Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Dweller

Dweller

Voice your opinion (talk page) (54/8/3); Scheduled to end 10:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Well I'm not too sure where to begin. I bumped into Dweller over two years ago editing the odd cricket and football article and since then I've had the pleasure of collaborating with him extensively, including the production of maybe a dozen featured articles. During that time it's been painfully obvious to me that he would make a good admin (his RFA passed easily and unopposed with 106 supports back in May last year) and an even better bureaucrat. Since his successful RFA he's gone from strength to strength, not only using his admin tools flawlessly (to block vandals, delete nonsense and to close out numerous AFDs) but he's also been active in the more challenging and thought-provoking area of dispute resolution.

A good example of his patient and level-headed approach was at the Copa del Rey article where a seemingly trivial, yet important issue was resolved by him, single-handedly over a month-long period. He's a frequent lurker at the Village Pump, the Reference Desks and, significantly, WP:RFA but it doesn't stop him contributing heavily at both WP:FLC and WP:FAC. He makes regular contributions across all namespaces and he leaves them improved from when he found them.

I apologise for a cricket analogy, but Dweller is the perfect cross between Ian Botham and Geoffrey Boycott, a world-class all-rounder who goes about his business in a careful, thoughtful and considerate manner. His determination to see the job done and his fair approach would make him an ideal bureaucrat. I humbly submit his candidacy for bureaucrat to the community for your consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'd like to thank TRM for his kind words and for persistently telling me I'm a good candidate for RfB. Even if this fails, as I suspect it might, I value his high opinion of me. I'd like to think I'd make a good Crat and would do my best to be an asset, while continuing my other contributions to the Project. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that my lack of participation at WT:RFA has become an issue.

I read this page most days that I'm on-wiki, in the vain hope that one day someone might find the magic bullet with which to cure 'the RfA problem'. Most of the time, I have little to say, as I see the same issues getting rehashed again and again, but occasionally I'll join in when I think it worthwhile.

For edit-counters among us, I have three contribs there so far this month, eight last month and four the month before, but, more importantly witness the detail of those recent contribs: that I was the fifth person to respond to the RfA Review questionnaire, the best thing I've yet seen float by at WT:RFA, which prompted this exuberant response. I've also spoken out against people harrassing Kurt, while in favour of non-dramatic resposes to him. I spoke of my experience of seeing successful candidates who aren't great content contributors These were contributions I thought useful and important. (I also made a few jokes; if they made anyone smile at that grim place, I did A Good Thing.)

I hate writing this, as it feels so petty, but here's an impassioned plea. Please, if you think I'll make a bad bureaucrat, and will make poor decisions, please do oppose me; but for lack of contributions to WT:RFA? Well, I struggle to understand that.

And finally, just for those who think I'm an FA factory with no interest in administrative duties, I present my log of mostly CSD work. To repeat what I've said elsewhere; it interferes not a jot with my article writing. And there you just see the deletions, not the homework I'll do before using my tools, or the often extensive manual rationales and comments I always leave for incorrect taggers and frequently leave for frustrated newbies (as oppposed to vandals). I would not be at RfB if I hadn't thought this through carefully and I do have both the time and will to get my hands dirty. --Dweller (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A. Yes, I have read and participated in a lot of debates on the subject in the last couple of years. There's a short answer and a longer answer to this question. The short answer is that Crats promote candidates when there is a consensus and do not when there is no such consensus.

The longer answer is more interesting, and it deals with how such consensus is to be gauged. The status quo is that we usually assume that candidates securing <70% support are deemed to have failed and those with >80% have succeeded and that in the grey area in between, there is a need for Crat assessment of whether there is indeed a consensus. However, Crats can also apply their consensus judging beyond those boundaries - they are not set in stone, but are "traditional rules of thumb" according to the delightful wording of the policy. So, I think that going outside of those parameters would be for exceptional cases only.

I think it's worth adding a word here about RfA generally. As a believer that RfA is neither broken, nor in any way ideal, I am open-minded to the concept of RfA reform and aware of various problems in the system. I welcome the ongoing research work into the process and hope it can help deliver some improvements.

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

A. I have followed and participated in some of the debates regarding difficult decisions. I know that the "Crat chats" are an excellent way to ensure that decisions are transparent and of the highest possible quality, but equally I know that some users groan when they hear that answer at RfB, as it's an easy cop-out. <grins>

So, here's my personal mantra on this score. I dislike controversy and spend vast amounts of my time here to minimising or eradicating drama. The key is for the community to see that decisions have been taken for specific, well-defined reasons. When closing contentious AfDs, for example, I have gone to great lengths to ensure that everyone knows why I have taken a particular decision. As well as reducing the chances of drama, there is a considerable benefit implicit, which is that if I'm wrong, which is really not all that impossible (!), it's easier for me to be argued down, having presented my reasoning. You can see a recent example of this at this contentious AfD that I closed.

I am all too painfully aware of my fallibility and am open to criticism. I'm more interested in getting things right, than being right.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I hope that I espouse those qualities in all my work here.

I think that a lot of this comes down to communicating with others. I am occasionally hard on candidates at RfA if I feel that they are uncommunicative, because wielding tools, IMHO, carries a responsibility for explaining their use, especially when someone may be aggrieved by a decision. Hopefully the fact that my admin work has not prompted any great dramas is a sign that I'm getting that right.

But I think the best factor here is my willingness to take criticism, learn from mistakes and, importantly, apologise when in the wrong is a good balance to the tools the community has granted me to-date.

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. Gosh yes, or I wouldn't be here.

I already spend a lot of time at RfA and a host of its satellites. I'm interested in usernames (my work at WP:RFCN was commented on at my RfA). As for Bots, well, I know little about Bots, but am good at (and get a curious pleasure from) reducing backlogs - since I passed RfA, I have spent a lot of time working on C:CSD, something I plan on continuing if I do pass this RfB. I plan to keep away from anything remotely contentious regarding Bot flagging, but, as I understand it, the demand is mostly for implementation of the recommendations of BAG and Crat discretion is the exception, rather than the rule.

Questions from Sumoeagle179

5. How would you have handled the ^demon and DHMO 3 rfas? Do you agree with their outcomes (assume DHMO did not withdraw), what would you have done?

A. ^demon resigned his bit uncontroversially, and could have requested it back without the need for RfA. Having undergone the rigours of RfA, I think that the community spoke fairly clearly that they did not consent to granting him back the tools. If I had been a Bureaucrat, that would have been my position in the Crat chat and if you’re asking me what would I have done if forced to make a unilateral decision, I would have closed the RfA as unsuccessful. However, I liked the way WjBscribe explained the decision and particularly the close attention to detail, eg noting the number of weak opposes etc.

DHMO is an interesting one. I have a get-out clause, in that I would not have closed it or contributed to any Crat Chat, because I could not guarantee I’d be impartial. As I wrote in my support !vote (enough on its own to persuade me to recuse myself) Giggy is a Wikipedian I “know” (online) and respect, and I threw him three questions in that RfA. If you’ll push me further, as you probably should, I’d say the following: at the time the RfA was withdrawn, the percentage support was extremely high and the numbers of Wikipedians supporting it were too. However, IIRC, supports were already >100 before new, serious grounds for oppose began to influence the RfA. If Giggy hadn’t withdrawn and it were artificially down to me alone, I’d have extended the length of the RfA, to allow supporters time to consider and allow the allegations to be fully discussed. But if this were non-artificial, I’d have been arguing in a Crat chat for the RfA to be closed as no consensus and restarted afresh, (if DHMO had agreed to continue to stand) because I’d have no wish for the Crats to be interpreting consensus from such an unusual RfA where so many supported before serious grounds for opposition were uncovered.

6. Please list the Featured content you significantly contributed to. Which ones did you nominate?

A. This feels a bit like showing off, but I'll answer the question with red cheeks. 1*, 2, 3*, 4*, 5*, 6*, 7, 8*, 9, 10*, 11*, 12*, 13* and 14. I've also done some successful work at FAR and, as a FAC regular, have major contribs to a number of other FAs and FLs, but I'll just stick to 'claiming' the above.

I've asterisked the ones I nominated. Some were co-noms with The Rambling Man. I also nominated Bodyline, following FAR work.

No need to be red-cheeked, you should be proud of your featured content. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

7. I see you have RFA experience. Do you have any UAA or CHU experience? How will you relate with BAG?

A. Note: I've asked Sumoeagle if my answer to Q4 suffices.

NOTE: Not really. I'm talking about what your PRIOR experience at UAA and CHU are. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from MBisanz

8. How would you close these RfA/Bs? Your only options are "Successful" and "Unsuccessful, as even if it goes to a crat chat, you must express an opinion there as to the final determination of the outcome.

A. That's a lot of RfA/Bs. In real circumstances I would take time reviewing each one before pontificating, and the same applies here. As such, I'll be answering this question bit by bit. As requested, they'll be one-worders. Note: In reality, I would have had to recuse myself in some, where I participated.

• Carnildo 3 61%: Unsuccessful
• Krimpet 67%: Successful
• Danny 68%: Unsuccessful*
• Ryulong 3 69%: Unsuccessful
• Gracenotes 74%: Unsuccessful**
• Rob Church 76%: Successful
• Cimon avaro's RfB 79%: Decline to answer***

*Unsuccessful without having read the Crat Chat, but Successful having done so. In terms of how you've structured the question, the proper answer seems to be Unsuccessful, as if I'd have been the first voice at that Crat Chat, my stance would have been Unsuccessful. **And, in this case, not convinced by arguments at Crat Chat for Successful. ***I decline to answer this. So much has changed since this RfB that I would not want anyone to judge me on the basis of my judging of it. You might as well judge a doctor on his ability to diagnose a chimp.

Note from Dweller: I appreciate that as I complete this extremely difficult and time-consuming task, the sum total of my uncomfortable squirming and head-scratching could make me look random, whimsical and unreliable. After all, "what's he doing, promoting a 67% but not a 69%"? But I'll take this purgatorical experience because even if it costs me support (perhaps even the ultimate failure of the RfB) it's actually probably very good practice for Cratship where numbers are guides, but not masters. And, after all, if I wasn't prepared to stick my neck out in a hypothetical exercise where at worst I look daft, well, what kind of a Crat would I be when making decisions that affect others? So, really, my only apology is the length of time it's taking me to complete this question. --Dweller (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

9. One of of the crats elected in 2004 has yet to use any of the crat tools and others have used them very rarely. Do you think the crat position should have a minimum level of activity? Would you trust a crat who hasn't looked at RFA in four years to close one?

A. I think anyone asking to become a Crat should be doing so with an intention to be active and use the Crat tools. Certainly I do. I can't conceive of a meaningful, objective way of interpreting "minimum level of activity", but if I passed RfB I'd be prioritising Crat work, as there are so few active who are able to help.

Your second question's an interesting one. Assuming we could definitively know that they hadn't (I sometimes look at AfDs or RfAs without participating) I'd expect a returning, inactive Crat to ensure they'd familiarised themselves with matters before they went in with both feet. As well as checking to see if policy had changed, I'd want to them to check if the unwritten constitution (sorry, I'm British) of community feel for RfA had changed substantially. This can be done in discussion with other Crats and by catching up by reading old / participating in a number of new RfAs. At least, this is what I would do if I were a returning, inactive Crat. And to be clear, a) I don't intend to be inactive as an editor, never mind admin or Crat and b) I'd follow that pattern for an awful lot less than "four years" of inactivity.

10. Currently, no editor has ever passed RfB with a % less than 85%. At the same time, four of the six Arbcommers elected in December 2007 had support %s below 80%. Do you see any potential role for crats, with their high level of community trust, in the Dispute Resolution processes? Would you accept or feel it appropriate to ask the crats as a group to assist in DR?

A. No and no.

Crats are promoted on their ability to assess consensus. My experience of dispute resolution is that the key skills are quite different and no Crat should have been promoted on the basis of their dispute resolution skills. So, no.

Questions from Chris

11. Assuming this brfa continues smoothly with no objections would you be willing to flag? What do you think the requriments are for flagging an admin bot?

A. See my comments above about bots. Irridescent's concern worries me as a bot noob, so it would be inappropriate for me to promote this bot; I'd leave it to a more experienced Crat. If I passed RfB, the requirements would be a) for BAG to have approved it and b) for me not to see any potentially significant issues that might make an experienced Crat think twice.

Update: Just to clarify my answer, when I said "leave it to a more experienced Crat" I wouldn't just ignore the B/RfA but raise it at BN or on the talkpage of another Crat. I think I answered this a little hastily and assumed too much inference on the word "noob". As with all areas of Wikipedia, at some point a noob becomes experienced. I'd tread cautiously at first, learning my way in. I wouldn't want to remain a noob for long... it's embarrassing! Seriously, if I may compare this to my work at AfD, when I first got my mop, I only closed uncontentious AfDs. As I got more experienced, I began doing more complex ones, and checked (sometimes offline) with experienced Admins that they thought I was doing OK. Once I was sure of myself, I was comfortable flying solo, like the AfD I cited above. This seems sensible to me. In my answer above, I concentrated too much on explaining what bothered me in the B/RfA and not enough on how I would deal with it. Apologies for shortcutting. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

12. What do you think the BAG's role is in bot approvals? Do crats listen to the BAG or is it the other way round?

A. I believe that it's normal for the Crats to accept BAG's recommendations, but that Crats are empowered to exercise their judgement here too. I would hope that in a case of difficulty, it would be a matter of discussion, rather than BAG "listen"ing to the Crat/s.

Optional question from Keepscases

13. Do you believe that "Official Ipswich Town FC Gyneocologist" is an acceptable username?

A: It'd uncontroversially fall foul of WP:IU as ITFC is a men's team, so it cannot possibly be true. --Dweller (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Pedantic Moment: ITFC has a women's team too. </football nerd> – iridescent 21:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Über pedantic moment: They're called Ipswich Town Ladies :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And, they're not formally affiliated with ITFC. Nor, last time I looked, did football clubs have official gynacologists... not even Ipswich... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Jonathunder

14. Do you think a bureaucrat should !vote on an RfA and then close it? Would you ever do this?

A: I think people should have the highest expectations of probity with Bureaucrats. I would not close an RfA that I'd participated in in any significant way (ie questions, comments etc, but not counting gnoming).

It is possible that outrageous circumstances might mean that an RfA is long overdue closure and the other Crats are mysteriously unavailable and don't seem likely to return in a hurry. In those circumstances, I'd probably close a clearly uncontentious RfA that I'd participated in, but I'd really rather not. This is a fairly unlikely scenario, but there's only 12 actively using their tools currently, and TRM is about to disappear for the longish term. So for my money, it's a scenario I'd like to see become even less likely by us finding more Crats. Easier said than done, though. --Dweller (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Question from Avruch

15. Since the reliability and usefulness of CAT:AOR is in serious question, I won't be asking about it on adminship requests. On the other hand, CAT:BOR remains untested and mostly unpopulated. If your request here is successful, do you plan to add yourself to that category? Will you committ to immediately establishing criteria for a potential recall? If not, why?

A. My views on XOR (if I might coin a phrase) are complex and, hmm, muddled. Which is why I've not yet added myself to AOR. You can see a sample of my confused thinking on this topic in my response to the RfA Review. I have the highest regard for those who do add themselves to XOR, but especially in the light of the current debates regarding the very existence of the Category, I think it would be daft to commit either way on this at the moment. Sorry if that's rather an unsatisfactory reply; I'm unsatisfied with it myself right now. --Dweller (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Dweller: Dweller (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

• It's fascinating to me that, of the 4 opposers as of this timestamp, it is unanimously decided that you are terrific. All four of them, in fact, use the word "great". Not one of them turns up any problems with your editing, your style, or your motivations. Tis a shame that they think you are great, see that you are willing to do crat work (you wouldn't accept a nom otherwise, I presume), and yet they can't support. Silly really. And I'm honestly surprised at who is in the oppose section. 4 editors that I respect and admire. Keeper ǀ 76 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's a strange logic that we should rather have 10 crats who are completely overworked than have 50 crats who all are great but each have not much to do (judging from comments like "[...] is the only place we need bureaucrats at the moment [...]"). You are correct Keeper of course, as I think too that Dweller has shown remarkable dedication and I don't see a reason to believe he won't make himself familiar with the crat-areas if he was made one. But we have to accept that everyone has the right to decide with whatever reasons they think. It is for the closing user to decide if they are really worthy opposes... :-) SoWhy 20:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SoWhy. My intent wasn't to change someone's !vote, simply to point out that the !votes seemed fascinating in their reasonings. 4 people that think Dweller is great, 4 people that are opposing because of it/in spite of it. Sigh. Keeper ǀ 76 20:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I never wanted to imply that you wanted to change someone's vote. I just wanted to say that I share your concerns. As with admins, I think crats should be chosen based on if they would be an asset to the project with more tools and I think if someone does "great work" he/she should not be opposed just because he does not participate everywhere. Participating in WT:RFA is not a crat-skill, it's a user-skill. Being able to act based on consensus built there, i.e. read and understand WT:RFA, that is (and I think we can safely say Dweller is capable to do that). But as you have noticed, not everyone has the same standards. SoWhy 20:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you were implying that I was implying anything, implication wise :-). And WT:RFA isn't at all about crat skills, or even user skills. That talkpage is where non-admins go to get admins to recognize their zOMG cool signatures so that when they decide to run for RFA they get support votes...:-) (why am I so cynical today??? Keeper ǀ 76 20:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he's a terrific editor, and great admin - neither of those things means he deserves to be a bureaucrat. The fact is... there is no problem, but there's no "bureaucrat spark" - there are just some people I feel would suit the role better than others. Dweller is not one of those people. His work on articles and in admin tasks is highly useful and appreciated, but has nothing to do with bureaucratship. As Ryan said, we can afford to be picky. Majorly ^talk 00:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I'll play along. He is a "terrific editor", and he is a "great admin". Lo and behold, he wants to be a crat, (gasp!) after being cajoled and encouraged by a nominator, TRM. After much discussion, Dweller decided to accept a nomination, in order to meet the additional responsibilities endowed on a 'crat (which honestly, between you, me and a tree, are not much at all). So if cratship is meaningless (really, you have to admit that it is - anyone can close an RFA per consensus, CHU is mindnumbingly easy and our newest newbies could get it within minutes, and botflagging is equally easy if botwork is "your bag"), and a dedicated, solid editor and admin actually wants to be one, why get in the way? Because there are no backlogs right now? Poppycock. Boloney-sauce. We all know that 'crats retire and leave in equal numbers (proportionately) to other editors. Dweller says he won't leave, or ignore crat work. There is absolutely no negative to making Dweller a crat, unless you've convinced yourself that Dweller would be a bad one. That, as I'm sure you'd agree, seeing as how you find Dweller to be "terrific" and "great" is a stretch at best. Keeper ǀ 76 02:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 03:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

<--unindent. Keeper - interesting reading but inaccurate. I can't see where I described Dweller as "great" or similar. For sure, all my interaction has been positive, but I didn't actually couch my oppose as a "you're incredible but no". Lack of WT:RFA edits killed Avi's first RFB and, whilst I agree with Jennavecia that it's an utter cess pit, input is still needed for 'crats (my opinion). Further, at Dwellers (unanimous) RFA he specifically indicated in his Q1 a desire to use admin tools in a fairly prolific and widespread manner. His admin stats (as per the talk page of this RFB) indicate that this has not been the case (again, in my personal view, and edit count be damned, of admin activity). Let's be honest - this isn't personal. The guy is a great editor and admin. No question. But my understanding is that RFB is not asking us to affirm people as being "great". Pedro :  Chat  21:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, Pedro, I didn't mean to mischaracterize your post. You didn't explicitly use the term "great", I thought I had read it. You've used it now, but that's besides the point. Leaving this RfB to run, per Dweller's request on my talkpage. Keeper ǀ 76 22:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm interesting in seeing in Dweller give more reasoning to his closes in Q8; I'm interested to see his thought process as a bureaucrat, and not simple Successfuls/Unsucessfuls. Maxim (☎) 13:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Seems it's been accepted and all. Good to go? Strong support, then. Dweller is here to build an encyclopedia and will do the job well. —Giggy 09:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
2. The NCFC Axis shall rule Wikipedia! Support. – iridescent 10:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Support as nominator. I've said all I need to say I think. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Nice guy. Epbr123 (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. I sounded him out about a nomination a couple of months ago but he felt unready. I sincerely thought he would be a good crat then and I do now. He contributes with a consistently high level of expertise at whatever he turns his hand to, maintaining a calm and collected approach at all times. The trust of the community in his ability to make consensus based decisions is evidenced by his role as a director at WP:FLRC. All in all, an excellent candidate. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Support As per the nomination, which brought forth a very fine example of coolheadedness, civility and willingness to mediate. Also, as for Q2's example of a very good AfD-close, which he obviously took very seriously and which has not spawned a Deletion review, as far as I can see, which is quite unusual for such a close and serves as a prime example that noone disagreed with that, even those who voted to keep it. SoWhy 11:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Absolutely; would function as a great bureaucrat. Anthøny 11:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Yes but You expect this to fail? Wheres the confidence? Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 11:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Even if it turns out he's got the flair of "Sir" Geoffrey and the work ethic of Sir Ian he'll still be a credit to the project. Nick mallory (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Support, I believe Dweller has amassed sufficient XP to level up. Neıl ☄ 13:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Support, steady, responsible, knowledgeable, civil and a top content producer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong support - Dweller, who mentored me from a bastard into the semi-bastardal form I inhabit today (!), consistently makes clear, level-headed decisions - the the correct ones, too! - even when the editing gets hot. He knows what he's doing and I am pleased to wish him good luck! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Content editor first, admirable admin second. Always comes across level-headed and intelligent, never demeaning or belittling. Knows what consensus is and how to interpret it. What's not to love? Excellent candidate! Keeper ǀ 76 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. I see no problems with giving this guy the 'crat bit. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. Dweller clearly knows how to interpret "Consensus", and he has the required experience. Axl (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
16. Support: I see no problems after a look into this candidate. I don't agree with either (#1, #2) opposes. I see no reason to promote crats only when they are needed as some seem to imply is necessary. Also, I can't blame people for not engaging in extensive discussion at WT:RFA - its a madhouse, and most of it is constant complaining about process, with no real ideas for improvement, thus, discussion there usually seems like a wasted effort at times, IMHO. (I read that page regularly, but don't typically enter into the discussions - that doesn't mean I don't know what's going on). - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. I love the fact that he did not simply jump at the first opportunity he was offered to run for 'cratship. I also like the fact that he seems level-headed, is extremely wikismart, and is an editor first. I find the two current opposes quite unconvincing, and therefore this is quite an easy one to support. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
18. Support I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be a 'crat :) —[[::User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]] ([[::User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]]) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. An experienced and responsible editor who will no doubt make a good bureaucrat. Nev1 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Indeed A fine candidate Ecoleetage (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
21. Support He's a wonderful admin, and I see nothing to say that he won't be a great 'crat. Leonard^(Bloom) 19:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - You are great admin, a great contributor, who I am quite sure will make you a good bureaucrat. You are trust worthy, civil, and have a high level of experience with Wikipedia which should fit the demands of a bureaucrat. I am quite happy with your answers so far, I see you do have quite a lot of experience with RfA. Lack of massive input at WT:RFA does not concern me that much, it is a mad house and the productivity of a lot of the discussion there is debatable. At WP:CHU I think you can manage without much prior experience and with your attributes you should "fit in" there without any issues. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
23. I've always thought Dweller was very reasonable and easy to get along with. He's not kidding about being open to criticism, he even solicits it. And the emphasis on transparency and willingness to discuss is great. Answers to questions were very reasonable. delldot talk 20:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Support as an admin that writes articles?! Very friendly and willing to help, too. Good qualities. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
25. Of course. I could have sworn that I had already supported, but it wouldn't matter, you deserve two votes from me. Although he works hard, might not see need for crat tools. --LordSunday 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
26. Support A great candidate. Shows a lot of qualities I really like. Being a bureaucrat isn't so terrifyingly difficult as to cause obscenely hard standards. There are no actual problems, as far as I can see. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
27. Support trustworthy. The only reason crat' was split of from admin was due to reasons of trust, day to day admin work is often more difficult than changing usernames and flagging accounts. - Icewedge (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Support bureaucrats are just admins who haven't pissed too many people off. RMHED (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
29. Support - Keepscases (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - miranda 03:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
31. I read your answers to the questions, and, it seems you know your stuff. As noted below, you're a great editor, and admin. At some point, the backlogs will pick back up, and, I sincerely hope that we will have someone like you to help out. It costs nothing to make a great admin a crat. SQL^{Query me!} 05:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
32. Strong support a strong editing history through the fundamentals of Wikipedia is a the best qualification. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Heavens to Murgatroyd! Don't think a fine editor and admin will go mad if he becomes a bureaucrat, even.John Z (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
34. Support There's nothing here that says to me "this guy will make a great bureaucrat", but there's nothing here that says to me "this guy will make a bad bureaucrat". I've reviewed his contributions, and I think he will be a good bureaucrat. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
35. Support I think the guy will be a great bureaucrat. At least his philosophy is very close to mine Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Support reasonable, thoughtful and has an eye on the bigger picture. no brainer for mine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
37. Support. I trust Dweller, and I trust his judgement. Karanacs (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Support - Dweller is a name I recognize. I, too, trust his judgment. I can't fault a guy for not commenting on the cesspool that is WT:RFA, and I think his responses to questions here and the questionnaire at WP:RREV show understanding of the RFA process and the 'crat position. Will he work in CHU? Who knows. Can he be trusted to close RFAs? I believe so. Will he abuse these new tools? I think definitely not. It's my opinion that any help is a benefit. For that reason, I literally have no reason to oppose. That is, however, not why I support. I think he'll make a good 'crat, so I support for that reason. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
39. Support - Avruch ^T 15:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Dweller is a very reliable, well trusted and conscientious editor. It is clear that he has the ability to judge consensus and that he has the trust of the community. That there is a perceived lack of demand for crats at the moment is, for me, almost irrelavent. This could change, it could not, but there will always be a need for a crat to help a hand at CHU/RFA. I for one watch WT:RFA but rarely comment, given the circular and increasingly irrelavent nature of the discussions going on there. Woody (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
41. Support The support arguments make a lot of sense. The oppose arguments do not seem very relevant. Martinp (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
42. Oppose because candidate is a Norwich City supporter. Seriously though, is it really going to harm the project if this RfB passes? IMHO, the answer is no! So I in fact support this RfB. John Sloan (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
43. Support. The bureaucrat tools are not a big deal. They are just of such a nature that not all admins should have them. To me the main criterion for bureaucrat is that the editor should have been a good administrator and not seem to be an unusual or eccentric character who would do funny things with the tools. These criteria are abundantly met. Anyway we need more bureaucrats, and newly-elected bureaucrats are much more active than the older ones. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
44. Support as Sysop—>'Crat is less of a big deal than User—>Sysop. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. The bar for adminship is high as it is. For my money, any admin who maintains as high a level of community trust as Dweller has is certainly worth giving the bureaucrat tools to as well. I have no concerns. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
46. Levelheaded, trustworthy, and values content. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
47. Strong Support - wow, a user actually giving honest answers. How can I not support this? --T-rex 23:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
48. Support. Khoikhoi 02:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
49. Support Sounds good to me. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 03:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
50. Support The first four opposes are all made by users for whose abilities I have the highest regard, but here I cannot agree with them. Both from personal past interactions with Dweller and from looking through his edit history, I am convinced that he will make a conscientious and effective bureaucrat. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 09:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
51. Support as Rjd0060 AKAF (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. Thoughtful and trustworthy contributor. Dweller is well qualified for 'cratship. Moondyne 14:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
53. Support Per the comment above that the move from an admininstrator to a bureaucrat is less of a challenge / not as big of a step as the move from a registered user to an administrator. I see no major concerns with this candidate. --Winger84 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
54. Support per [1] and [2], but oppose per [3]. Two to one, means the tie breaker goes to support!  :) I also like that the candidate is a featured article contributor who has never been blocked. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. RfAs are at an all time low. There's nothing in this nomination explaining how Dweller would make a good bureaucrat. Sure, he's a great admin and editor, but there's nothing here that says to me "this guy will make a great bureaucrat", which is the point of this nomination. Majorly ^talk 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   Level-headed decision makers are ideal for closing out difficult RFAs. An excellent editor who has a great understanding of policy (and moreover, an ability and desire to learn more) would make for someone who would be more than capable of changing usernames and flagging bots. It would seem more profitable to judge Dweller's capabilities on the on his answers (and better still ask your own questions) rather than rely solely on the nomination statement. Secondly, we have only twelve active 'crats right now. Whether you think I've been active enough or not, I'm still classed as an "active 'crat" but I'm going to be taking an unavoidable and very long wikibreak in a couple of months so that number will drop to 11 for an ever-increasing number of editors and an ever-expanding Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   I think his responses to the above questions demonstrate a high level of competence in bureaucrat areas. Dweller contributes in a balanced and thoughtful manner; that much is obvious from a standard sweep of his contributions. If we don't promote a candidate with those qualities, I don't know who we should. Anthøny 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   Just in case people don't get it, the image means that I'm not going to change my mind, no matter how much people try to persuade me. I have quite strong feelings about bureaucrats - adminship is one thing which I'm much more lenient with, but bureaucratship requires more. I'm not going to keep looking at this page either. Majorly ^talk 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   Rebutting would be more productive. But yes, your right to an opinion is respected. *toddles off* Anthøny 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   Apologies for butting in, but surely arguing with an opinion is the best way of respecting it. The only sort of opinion for which I don't have any respect is the one whose owner declares "No matter what you say I shall not change my mind". (I make no comment on this request in particular: only a plea for conversation and exchange of ideas, rather than mere dogma, in RFA/RFB.) — Dan | talk 16:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   No need to apologise Dan, but how about you ask this very same question to people who do what I did on a daily basis on RfAs? I'm happy to discuss my vote, but I made up my mind already. Majorly ^talk 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

2. I'm really sorry Dweller, but I'm going to have to oppose this request. You're a great guy, you really are, and a fantastic editor, but I don't think you'd make a great bureaucrat. You comment on RfA's, but I see very little activity from you at WT:RFA, which is important because bureaucrats need to be up to date with exactly how things work at RfA. It's a good place to assess current trends. My major problem is that you have no recent (by that, I mean within the last year) experience with usernames - a lot has changed, and WP:CHU is the only place we need bureaucrats at the moment. I have a feeling this is going to go the same at TRM should it pass (sorry mate), with little actual graft put in. I think you're a fantastic editor, and I just don't believe you'd be able to give bureaucratship your full effort. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   Understandable opinion, Ryan. Then again, if Dweller is promoted and takes but a little bit of the work off of the existing Bureaucrat team—surely that's a net positive for the project? RfB aims to weed out unsuitable candidates, not ensure that requests that pass have candidates are going to be process machines. My explanation in response to Majorly, above, does, I think, outline why Dweller would be a good candidate to select for the bureaucrat right.

   As a closing point regarding your concerns with how competent Dweller would be at changing username: I don't think anybody would suggest that it's a hard art to pick up. :) I actually think EVula had to be "re-trained" when he was promoted, and he's now an excellent bureaucrat who is active on CHU (and related pages).

   Anthøny 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   No concerns about how easy it is to pick up, I just want to see an interest in the process and/or usernames in general so I know he'll be active there, and stay active. That's the most important place for the crats to work at now, and is the only area that gets backlogged. We can afford to be picky with the crats, and I'd like to see more evidence that Dweller would stay interested with the changing username process. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   Since I'm being mentioned... I didn't need any "re-training" when I was promoted; I was already familiar with the username policy (thanks to my activity at WP:RFC/NAME and WP:UAA) and was able to just jump right in. The "issue" with my 3rd RfB was that I hadn't spent much time clerking CHU. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Awesome editor, awesome admin... but I agree with Majorly and Ryan. I have a mental short list of a few people who I think would make great bcrats, Dweller wasn't one of them. I feel that his abilities are better used elsewhere. I see no experience in bureaucratic-related areas, and I just don't feel confident that he would be an active bureaucrat for long. Sorry, but I can't support. Wizardman 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Sorry my man. Username stuff seems, to me at least, neither here nor there. We seem to have enough bodies on it and it's process driven and prescriptive. BAG is, more or less, now a pushing of the button. This leaves RFA, and your lack of contribution at the mad house whilst generally a good thing, is not so good for a potential 'crat. Looking all over WP at the moment there is much discussion about adminship and I just don't see your name there. Let's be honest - I was opposed at my first RFA (by two of the good gentelmen above me) partly for my "unhealthy" interest in the adminship process. For one requesting adminship it's getting to the point that it's best left alone! - however for one requesting bureaucratship I would have liked to have seen more involvement. Again, apologies and best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  18:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   'twould have been nice had that (less emphasis on usernames) been the prevailing opinion a few months ago -- Avi (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose - I'm sorry, but I do happen to agree with the above users, Pedro in particular. I wasn't concerned about your lack of participation/familiarity at CHU, but at WT:RFA and RFA in general. I could be just drawing a blank here, but your name doesn't really ring a bell, and sorting through your contributions, it has been affirmed. I recognize you now, but if I struggle it's likely because I can't recall any thoughtful or helpful comments. RFA is where we need sensible crats, not CHU or BAG. I just can't gauge you here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose No particpation in chu areas, rfa conerns as raised above and I quote "I plan to keep away from anything remotely contentious regarding Bot flagging", IMO we need more crats willing to exerise their power in the bot areas, not the other way round. Your answer to question 11 just adds to my concerns, I'm not saying you should flag an admin bot on your first day but I do not like your attuite of leaving it for someone else todo --Chris 09:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Q8. naerii 21:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Again per Majorly. No indication that Dweller would be a poor bureaucrat, just no indication that he would be a very good one. We've just promoted two bureaucrats recently, and there are hardly ever backlogs (and if there are backlogs, promoting more bureaucrats is clearly not a solution). We can afford to be choosy with bureaucrats. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Query: If promoting more bureaucrats is not a response to backlogs, what is? Anthøny 23:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   seresin, there is no indication that he would be “a very good bureaucrat”, but there are indications that he will be a sensible one. I don't want "an extraordinary bureaucrat" who would do extraordinary things like promoting a candidate who has less than 70% support in her RFA. Many bureaucrats have done that. If a candidate has 70-72% support and some oppose !votes are trivial, that candidate should be promoted. But if a candidate has less than 70% support !vote and none of the oppose !votes are trivial, that candidate shouldn't be promoted. For example, this RFA should have been unsuccessful. In that RFA, none of the oppose !votes were trivial. I just want a sensible bureaucrat, not an extraordinary one. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Don't know if support or oppose. First, I have to agree that you have good contributions, but I also agree with the comment made by Ryan Postlethwaite. Cheers, Macy 00:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
2. I'd like to see the candidate's response to those concerns expressed in the oppose section, before deciding. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   I mean no offense, but what's the point of simply signing in the neutral section? Wouldn't it be easier (if you had nothing to write to the candidate) to simply not participate at the RfB at all, than to simply drop a sig in the neutral secion? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 06:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Note: When I placed my comment, the above !vote was a simple signature in the neutral section, which seemed odd to me.

   I confess, it's for my own convenience. No offense to anyone who feels offended by this comment, but I don't spend the time reading through a nom because I have nothing better to read or do with my time. Usually, it's because I wish to participate in the process - even if it means (like in this nom) commenting a little later than I'd wanted to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Re the comment you just just placed next to your !vote, you might have missed my response because I dislike hectoring of opposers, so I placed a statement at the top of this page. But this feels rather different, given that it seems you've invited a response, so here's the diff. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you. I notice that the RFA concern was what you've addressed there. But I think further clarification is needed in two areas in the oppose section. One is on the concern about your activity levels at CHU pages. The other is on the very creative interpretation that "you're going to leave BAG work to someone else". I personally think you responded to the latter already, from the description you gave in how you how you approached AfD-work over time - but perhaps a clear, direct and equally-detailed response on how you will approach BAG-work is needed (to help those people who apparently could not find the bridge/connection between the two). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral Hmm, this is a tough one. Based on Dweller's record, his article work, he admin work, etc, I feel he would be well suited for the crat tools. Also, based on his answers to the hypotheticals I gave, he got them all smack on the dot, even the curveball Cimon RfB was exactly the sort of response I'd look for in a crat. I am of the opinion that we don't have a limited number of crat seats, so if someone is qualified and would like to help out, that is cool by me. However, a big sticking point for me is dispute resolution. I firmly believe that crats, could in the future, serve in a DR capacity, and it is a real dealbreaker for me that Dweller is so adamantly opposed to this role. I can understand a reluctance to participate, but I feel he has shut the door too firmly, and would oppose too strongly in the future, for me to contribute more than a neutral at this point in time. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

   While I personally wouldn't shut the door on a dispute resolution role for bureaucrats, I think Dweller's response is the appropriate one. The simple fact is that the "election" process for a bureaucrat is for a specific role, and the votes expressed touch directly upon the suitability of the candidate for that role. We just don't vet 'crat candidates for that sort of judgment. I would be surprised if any bureaucrat would agree, with no context (i.e. a groundswell of community support for a redefinition of the role), to have a formal position in DR. Avruch ^T 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)