SoWhy

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (50/1/1); Scheduled to end 12:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

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

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

Co-nomination

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank both Dweller and Ritchie for their kind statements and accept their nominations. Regards SoWhy 12:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional question from Amakuru

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

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

Additional question from RexxS

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

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

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

Additional question from Martinp

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

A:

Additional question from WJBscribe

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

A:

Additional question from BU Rob13

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

A:

Additional question from Maxim

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

A:

Additional question from Maxim

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

A:

Discussion

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

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

Support

1. As nom, in anticipation of imminent transclusion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Happy to support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support as co-nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. I don't particularly like SoWhy, who has always struck me as a stickler for a letter-of-the-law interpretation even when it flies in the face of common sense, and for adhering to whatever a written policy/guideline happens to say even when "consensus as defined by what people are actually doing" is to disregard that policy and it's just the case that nobody has got around to updating the formal document. However, that without-fear-or-favor pig-headedness is exactly the trait one does want in a crat. ‑ Iridescent 12:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - SoWhy has the qualities I want to see in a 'crat. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support per Iridescent. The job is to promote and demote based on policy, not personal whims, so if that's SoWhy's character, then that's just what we want.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support SoWhy is eminently qualified - very experienced, calm, level-headed with a firm grasp of policy. Happy to support.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - It's actually a little scary how much much of the co-nom and comments so far are basically reading my mind. All in all, I think I've disagreed with SW on a good deal more than I've agreed with them on, but I've never come away thinking that anything was had other than a level headed discussion. Happy to throw in my lot. TimothyJosephWood 12:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Denisarona (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support SoWhy's unwavering work going back nearly one and-a-half decade is a stellar track-record of a level-headed, calm, and dedicated administrator. His reasoning and judgement, evidenced by a decade of admin work, is constantly sound, and you can click any random page of his talk page archives to get a sense how he deals with sometimes quite irate editors disagreeing with a CSD delete or decline, or an AfD close - by calmly providing his reasoning and his reading in policy, making his disagreements clear when needed, but never fanning flames with those who challenge him. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
11. Yes! I promised SoWhy years ago that I'd support him if he were to run for RfB a second time and, in the spirit of keeping that promise, here is that support. SoWhy has long been a reasoned and careful administrator with a plethora of experience; he is more than qualified and suitable for the role. There might not be much bureaucrat work nowadays but the position requires a level head, which SoWhy possesses, and that's what is the most important factor. Acalamari 13:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support per Iridescent. I don't think there is a Wikipedian I probably disagree with more things on than SoWhy, but those disagreements almost always stem from their desire to respect what they see as consensus, and always are the most conservative possible reading of it. This is the ideal outlook for a 'crat. He is also a lovely person even when you are disagreeing with him, which is a huge plus. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support: No issues overall with his judgement. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Appears quite sound for the position indeed. Collect (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support as a good addition to the 'crat corps, whose active ranks seem to be thinning. Miniapolis 13:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Per nom. SoWhy is an excellent candidate for bureaucratship, I've been nothing but impressed by his conduct and judgement. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support based on answer to Q2 and a record of helpful RfA participation. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Thoughtful editor who definitely has the best interests of wikipedia at heart. I don't always agree with them, but that only strengthens my support :) The only downside is that we'll probably see them participate less in RfAs.--regentspark (comment) 14:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support on the merits, as I did in RFB 1. I see no evidence that the candidate's clue has diminished since then - quite the opposite. SoWhy will be a fine Bureaucrat. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support per Iri. I'll also add that I have no conerns with their judgement and I really have no personal feelings of like or dislike, so that part of Iri's support isn't germaine. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - I've had many interactions with SoWhy and find myself asking why did it take them so long. Break out the fez :) - FlightTime (open channel) 15:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - I've seen positive contributions all around Wikipedia from this user. And all the linked diffs make me trust his judgement even more. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 14:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support per RegentsPark. Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support I feel comfortable with SoWhy as Crat. Plenty of experience, good demeaner. I also trust Dweller's judgement in nominating him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support This user's excellence in closing and relisting AfD discussions got me on this one. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Solid judgment, will do well in the position. Spencer^T♦C 15:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Would have supported the first time if I'd been around, and his record has only grown stronger since then. Layzner (Talk) 15:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - No concerns, seems like a very suitable candidate for the role. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 15:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
29. Weak support - Like many users, I disagree with SoWhy a lot, but they are excellent at following policy. They sometimes give off the impression of not valuing consensus that isn't based on policy too much, which is why I appended "weak" to my support, but that doesn't effect things too much. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - I've seen this user doing lots of helpful stuff, and I think he'll do even greater work as an bureaucrat.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Am happy to support - looks quite suitable. Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 16:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support I don't think we have a lot of workload for crats, but there isn't any reason not to promote more. I've waited for this RfB for a very long time and I feel like SoWhy epitomizes the perfect candidate. With regards to Aiken D's oppose, it's a fair judgement call but I don't agree with it. CSD is one of the areas of adminship frought with the most (well-intended) abuse and very little oversight. We can't know what we don't know. CSD is often misinterpreted by new page patrollers and well-meaning admins trying to clear backlogs tend to move quickly resulting in pages being deleted after only one or two eyes on them when they really don't qualify under that criteria. SoWhy is trying to fix this systematic issue and being tough with admin candidates has a lot of affect (it had an affect on me).--v/r - TP 16:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support: No hesitation. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. No concerns whatsoever about SoWhy's ability to fulfill this role. I don't always agree with his conclusions but I respect his level-headedness and willingness to explain his thought process, which are key skills in a position like this. I wish I had the ability to remain as cool under pressure as he has done over the past 13+ years (!) of editing Wikipedia. 28bytes (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 17:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
36. WhySo? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - I don't recall interacting directly with the candidate before, but I've seen his work. Based on what I've seen of his judgment, I trust him with the tools. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. I've read all of the supports so far, and there are quite a few apposite and insightful comments. I'll restrict myself to opining that SoWhy exhibits possibly ideal attributes for the bureaucrat role. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support- I've seen SoWhy around and he is a really good admin, so why not? Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 18:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Even though I've never actually interacted with SoWhy, I've seen that he's qualified enough to hold extra tools. epicgenius (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
41. Weakish Support Seeing the below oppose does worry me slightly, but other than that, everything else seems up and ready for bureaucracy. —JJB^ers 18:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support I have never particularly interacted with that user or particularly know him, but from what I am reading, he seems very competent to judge borderline RfAs (I mean, what else do crats do nowadays?) ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. I supported last time, and I'm glad to support again. A long-time and experienced admin, who has the right qualities for crat-ship. Dweller's arguments, including the one about there being room for more crats, are convincing. Although SoWhy does have a tendency towards rigidity, I've never felt that it gets in the way of being reasonable, and it actually is a useful quality for this particular role. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support SoWhy is one of our best admins, and I am sure that would be an active and responsible crat. The RfA votes are not really something that concerns me-I am sure that they would not put their opinion above community consensus. And yeah, we do need new active crats --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. suited Agathoclea (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - A process-oriented administrator with a proven track record of thoughtfulness. SoWhy is exactly the sort of person we want as a bureaucrat. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - I'm another who disagrees with every closure SoWhy makes ... But FWIW I do think he's a great admin who'd make a great crat so support. –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support per Aiken D's oppose. Oh, yeah, and the fact that he actually closes AfD's by policy rather than nose count... Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support A bit nitpicky, but focused on the letter of policy and I think that is what we need in our crats. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support per Aiken D. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

Neutral

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

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

General comments

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

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