when it should have been A9? What if, shock horror, the candidate tagged an article two months previously containing nothing but a single word with A1, when he could have waited a few more minutes? SoWhy should not need to recuse himself because of his strong opinions, but unfortunately I can see it happening far too often. The best bureaucrats are ones who evaluate consensus without making themselves a strong voice in the opposition. Sticklers certainly make excellent lawyers, and maybe admins too, but I think SoWhy is too opinionated for this role, no matter how civil he is about it. Having said all that though, I am certain this will pass so wish him well in his new role. Aiken D 16:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Aiken drum: We, the Wikipedia community, are quite lazy, and I myself am very lazy. Would you please be so kind to post some links? Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I think some of the things in WP:CCSI, the essay SoWhy was the driving force behind, are out of the mainstream for the practical application of CSD as can be seen on the talk page discussion between respected functionaries and admins. I often disagree with SoWhy's RfA votes based on his view of criteria, and I think the community has begun to as well because while there were other issues that sunk the Dane RfA, there was significant pushback later in the process after the damage had already been done. I've also disagreed with his choice to relist AfDs or close them and often think that he should have !voted instead.

  That being said, all of his actions in this regard stem from the fact that he takes a very conservative reading to the deletion process and goes by the letter of the policy rather than application and wants explicit consensus from the wider community before deviating from it. His goal is to respect consensus on a topic he believes is at the heart of Wikipedia. I often disagree with what his view on the consensus is, but I know that he is trying to analyze it correctly and not take liberties with advanced tools that he doesn't feel the community has authorized him to make. This is exactly what we want in a bureaucrat. He will respect the process, won't do anything the community hasn't authorized explicitly, and won't advocate shooting from the hip on any desysopings or granting of flags to bots. He undoubtably has the good of the project in mind and I think the very reasons I often disagree with him elsewhere would make him an excellent 'crat. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I second Tony's analysis. In fact- perhaps on a lighter note?- taking his argument to its logical conclusion, SoWhy will might make a better 'crat than admin  :) — fortunavelut luna 03:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you shouldn't put words in my mouth! I think it is more accurate to say that SoWhy might be the platonic form of an en.Wiki bureaucrat. I certainly appreciate his work as an admin as well :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• While I agree with what you're saying about his conservative views in RfA and other places, I don't believe that this would affect his closing of said RfAs - they are based on consensus after all, not on the views of the closing 'crat. A perceived problem with his !voting on RfAs does not equate to an issue with his becoming a 'crat. For example, I strongly disagree with WP:CCSI, but I still think that SoWhy is a suitable candidate for 'crat. In fact, his conservative views here may be a net positive, in that he is a very strong follower of the rules, and a good judge of consensus. Keira1996 04:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the intention behind CCSI was to create a collection of actual consensus regarding common claims of significance or importance so that new page patrollers have a guide to refer to when deciding whether to tag an article for A7 or use PROD/AFD instead. I'm fine with changes to reflect consensus better and I am still considering how to best create an RfC that addresses the whole page in a way that is still easy to comment on (since there are so many different examples). Irrespective of this request here, I invite interested editors to make proposals how to best do so, seeing that we can probably all agree that having such a page that enjoys widespread support is - regardless of what content it may then have - would be quite helpful to those working in that area.PS: I saw the follow up questions and the new question but I need to get to bed now, I'll get back to them tomorrow. Regards SoWhy 20:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not unaware of this - however these are things that are very obviously within policy, and are most definitely far more conservative than the actual policy we have in place. We have policy already - while brevity is good, WP:CCSI is far more conservative than the actual policy in this case, and frankly pointless due to this. Anyone arguing that an article about a band that "has won a notable award" is not notable needs to revise their knowledge of basic policy. My opposition to CCSI itself is primarily because of this - it essentially serves as a list of obvious criteria for notability, and leaves out an awful lot that may therefore be discounted, contributing to the speedy deletion of content that projects like WP:NEWT opposed. Using conservative criteria for speedy deletion leads to the loss of content that can occur, and essentially has the effect of biting the newcomers. A7 should, in my opinion, only be used in a circumstance where something is very clearly not notable - along the lines of your Uncle Fred's band in 1963, or a BLP about a high school student of little note. Of course, because CCSI is basically restating the obvious criteria, it has very little point in the first place. Your RfB is hardly the place to discuss our disagreements on policy anyway, so I wish you the best of luck. Keira1996 09:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, while I oftentimes do disagree with him, I also happen to very much like SoWhy. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Q.16 is, of course, raising eyebrows, I imagine. It has some landscaping which complicates it slightly, but it's actually a very simple- if direct- question. Indeed, if it can be answered in the positive, then it's a closed question, and the answer would be even simpler than the question. I has a periphery though- it is dovetailed by opinion of the candidate before the question, and detailed explanation of its relevance afterwards. But, the question itself is only fourteen words long. Very interesting. — fortunavelut luna 12:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Even those 14 words are largely rhetorical, as I almost certainly know the answer. The actual pertinent question is only four words long; everything else is just background. ‑ Iridescent 14:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Although technically if you're invoking WP:Ignore all rules, aren't you still following a rule, therefore not actually ignoring all rules? ansh666 06:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)