Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Anonymous Dissident

Anonymous Dissident

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (140/4/3); Scheduled to end 20:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Hello, I am Anonymous Dissident, a Wikipedian since 17 January, 2007. From the day of my registry I was very attracted to this idea of a free encyclopedia that anyone could edit, an open fountainhead of information. This being the source of my involvement, I soon became a regular contributor, and I was granted sysop rights in September of the same year. Not long after this, I began to explore Wikimedia more deeply, and am now a contributor to several of the sister projects, including Meta, the English Wikisource, Commons and Wikispecies; and here I am now, spending my time on Wikipedia doing the things I've done for the most of my time on the project: writing encyclopedic articles, helping with maintenance, and partaking in administration.

At the core of it, I've decided to have a shot at bureaucratship because I believe I would make an effective addition to the current cohort and have good experience in a number of bureaucrat-related fields. I've been a clerk at Wikipedia:Changing usernames and its subpages for over a year, and with over 600 edits between these pages, I feel confident in my knowledge of Wikipedia's rename process and our username policy. I'm an active participant at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, both in the evaluation of candidates and the general maintenance of RfA candidacies (SNOW and NOTNOW closures and the like). I also think I have a reasonable understanding of the bot flagging process and related policies; although, not being much of a programmer or a bot operator, I've not been involved as much in this area as the previous two. Lastly, although bureaucratship on the English Wikipedia differs in many ways from bureaucratship on smaller wikis, I have prior experience with this position on both Meta and Wikispecies.

With that, I humbly present my candidacy to the community, with thanks to all who participate. It would be my deepest honour to serve our great project in this position. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

---

To those who have asked me questions: the large number of questions asked was something I was prepared for when I decided to run. However, it will take me some time to get to them all, and I want to take the time to give them the consideration they deserve. Please bear with me in those respects. Thanks, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Additional note dated 08:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC) – I seem to be coming down with an eye infection. I'm finding it difficult to concentrate on my computer screen for any substantial length of time. With proper medication, I hope to be back on-wiki in a day or two. I ask you to bear with me with regard to the answering of questions and such. Thanks for your understanding. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:43, 28 March 2009 (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. Consensus or lack thereof is what bureaucrats are tasked with assessing when it comes to the closure of RfX’s. How this assessment is to be conducted and how consensus is to be determined requires a more extended response and consideration of a number of factors. Our policy on the matter asserts that candidates with over 80% support are generally promoted and candidates with under 70% support are generally not promoted, and, as far as RfA goes, this has generally been a precedent. However, my liberal use of the word “generally” here is intentional, because bureaucrats are not appointed for their proficiency with calculators or their ability to count. In the RfA process, numbers and percentages can be quite opaque, and the content of participants’ supports and opposes are integral to the judgement of consensus. The role of the bureaucrat, therefore, is to qualitatively rather than quantitatively evaluate the concerns of the opposition and the approvals of the supporters in order to ascertain where the general agreement lies and if, ultimately, the community has consensus as to whether they are comfortable with the user in question having the administrator functions. That’s what it all comes down to.

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

A. In situations where candidacies are split and the contributing elements on either side of the debate are complex, I think second opinions are always of benefit. A bureaucrat discussion is a good way of sorting through problems like this. However, a "crat chat" like this should never be conducted in the way that the bureaucrats are forging a more privatised and "elite" form of consensus about the RfA amongst themselves; rather, it should be used to discuss the community's consensus (or lack thereof) with regard to the RfA. Depending on circumstance, it may also be appropriate to extend the ending date of the RfA to see whether more time might allow the community to find a clearer consensus.

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. As outlined in my nomination statement, I feel quite confident in my knowledge of policy in relation to the 'crat tasks, and I think I'm able to communicate well with others. However, I won't say much more here; I leave it up to the community to determine, one way or the other, whether they think I would make a suitable bureaucrat in these regards.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Certainly. Time constraints will not be a problem for me, and I have the inclination.

Optional questions from iPatrol

5. Will you strengthen enforcement of WP:NPA at RFAs? Ipatrol (talk)

A. NPA is a policy we have for a reason. Personal attacks on Wikipedia damage what should be a cordial and friendly environment, and this can be especially harmful on places such as RfA, where the atmosphere is often already tense and stressed. Therefore, at RfA, I think that it's imperative that civility is maintained and calm discussion is had. So yes, giving consideration to the mood of the forum, we shouldn't have a great deal of tolerance towards attacks on other editors; it's just not constructive, and, furthermore, there is no justification for it.

6. Will you consider the validity and usefulness of the comments at an RFA important in your final decision? Ipatrol (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A. As I mentioned in my response to the first question, I consider the reviewing of participants' comments to be an integral part of the determination of consensus at RfA. The consensus is for the community to form; therefore, an RfA cannot be closed without proper regard for this consensus.

Optional questions from NuclearWarfare adapted from MBisanz[1]

7. How would you close these RfA/Bs? If you opine for a crat chat, please express what you would have said there as the final determination of the outcome.

A.

• Carnildo 3 61%: Unsuccessful
• ^demon 3 63%: Bureaucrat discussion: I'd have made sure to have taken into consideration and to have noted several key factors, including: 1) the fact that ^demon resigned his bit in uncontroversial circumstances 2) the fact that the opposition were quite unified in their reasoning... 3) but also that many were "reluctant" or "on the fence" as closer WjBscribe pointed out.
• Krimpet 67%: Unsuccessful
• Danny 68%: Unsuccessful
• Ryulong 3 69%:Unsuccessful
• Gracenotes 74%: Successful
• DHMO 3 (at this point in time) 79%: No consensus at all (default to unsuccessful)
• Riana's RfB 86%: Successful

If you have questions as to why I answered thus, I'm happy to expound at your request. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why promote Gracenotes but not DHMO? Andre (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

8. One of of the bureaucrats elected in 2004 has yet to use any of the crat tools and others have used them very rarely. Do you think the bureaucrat position should have a minimum level of activity?

A. I'm not sure a minimum activity criterion that would mandate the removal of a user's tools by default would be for the best, but I certainly think that bureaucrats should make it a priority to be active in the position that the community has given them. After all, it's only natural to assume that the community gave these bureaucrats the tools in the first place because they assumed the candidate would make actual use of the access. However, I won't give an absolute here; if a proposal were drawn up about the removal of tools from inactive 'crats, I'd really have to review the proposal in its full depth and in its entirety.

9. Of the 3,500+ prior RFAs, only eight have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime; of over 100 prior RFBs, only two have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime. Under what circumstances and by what process would you extend an RFA in general?

A. An extension of the endtime may be an appropriate course of action if new evidence has come to light and the RfX is changing dramatically as a result of this, with many of the participants rethinking their positions and the like. It's my belief that the extension of RfX's is an option that should be used with care and proper discretion; 7 days is the length for an RfA that we as a community have decided on, and this should only be waived if the circumstances really demand it.

10. Francs2000, Optim, Eloquence, Danny, Ugen64, and WJBscribe were decratted at their own requests between 2004 and 2008. Of them all, the only controversial decrattings could be considered Ugen64 who resigned after a dispute over the promotion % for RFBs and Francs2000 who resigned after a dispute over tallying RFA results. Danny's remains the unusual case of him resigning both crat and sysop rights and later being re-RFA'd, all in connection with his ceasing employment at the Wikimedia Foundation. Which of these users would you re-crat if they asked at WP:BN and which would you require to re-run RfB?

A.

• Francs2000:
• Optim:
• Eloquence:
• Ugen64:
• Danny:
• WJBscribe:

I'd require all of them to re-run RfB, with the exception of WJBscribe. The last bureaucrat to resign their position before WJB was Danny, and he did so in March 2007. Now, I think it's a fairly widely-held belief that community standards for bureaucrats and the climate at RfB have changed substantially since that time, and they certainly have since 2004 and 2005. Therefore, I'd think it only best that these users present their requests to the community should they desire the 'crat position again.

11. Hi AD. It's not really a suprise to see this - I've been watching you clerking at the username board and figured this was coming. I was set for a support but looking at your contributions I can't really see any evidence in the last six months of you judging consensus - for example by closing an WP:AFD debate or similar. Whilst you have my trust, I require more than that to support an RFB - can you provide some evidence of where you have been asked to read, interpret and act on a consensus seeking discussion within en.wikipedia? Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)7

A. Hey there, Pedro. It is to be admitted that I am not hugely active at forums such as AfD and the like, but I do regularly participate at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names and I sometimes close discussions there; and the nature of the username policy makes the proper review of consensus crucial in this area. As it happens, there is one such request that I've closed on the page right now: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#FeygeleGoy.

Optional question from User:Hipocrite

12. You are listed as "open to recall," as an administrator. Why? Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A. I'm open to recall because I feel the need to be answerable to my actions as an administrator in a more cemented way; yes, recall isn't watertight, as many people note, and it is open to circumvention by admins, but, for me, the extra layer of accountability is a worthwhile thing if it comes to a point where I really need to call it a day as an admin.

Question from ϢereSpielChequers

13. On day 1 of an RFA User John Doe opposes citing reason X and User Jane Doe opposes citing reason Y.

On day 2 of the RFA User John Smith opposes per John Doe and User Jane Smith opposes per Jane Doe.

Later on day 2 John Doe shifts to neutral and Jane Doe shifts to support.

Five days later when you close the RFA neither John nor Jane Smith have altered their position.

How do you treat John and Jane Smith's votes and why?

A. This is quite an interesting question. I'm not sure I can answer fully or with the thoroughness that would be required at a real RfA, as the question is quite generic, but I'll give it a shot. I think the way that John Smith and Jane Smith's comments are to be viewed largely depends on X and Y. If the reasons for opposition were based on "incriminating" evidence that was invalidated later in the RfA, and that was the reason for John and Jane Doe's re-evaluation, then this needs to be taken into account when we look at John and Jane Smith's opposition—perhaps these two aren't apprised of the changes in situation? However, if John and Jane Doe initially opposed for solid and valid reasoning, such as incivility or a worrying incident, but later shifted position because they'd had a simple change of heart, the view for John and Jane Smith is again different; X and Y could still be very valid and their opposition could remain wholly justified. So it all depends. Does that answer your question? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks, ϢereSpielChequers 23:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow up from lucasbfr

7a. I see that almost all of your closes are different from the actual results. Why? Do you think the community shifted its stance on consensus levels since then?

A. The fact that the closures happen to be mostly different from what actually happened is more coincidental than anything else, I think. I'd be happy to expound upon my way of closure for any of them should you ask, but, as I say, my answer as a whole is more a product of happenstance than any kind collective disagreement with the closures of the past. To address your other question: my alternate ways of closure were influenced primarily by elements particular to each of the individual RfA's, rather than by a general belief that changed communal views on consensus would lead to a different result in the current climate. So, overall, I suppose I could reply to both of your questions by saying that my answers to 7 were drawn from analysis of each of the RfA's separately, and there isn't necessarily an underlying correlation between these responses. I've probably taken a long while to say something fairly simple here, so I hope you'll excuse the loquaciousness. ;-)

Optional question from User:Carlossuarez46:

14a. Are RFA "support" !votes without explanation more valid than "oppose" !votes without explanation?

A. My thoughts on the matter are that those who oppose should, in particular, provide reasoning for their choice. While supporters would do well to explain themselves too, a support for an RfA is justified if the supporter sees no issue with the user becoming an admin, whereas an oppose instead indicates that this is not the case—and explanation of why that is should be given. Ultimately, I think that supports or opposes made without any explanation most often resign themselves to a lesser weighting than those that come with reasoning or explanation appended.

14b. How would you consider an anon's comments and participation in an RFA?

A. Well, anons can't "participate" in an RfA in the traditional, numeric sense, but they are able to comment in the discussion section. Therefore, were an anon to make constructive commentary or insightful remarks, I would regard and consider what they've said as necessary. After all, an astute remark is an astute remark, regardless of who it comes from, and it should be appreciated throughout Wikipedia that many contributors have valid reasons for feeling uncomfortable in registering.

14c. In your answer to question 7, you said you'd consider whether "the opposition were quite unified in their reasoning" If so, is that a bigger or smaller negative than if the oppostion was divided in many camps each with an identified problem they didn't like?

A: This is an astute question. I think that if the opposition are in noted harmony, it can be symptomatic of a serious problem (or problems) that requires particular attention when analysing an RfA. An opposition that opposes for a wide variety of unrelated reasons can suggest a number of things. On one hand, perhaps the concerns are relatively minor and that's why the community is not in self-consonance; however, on the flipside, perhaps there are just a great number of concerns, and that's why the participants are each contributing different evidence or making different comments. For those reasons, I'd be uncomfortable in dealing an absolute here, but, if I had to, I think I'd be tending towards saying that an opposition in concordance is often indicative of more deeply-seated concerns, and the community's consistency enforces this. Naturally, there can certainly be elements of both in RfA, where the community objects for a large number of reasons but is unified in its objection at the same time.

Question from ϢereSpielChequers

15. Do you think that RFA is broken, and if so what if anything would you do about this as a crat?

A. Do I think RfA is broken? Hmm. This is quite a philosophical question, and there are several schools of thought about this matter. I really could go into a very long spiel about this, but that probably wouldn't be appropriate here, so I'll try and be succinct as I can. It's my personal belief that no, RfA isn't broken, but there is clear room for improvement. I'm not sure if you've ever tuned in to WikiVoices, but last year a discussion on adminship and the RfA process was had, to which former bureaucrat WJBscribe contributed. I think some of the points he made there surmised the issue well; he went into detail about the way we view admin promotion and the way potential candidates can be daunted by the RfA process, to the backdrop of the dropped promotion rate that was observed last year. Essentially, my thoughts are that the mechanics of the process work fine, but that we as a community partaking in this process need to introspectively take a look several things, such as 1) Our attitudes towards it, 2) The standards we have for admins, 3) How we feel about the atmosphere at RfA and whether we could make the process less daunting for prospective candidates and 4) Whether we're happy with the process and our promotion rates in the context of the previous three points. As noted above, I could go into plenty more detail, but those are my personal views articulated concisely.

Optional question from User:S Marshall:

16. What's your position on Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights/Proposal 2?

Optional question from User:Mattisse:

17. Do you take the the position that "old timers", those editors who have been on Wikipedia for many years and contributed much in the way of FAs, should be given more slack that those here only a few years, and that that "old timers" be allowed to personally attack and in other ways be uncivil without censor because their content contribution has been rewarded?

A.

General comments

• Links for Anonymous Dissident: Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Excellent and fully trusted user in my book. I have no qualms about him being added to the bureaucrat position. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Hell Yes — Jake Wartenberg 20:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong support - AnonDiss is among our most well-qualified candidates for bureaucratship. I give my full support. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Definitely. --Kbdank71 20:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Has the knowledge and dedication. -- Mentifisto 20:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Ran into you a few times, and think you are fully qualified.--Res2216firestar 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Seems to be good, though not fully sure about judgment. I suspect some opposition in that movement. Ceranthor 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

   I do realize that you supported, but I really don't know what you mean about judgment. Can you please explain? Is there a hidden, buried part of Anonymous Dissident's past that everyone has forgotten or overlooked? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

   Not his judgment himself; the very recent thing with Keeper on the RFA talk page ensures he is calm during arguments, but there's just a sort of premonition about him. At least for me. Ceranthor 00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

8. Total support Absolutely. --GedUK  21:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Yes, I trust you. Synergy 21:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong Support (and I do not give that often). AD would make an excellent 'crat, in my opinion. He has demonstrated an undertsanding of consensus and the cordiality to implement it sans drama. He is unquestionably worthy of trust. -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Why not? Great user.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Edit conflict Support. Even temperament, haven't seen anything to make me oppose. We need more good 'crats. Hermione1980 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support I still wish we could get a bot-focused crat, but Anon Diss is qualified. MBisanz ^talk 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support I agree with pretty much everything above, and on top of that, I'm more likely to support at RfB than the average voter. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support I see no issues with Anonymous Dissident's behavior around Wikipedia. He would most definitely be an asset to the community if he was promoted to a crat. Good on you for wanting to help more! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Full support. My ideal choice for a crat. Seraphim♥ 22:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Per Foxy Loxy. -download | sign! 22:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
18. The most qualified 'crat hopeful I've ever !voted for. No chance of abuse, every chance of great work at CHU. Good luck...  GARDEN  22:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Strong Support User has used his admin tools well .The use rhas been around since Jan 2007 and looking at the 489 blocks done show the user has used his tools well and also his protects and deletions are okay.Similarly the protects Excellent and fully trustworthy user who has contributed immensely to Wikipedia.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Very active editor, I am sure he will make an excellent crat LetsdrinkTea 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Some things are worth coming out of retirement for. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 22:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
22. No problems with Anon Diss - he'll make a fine crat. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. I suppose the badgering paid off. bibliomaniac15 22:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

    I have no doubt this will create a firestorm about my prudishness but is that really a helpful use of an expletive? Pedro :  Chat  23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

    Expletives are only offensive if you want them to be, and this one certainly wasn't used maliciously. Frankly, I take it as a compliment. I wish someone would offer to let me copulate with them in a horizontal fashion. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion on Biblio's comment is taking place on his talk page; let's try and keep future discussion here on topic. — Jake Wartenberg 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

24. Support. Highly qualified candidate. Used admin tools well, extremely civil, knows the bureaucrat responsibilities. Useight (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Edit-conflicted-why-does-everyone-seem-love-you-support - agree with Garden 110%. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
26. He's one of the few reasons stereotypes about young users haven't gained widespread support, a fact which is a credit to him. Attends a fine education institution, also, which always helps :) Daniel (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
27. On the condition that he stops failing at MathML — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 23:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
28. Majorly talk 23:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - Everything I've seen from you has been generally sensible and mature. I fully trust you to reasonably judge RfA consensus and otherwise fiddle with the odd selection of bureaucrat tools. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - I would trust this user with my life, if I had one. FlyingToaster 00:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

    A life? Where can I download one? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 00:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

    Not sure, I'm looking in the man pages now. FlyingToaster 00:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

    To Neuro: try here: [2]. Majorly talk 00:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

    OMG, he's an eBayer? Group kick! Oh wait... I'm getting my MMOs confused. --Deskana (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

    try Second Life. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

31. Anonymous Dissident is, by far, one of the most mature Wikipedians I've ever encountered. He is very civil, intelligent, highly familiar with policy, highly familiar with bureaucrat-related tasks, and is incredibly calm. I offered to nominate him a few months ago, and he was very grateful for the offer, but after some thinking he reckoned that it would be better to wait a while before running for bureaucratship. I am very, very pleased to see this request: when I supported Anonymous Dissident in his RfA, I believe I could have given him a better rationale for supporting, for he well and truly exceeded my expections for him. I cannot think of a better candidate for bureaucratship. Consider this a very strong support. Acalamari 00:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
32. I asked about this like 4 months ago. I do not change my stance. Xclamation point 01:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support - Dureo (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Very, very, very strongly support — Yes. Anonymous Dissident is one of Wikipedia's stand-out administrators, helping out wherever he is needed without provoking needless drama or other nonsense. He is mature, friendly, and down-to-earth, and maintains a good sense of humour to boot (and knows when to use it). He has significant experience in all of the major 'crat areas and I am willing to trust his judgment determining consensus upon closing an RfA. I have the utmost confidence in Anonymous Dissident, and to be honest, I can't think of an editor better qualified for the job than he is. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
35. No issues with trust, no issues with judgement and I have full faith that he will use the tools wisely. —Dark ^talk 05:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Reasonable answer to my question, but great answer to Q10. Skilled at username bits so no problems. Pedro :  Chat  07:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Support, good luck --Chris 10:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support I rarely !vote in RfX these days, but Anon Diss would (will?) be a welcome addition to our ranks. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
39. One metapedian I have a lot of time for. Skomorokh 11:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Definitely 100%. Kingturtle (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
41. Support. Just a note that three of the active bureaucrats have voted here, and a fourth has commented... You folks might want to use your handy mailing list to make sure you don't all vote expecting someone else to close :-P I like the answers to number 7, myself. Shows consideration of the current consensus on 'crat promotions. Avruch ^T 12:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Support I've been waiting for this. AD is a great user, and an asset to the community. He'd make a great 'crat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfect Proposal (talk • contribs)
43. Support While we don't always agree, I've seen him around and had a positive enough opinion of him that I can't think of anything that anybody will find to oppose over.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Good level of productivity, AD is quite down to earth and seems to strive for equity. Nice job clerking too. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Support We need some more 'crats right now, and he's as good a candidate as you could ask for. Daniel Case (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support, does great work at WP:CHU already, will be benefit us all if he has the "special" crat tools rather than "only" his "ordinary" admin tools. There is no shortage of work for crats and there is certainly no shortage of need for them, so I'm glad that such a good candidate offered himself for it. Regards SoWhy 14:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support - Great candidate. KnightLago (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support definitely. Thingg^⊕⊗ 18:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. A very capable and reliable admin, he should make a great 'crat. Rje (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Support - extremely capable and he has my full trust. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Support I'll trust this user with the tools. AniMate^talk 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Strong support A user I would definitely trust with the tools, capable, reliable, and friendly admin. I see no reason not to emphatically support the candidacy, and the candidate wherever this ends up going. --Neskaya _talk 21:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Duh - I wish we had snow closes for obvious promotions. //roux   21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Support I trust this user. Húsönd 21:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
55. First support of anything in five months support. A great addition and a truly positive addition to the ranks. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Good candidate, good question answers ϢereSpielChequers 23:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Definitely. Until It Sleeps 23:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Ditto. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 23:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Strong support. Absolutely. Fantastic candidate, will be a great 'crat. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
61. Support - the 'crats are few. DougsTech (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    ROTFL, thank you for making Wikipedia more colorful with your unique view. :D--Caspian blue 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

62. Support a good candidate --Stephen 00:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
63. Support: What an extraordinary editor. South Bay (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Support. Knows him well and trusts him. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
65. Support without qualms, reservations, concerns, or doubts. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 01:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. Impressive article work. Artichoker^[talk] 02:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
67. Support per A Nobody. No not really, just support because i trust his judgment, and that's all that matters. Wizardman 02:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
68. Strong support Excellent YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
69. Support - Three of your answers to number seven were those that I strongly agree with. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
70. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
71. Support Preternaturally mature, as expressed below. Durova^Charge! 03:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
72. Support - excellent answers to the questions and a fine contribution and admin record. Euryalus (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
73. Support scrupulous, sensible and trustworthy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
74. Strong support - no brainer fr33kman -s- 04:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
75. Support per my standards. I certainly trust AD as an admin, no reason not to trust him as a bureaucrat. faithless (^speak) 05:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
76. the_undertow ^talk 05:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
77. Support You're certainly trustworthy for the job. And I love your taste in signature fonts. Ray^Talk 06:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
78. AUSCABAL support. Extremely fine user who is deserving and capable. A rare bird. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
79. Support - Positive contributor in multiple varied capacities. Builds the 'pedia. Cirt (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. Took you long enough... · AndonicO ^Engage. 10:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
81. Support Nine times out of ten I find JayHenry's comments to be dead on the money; I guess this is the one in ten. AD may occasionally have rash impulses but I don't recall the last time they translated to rash actions (and I have a long memory). Yomangani^talk 11:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
82. Support Certainly. :) Fantastic answers to Q's, has more than enough tenure and experience. GlassCobra 12:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
83. Support - Good answers to the questions. Giving the bureaucrat tools to an experienced and sensible contributor isn't very dangerous, and we do need more bureaucrats. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
84. Support to cancel out the absurd AFD Oppose below. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    Just to clarify, do you support the candidate himself? –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    Oh absolutely. I love the guy. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

85. Support youngamerican (wtf?) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)]
86. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
87. Support No issues. Good luck. America69 (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Certainly. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
89. Support Well deserved. Eusebeus (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
90. Support Of course - extrordinary contributions! Royalbroil 23:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
91. Support - I'm glad my ban ended in time, so I could express my support. :) Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
92. Support - Sure, will do fine with the tools. Cheers, Razorflame 00:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
93. Support - You'll do fine. No problems here. Jd027 (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
94. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
95. support JoshuaZ (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
96. Support لennavecia 05:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
97. Support I think you will do just fine, good luck! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
98. Support, no resaon not to. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
99. Almost WP:100 but of all the bleeding bad luck...Support Does a pretty good job as admin, see no reason not to trust. Cheers. 15:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperatorExercitus (talk • contribs)
100. Full support. →Na·gy 15:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
101. Support - no problems. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
102. Support — R² 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
103. Was hoping to be #100 but had to fix a kitchen light and missed it support Active in the right areas, dependable and will be fine. Bencherlite^Talk 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
104. Support with such an experience level, I am surprised that he hasn't been given the duties.  Marlith (Talk)  16:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
105. Support for an experienced, level-headed editor with solid credentials. - Dravecky (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
106. Support Trustworthy and dedicated to the project. Steven Walling (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
107. Support answers to questions and seems well prepared for the task. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
108. Support Of course. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
109. No problem. Malinaccier (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
110. Support. Based both on my interactions with Anonymous Dissident and his replies to the questions above, I think he will do a good job. WJBscribe (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
111. Support; solid responses to questions, impressive project experience, and copious clue and maturity. AGK 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
112. Support -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
113. Support, no problems here. ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
114. (edit conflict) YES. Yes. Yes. Yessie, yessun', yessir o-yes yes a-yesyes a-yes BAM BOO. (Translation: SKIP THE RFB AND MAKE HIM A CRAT ALREADY!!! :P) →Dyl@n620 00:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
115. Support As AnonDiss' RfA nominator (which passed with over 150 supports BTW), I am shocked that he didn't ask me to nom him again. But meh what's the difference, he'll make an excellent 'crat. :D Maxim_(talk) 02:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
116. Keegan^talk 04:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
117. Support - my first support in a RfB ever. As I tend to think there are enough Bs around. But we are growing a lot, and attrition is not to be ignored, and this a great candidate.--Cerejota (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
118. Support rootology (C)(T) 15:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
119. Strong support - Duh. iMatthew // talk // 20:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
120. Support. I think this candidate is competent enough to become a bureaucrat here. Ruslik (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
121. Mid-grade support I'll have $20 on pump 5... Oh, wrong queue. I typed up my neutral, read through it, and realized it sounded oddly like a support... so it's here now. He's done all good work so far, although the fact that he's only got 2 years of WP under his waistline (idioms are weird like that). Overall, sounds like a good candidate for being a crat. I haven't seen him around much, but when I have, it was a good experience. He doesn't have any get-up-in-someone's-ass-about-something skills (from what I've seen), which could be good or bad. (concluding parenthetical statement) flaminglawyer 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
122. I commented on AD's first RFA that his ability to learn impressed me very much. I don't think that has changed therefore I support taking this to the next level of trust. Agathoclea (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
123. Support. No issues. — TKD::{talk} 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
124. Support You've got my trust. ThemFromSpace 01:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
125. Support Anonymous Dissident would certainly make a fine bureaucrat and we need more. Cenarium (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
126. Support, rather strongly. VX!^talk 04:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
127. Support. Even-headed/handed and experienced. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
128. Support - I've seen this candidate's work, and I fully trust him. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
129. It's a pleasure for me to support this user. :) Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
130. Support; without hesitation. — Coren ^(talk) 15:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

     Well, you did hesitate 5 days... :) Majorly talk 15:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

     Not.  :-) I noticed the RfB all of 15 seconds before !voting in it, if that much. "Hey, an RfB. Anonymous Dissident?!" *click support section edit button* *scroll, scroll, scroll* *typeity-type-type* *submit* — Coren ^(talk) 21:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

131. Support Good answers to the questions. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
132. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
133. Support I'm pleased to add my support! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
134. Support Long time solid user with good judgment. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
135. Support — Qualified, clueful; no reservations on my part. —Animum (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
136. Support Only seen great things from this admin, definitely trustworthy! -Senseless!... says you, says me 02:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
137. Support Trustworthy admin, solid reputation. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
138. Support Reassuringly nice answers to questions and, from the general gestalt of comments on various WP talk pages, I have a generally positive feeling toward this editor's good sense. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 05:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
139. Support, has exhibited good judgment in his wikicareer and might as well be allowed to use it in a few more areas. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
140. Pile-on Support — glad I noticed this before close. Not a worry. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
141. Oppose too young to be a crat. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I'm sorry AD. I think you're preternaturally mature, but I still think you're more impulsive and temperamental than I'd feel comfortable with. I'm worried that you think RFA is broken and that the goal of RFA is to produce more admins; I worry how that would influence your action as 'crat. Finally, I'm concerned about your civility answer. Too many candidates and their wikifriends interpret most opposition as personal attacks (when the vast majority of it is merely personal evaluation which is inevitable in a forum that exists to evaluate persons). Someone inevitably paints any discussion as badgering. We do need 'crats to take a stand -- in the opposite direction. --JayHenry (t) 15:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

   "I'm worried that you think... that the goal of RFA is to produce more admins..." Just what is the goal of RFA then? Fewer admins? Majorly talk 18:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not being picky - I genuinely have no idea what that meant either. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

   More, as in, a higher rate. We agree that RFA is currently producing admins. If more admins were promoted in 2009 than 2008, however, this is not ipso facto an improvement -- and because of attrition, resignation, etc. we may indeed see a net decrease in the number of administrators. This would not mean RFA is broken. --JayHenry (t) 20:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Regretful oppose. I would support per User:Anonymous Dissident/Awards, but I have to oppose per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stonehenge_in_popular_culture (which we cannot do per Wikipedia:Merge and delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional Child Prodigies, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyles in fiction (if we went by strength of arguments and not a head count, it would have been a “keep”), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimus Prime (person) (4th nomination) (a WP:PERNOM), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm (merge discussions should take place on talk pages), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlayStation 3 technical problems (again, please see Wikipedia:Merge and delete), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stonehenge in popular culture (another please see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). Now, I realize bureaucrats aren’t closing AfDs and all, but how one argues in those reflects how one judges things in general and the above examples give me a pause when it comes to judgment. Anyway, good job earning so many awards and never being blocked (I don’t count blocking and unblocking yourself as a block!). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

   Longish discussion moved to the talk page. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose per A nobody's excellent research. Ikip (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

   Excellent research? A nobody has the same oppose for everyone when it comes to RFA and or RFB.America69 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

   What do you mean "same oppose"? His opposes are never blanket, as the AfD links always change to the ones in which they both participated and disagreed. Artichoker^[talk] 00:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

   Feel free to disagree with his !vote, but please, don't incorrectly claim that he uses a boilerplate oppose. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

   I hope that wasn't directed at me, because I agree with you. Artichoker^[talk] 20:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

   It was directed at America69, I just forgot to level it right on the indent. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose, Almost Neutral per A Nobody. Down from regular oppose to weak oppose per all the praises of his temperament, but i'm a bit concerned about the judgement in those xfd closes. If AD can explain the closes in question in the Qs, i'd be willing to change my mind. When it comes to 'crats though, the precision in judgment has to be near machine level for me. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

   That is disturbing. We need less crats who use machine-counts and tallies and more crats who can actually understand a consensus. bibliomaniac15 03:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

   That's just it. I want to believe that all users understand consensus, but there is a large amount of discrepancy as to what it means in discussions. So for me with 'crats, the judgement process has to be nearly without any emotion or bias whatsoever. basically NPOV on steroids. A's diffs made me wonder here with AD. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

   Hey Spinach Monster. I think the misunderstanding here stems from your use of the term "machine level". On the one hand, I think you meant to say that 'crats should be unbiased and neutral, but the reference to "machines" made it sound as if you were saying the process of consensus-judgement requires mechanical counting or tallying (which it shouldn't). Am I right in saying that may be where the confusion lies? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Leaning support You certainly seem to have enough edits, and you are definitely not too reliant on tools like Huggle and Twinkle. If you could show me some instances where you successfully settled a conflict, I'll be more than happy to switch to support.--Iner22 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

   Are you sure you haven't mistaken this for a request for adminship? Automated editing and conflict resolution are generally matters for that forum, although that doesn't necessarily make them invalid for this one. Avruch ^T 12:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

   No, but to me, promoting someone to a bureaucrat is a big deal, and I'd like to be completely sure before I vote.--Iner22 (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral I've not seen him around much, so don't know him to be a good 'crat'.--Caspian blue 01:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps you'd take a few moments to check his contrib record then? --Dweller (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral I do personally oppose the opposition !votes as I think they are immaterial to this RFB, (I argue that they would be in the original RFA, but I am not for holding users' feet to the fire continuously until they fall off.) but I would like to hear responses from the last two questions (Q16 and particularly Q17) before deciding. Am leaning towards a support, though. MuZemike 05:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)