Hosta

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged, and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages and files.

About RfA and its process

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and being trusted by other editors. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates; discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, one could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption or coaching by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RFA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominating

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Many candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages.

Discussion and decision

Nominations remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.

Consensus at RFA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold. As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80% approval pass; most of those below 70% fail; the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucratic discretion (and in some cases further discussion). In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. While the Neutral comments are ignored for calculating the RfA's percentage, they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within 3 months, but many editors prefer to wait several months before reapplying.

A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. They may also close nominations early if a promotion is unlikely and leaving open the application has no likely benefit. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.

In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer.

Expressing opinions

While every Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, only editors with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote". The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Every Wikipedian—including those who do not have an account, or are not logged in ("anons")—is welcome to write in the comments section and the questions sections. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on-topic.

The ‘requests for adminship’ process attracts many Wikipedians. Some editors may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA !voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA, especially 'oppose' comments on an uncommon principle or which may feel like "baiting", consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have considerable experience, and they are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Current nominations for adminship

Jenks24

(talk page) (17/0/0); Scheduled to end 22:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Jenks24 (talk · contribs) – Hello all. I present Jenks24, who's been here a little over two years, with 39k+ well distributed edits. I'd seen him often around requested move discussions, offering knowledgable, policy-based opinions; a speciality area in which we need more admin help. I learned he was not an admin the other day when he closed a move discussion noting "(non-admin closure)". I investigated, and liked what I found. He's written substantive, reliably sourced articles such as ‪Kate Hollywood‬, ‪Chris Lamb‬, ‪William Flintoft‬ and ‪Donald Duffy‬. He's closed 23 uncontroversial AfDs and participated in about 400 others where he's not a potted plant. In most I checked, the discussion closed in the same posture as he !voted. There's TfD, CfD, RfD and MfD participation as well. His CSD taggings appear spot on and I found no declines in his last 10,000 edits (his taggings are easy to search because he always uses "CSD" in the edit summary). While doing that I found this encouraging A7 removal. I also checked twenty CSD taggings for user notification and he had warned the creator in each case. He certainly knows the ropes. But what convinced me to offer to nominate was the intelligent, sober and amicable discussions I found when I scrolled through his talk page archives and looked at a bunch of random talk page and board discussions. He appears level-headed, good humored, windmill tilting adverse, someone who's wont to discuss rather than argue and to change his opinion if convinced. I believe he is competent to use the tools, unlikely to delete the main page and would be an asset to the project if granted adminship.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thanks for the kind words. Jenks24 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Primarily I intend to work at requested moves (RM) as it is the area where I have the most experience and it is also one of the admin areas that is consistently understaffed. I'll preface my next comments by saying it is one my pet peeves when someone goes through RfA saying 'I only want the tools to do X' and seemingly the next week they are doing bucketloads of Y and Z which were never mentioned at the RfA. So, while I anticipate most of my admin time will used at RM, if this RfA is successful it would not be outside the realm of possibility to see me working at the following admin areas: histmerges; XfDs, primarily AfD, WP:CFDS, TfD and CfD; WP:ERRORS; WP:ITN; and blocking and protecting in the rare case that something requiring either of those actions comes across my watchlist. Jenks24 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I like to think that almost every edit I've made has at least had a small positive impact on the encyclopedia, but to answer the question I'd have to say that my real content contributions have been my best. I've developed into a bit of a gnome over the last year or so, just making MoS fixes, small copyedits, adding little bits of info and refs, etc., but earlier on I created a few articles (30 or so according to this tool) and, although they aren't perfect, they are (IMHO) well referenced, fairly thorough and all at least start class. If I had to pick one article, it would be Ken Hall (footballer), which is the only GA I've written and, I believe, nicely demonstrates that, at least for Aussie rules, WP:NSPORTS is a pretty good guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Of course, I don't think it's possible to spend so much time on Wikipedia without getting involved in a few disputes, though I wouldn't say that any of them have caused me stress, maybe mild frustration at the most. Every now and then I do find myself typing frustrated responses, but when that happens I try to think to myself "will this improve the discussion or just make both sides more aggravated?" before hitting the save page button. If the answer is the latter I generally close the tab/browser/computer and focus on something else until I'm able to make a level-headed comment. Jenks24 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Carrite:

4. Have you ever used another screen name to edit Wikipedia? In so, what were those names?

A. Nope, I edited as an IP for a while before registering, but this is the only account I've ever used. Jenks24 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Jenks24: Jenks24 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Jenks24 can be found here.

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

Discussion

• Stats on talk. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per my nomination.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. Been waiting for this one. Jenks24 would be a real asset at WP:RM. Favonian (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Support. I've had a few interactions with the candidate, and in all cases he's been sensible, reasonable and easy to talk to, all good things for an administrator to be. 28bytes (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. I think we have too many admins, but better more potentially good ones than bad ones. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Seems like a good candidate, seems to respond to disputes positively, has reasonable experience in a quasi-administrative areas where the tools would be useful. Monty₈₄₅ 22:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Support AFD !votes agree with the result or are found as no consensus 92.8% of the time. 100% edit summary usage. Active in content creation, with over 100 edits to four separate articles. Has created 36 articles (including DAB pages, excluding redirects). Understands when to revert things as a good faith edits [1] [2] [3]. Evidence of correct procedural closure [4]. Finally, support due to the glowing nomination by Fuhghettaboutit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   I think you've over-egged the pudding with "Active in content creation, with over 100 edits to four separate articles"; that's hardly breaking sweat. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Fo shizzle. That's a bathroom break, not a job. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   The 36 created articles were included in there too, and it is a lot more content creation than I've seen in recent RfA's. In addition, I wouldn't say that he is the most active, but I made the comment because he certainly is active. As far as I'm concerned, if someone creates articles with relative frequency and spends any good amount of time editing articles they are "active" in content creation. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

7. Support Good solid content contributions coupled with a calm rational demeanor indicate the presence of an adult to me, and someone I'd like to see with a few extra tools to work with. — Ched :  ?  22:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Umm, wait, what? Jenks24 isn't an admin? Support, obviously. He does good work in RM, which is occasionally backlogged and could use another active admin. Plenty of experience, and clear evidence of possessing the necessary clue. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Support. It's about time. Kauffner (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - seen this user around doing a good job. Mato (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Support. I also have seen this user over the past year and a half (I used to see them a lot more; maybe we're in different areas now?) and saw good work. RM is an area that heeds help, certainly. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
12. Support Looks good to me. -Scottywong| yak _ 23:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
13. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Looks like a content creator rather than a vandal figher, so I'm not exactly sure why a plunger and a snake and a pipe wrench are really necessary... Carrite (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
15. Support - No doubt at all. Great record of contributions... →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 02:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
16. Support Why not?--Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
17. Stephen 02:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Avicennasis

(talk page) (35/4/1); Scheduled to end 06:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Avicennasis (talk · contribs) – I came across Avicennasis quite by accident, actually, by seeing their bot fixing a double-redirect. I then searched a bit more and saw that they have, since 2006 2010, clocked up over 70K local edits, over 200K global edits, and have acquired the Global Rollback right along with two local Sysop rights (all in addition to successfully running the aforementioned Global Bot). Thus, with regards to trust, bluntly, if we cannot trust Avicennasis with the tools, I do not see how we can trust anyone. It's a similar story re. experience, with the candidate not only participating in other projects and on a Global level, but also on en.wiki in areas like WP:Categories for Discussion.

The candidate's areas of interest seem to be mainly technical, and I should expect that, as an Admin, they would join the top cadre of technically-minded admins, given their professional background (judging by their userpage) and extensive bot experience. Having said which, on the odd occasion that the candidate has had to deal with "unusual" editors, they seem to have handled it well, suggesting that they would be competent in this side of administrative matters, too. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I have been informed that saying that Avicennasis began editing in 2006 is disingenuous, since they did not begin actively editing until 2010. Apologies for any misunderstanding; I got the figure just by reading off the bottom line of their POPUP, and did not think to look into it any more deeply. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What else did you fail to look "deeply" at? Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you, and I accept. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:09, 29 Iyar 5772 / 06:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to help out more at WP:UAA, as well as WP:CFD/W/M and WP:CFD/W, since some of the work there requires admin rights. I also dabble in anti-vandalism work on occasion, so blocking vandals after repeated warnings would likely come into play. I may venture out into other admin areas over time, though I'd make sure I had a good grasp on things before diving in. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:09, 29 Iyar 5772 / 06:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'd have to say that AvicBot is, by-and-large, much more helpful to both the community and the encyclopedia than I am as a single editor. Most of my edits are on the small and repetitive side, though I do make more substantial edits from time to time - and I've even managed to pass a good article review before. My best work, I think, has been done on IRC, when I've been able to provide assistance to new editors. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:09, 29 Iyar 5772 / 06:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I can't say I've really been in any "major" conflicts - and all the conflicts I can think of have been resolved peacefully through discussion. I personally have never been stressed or upset due to anything on Wikipedia, and I believe that keeping your cool in any given situation goes a long way. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:09, 29 Iyar 5772 / 06:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Rschen7754

4. For the record, can you identify which wikis you have the sysop right on?

A:I am an admin on the Scots Wikipedia and the Strategy Wiki. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:30, 29 Iyar 5772 / 06:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Skater

5. If this RFA were to pass, would you add yourself to the admins open to recall?

A: I haven't given it much thought, but I don't see why not. I fully understand that, If this RfA passes, I only have the tools by the community's trust. If I break that trust to such a degree that the community feels I should lose the mop, then obviously I would be doing more harm then good by keeping it. I don't know what criteria I would use for the recall itself - I'd have to read over some guidelines from other admins - but I do plan to always keep myself accountable to the project and the people that support it. ^Avic_ennasis @ 07:29, 29 Iyar 5772 / 07:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Ryan Vesey

6. I have noticed that you have only taken part in 19 AFD discussions [5]. What are your intentions related to WP:AFD? Do you intend to refrain from closing discussions for any amount of time and if so, at what point would you consider yourself ready to close discussions?

A: As with any admin areas where I haven't participated much, I will not be closing AfDs anytime soon. If I were to head in that direction, I would start by being much more active in AfD discussions. After a while of that, I'd start looking closely at AfDs coming to an end, and decide how I would determine consensus and close them, and seeing how closely my thoughts align with how another admin actually closed it when the time came. I'd probably even poke an admin or three I'm familiar with for guidance before closing my first AfDs. I don't have a timeframe to give for this, as closing AfDs is not something I'm actively pursuing, but I hope my caution before heading down that path addresses any concerns. ^Avic_ennasis @ 07:19, 29 Iyar 5772 / 07:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Malleus Fatuorum

7. Would you agree or disagree with the thesis that the reason you've never been involved in any major conflict is because you've never been involved in any significant content creation?

A:

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• Stats on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Avicennasis. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support-Why not?--SKATER ^{Is Back} 06:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. Trustworthy long-time active user. Avicennasis does good work on a variety of projects and I'm sure they'd be a net benefit for the project with admin tools. Jafeluv (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - Per It Is Me Here's glowing nomination, good scouting! — GabeMc (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. A long-time contributor who has been active in the category space and indicated category discussion as their main prospective activity as administrator. We have an acute lack of administrators, and this is somebody who very well matches the profile.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Happy to support. Long term editor with good contributions to the encyclopedia. This user has created well over 100 pages (mostly stubs/excluding redirects). I am slightly concerned by the lack of experience in many admin related areas, but the 2 years of active editing and the response to question 5 reduce my concern. In addition, of the AFD discussions, Avicennasis !voted in line with the result or in a discussion closed as no consensus 100% of the time. The trust placed in this editor by other projects and the massive list of userrights leads me to believe that we can trust Avicennasis with the mop here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   I am quadrupling my support per this dummy edit. It was fairly clear that the revert followed by a self revert was probably a mistaken click. The communication to explain the issue is exactly what is needed in an admin. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

6. Support The low AFD-participation rate was slightly concerning; however, the answer to Question 5 along with the user's technical interest and vast number of good contributions lead me to believe that they would be a good admin. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 00:54, May 21, 2012 (UTC–7)
7. Support. Safe, trustworthy... actually had assumed they were a sysop already. QU ^TalkQu 08:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Support experienced user. --Rschen7754 08:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Support as nominator It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 08:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - Really no reason to oppose and editor looks like an experienced, trustworthy and responsible candidate. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 08:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Support, yes, heck yeah, absolutely! My76Strat (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
12. Support because this user is not yet blocked for a five-year period. *Adjkasi* (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
13. For someone that's worked (albeit not as frequently) as me, I'd say this editor is more than ready. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
14. Support It's difficult to evaluate Avicennasis' contributions given their frequent use of bots, but the glowing nomination and sensible answers to the above questions indicate that he or she will use the admin tools wisely. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
15. →Bmusician 12:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
16. Support - per nom. He has done a lot of excellent work in various areas, but the statement in the nomination concerning when he began editing is somewhat disingenuous considering that one of his edits in 2007 was simply vandalism. I won't hold that against him, since it (obviously) hasn't been repeated and he has clearly matured in the past five years. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
17. Support StrikeEagle ^✈ 13:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
18. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
19. In the words of a great parody of the great Walter Cronkite, "Well it's about fucking time!!!!". Avicennasis was the person who welcomed me on March 5th, 2010, and though my userpage hasn't changed a bit since then I've had one hell of a time. I have to admit, it does feel a bit strange to be an admin and now see the person who helped get me into Wikipedia run for adminship. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
20. Seems active in the areas of interest where they intend to start out, no reason why not. Monty₈₄₅ 16:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
21. Support - No major concern over contributions from when user got seriously into editing. Answers to questions looks good to me. KTC (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
22. Support Per Skater. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
23. Strongly support - clearly and convicingly passes my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
24. Support Seems fully qualified Pol430 talk to me 18:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
25. Its a pleasure to support Agathoclea (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
26. Support Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
27. Rcsprinter (talk to me) 18:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
28. Support Concerns about them using an emoticon in the answer to question #6 not enough to overcome a very positive record. Seems trustworthy as they come. Pity not more content creation, but there's time for that, if they cares to.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
29. Support No concerns, solid candidate overall. Pichpich (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
30. Support - Passes My Guidelines without worry. Achowat (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

    Really? "I think it is very important for someone who wants to have, and use, the 'Delete' button to know the Article-writing process, to know exactly what needs to be done to bring an article up-to-snuff, and how a New User might feel if their hard work was removed." Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

31. Support - Found no reasonable reason to oppose. -Scottywong| confer _ 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
32. Support I have seen no evidence that this candidate will abuse admin tools or position.--MONGO 22:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

    Have you looked for any? Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

33. Support No red marks and competence in areas sorely needing additional admin attention makes this an easy vote. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 22:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
34. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Weirdest contributions pie chart I've seen in a while, never knew there even was a CATEGORIES section and here's 12,000+ edits there. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
35. Support Look fine to me--Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Although Avicennasis has created many categories, I don't see evidence of contribution in CfD discussions themselves. At the beginning of February, Avicennasis spam-tagged thousands of stub articles about asteroids. He tagged the changes as "minor". He made no attempt to discuss the matter with WikiProject Astronomy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Greetings Axl, I hope you have been well through the interim of our last interaction. Because I do hold you in esteem, I give weight to your concerns. Your last comment is a bit uncharacteristic in that it appears to be encumbered by some measure of POV. Why do you categorize the tags as "spam"? I am aware of tracking categories, most often hidden, that may appear thankless, but often serve a much greater purpose. What causes you to presume there was an issue requiring discussion? Taken at face value, is it not possible that the matter was intuitive to the editors most closely associated? Why did it aggrieve you?My76Strat (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   From WP:MINOR: "When not to mark an edit as a minor edit... Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article." I characterize the edits as "spam" because Avicennasis blanket-targeted thousands of stubs using little/no thought as to the best way of actually fixing the stubs. I accept that this use of the word is not part of WP:SPAM. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you for voicing your concerns. Just as an explanation, that tagging was done in response to a request, rather than solely on my own accord. ^Avic_ennasis @ 14:52, 29 Iyar 5772 / 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose Promises to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus, and are unenforceable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   You're opposing someone on the sole basis that he or she say they are open to the idea of recall, after they are asked the question by another user? It is unenforceable, but then there are just under 200 admins categorising themselves as open to recall, are you suggesting they should never have became admins because of it? -- KTC (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Just out of interest, Hipocrite, what would your reaction have been if the candidate had answered "No, I will not be open to recall"? (Genuinely curious here, and not intending to badger). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Just to clarify my motives for the question, I was not so much interested on whether he was going to be open to recall or not, but rather his reasoning. After having a few discussions about it, I apologize for asking it.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 14:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Bulk reply here. KTC - no, just those who passed rfa due to recall (archtransit, elonka, notably). BtZ - I likely would not have voted to a flat "no," but a well reasoned dodge of the question would have led me to review editong history in hopes of supporting. Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Don't mind him, he always does this, and it always predictably becomes a drama magnet. The only right answer to this question, according to Hipocrite, is to not answer the question. Hipocrite is apparently compelled to oppose nearly every candidate who has been asked this question (regardless of their answer), while simultaneously he believes that asking the question is unhelpful and divisive. It seems odd to me that someone would reliably oppose candidates based on an "unhelpful" question. On the contrary, it seems quite helpful in making up Hipocrite's mind on a candidate. -Scottywong| chat _ 17:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   OK, thanks Hipocrite - I can see where you're coming from. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

   The candidate didn't actually make a promise to be open to recall if you actually read his whole response. Mato (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Only seven edits before February 2007 is not "active since 2006". The single GA review referred to was more than a year ago now, was pretty poor, and the article remains in a pretty poor state. Those seeking to be placed in positions of authority over content creators ought to have experience of the trials and tribulations of content creation here, which are considerable. Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose I appreciate all users with technical expertise to operate bots and I think this user has made good contributions otherwise, although as Malleus Fatuorum says I would like to see at least a little bit of substantial article development before voting support. I also did not like the nominator's portrayal of Avicennasis as having edited since 2006 when Avicennasis had only made 5 edits before February of 2010. This editor has made few comments at AfD and I would like to see admins participate a little more in the process by means of which admins are created. If this user does not pass adminship this time I expect that I would vote to support after this user reviewed the criticism and then made or accepted a future nomination, because I trust that this user means well and is highly competent. I am just not sure that at this time Avicennasis has enough experience to be a role model as a Wikipedian because I cannot find evidence of participation in most of the typical experiences that Wikipedians have on the site, such as content creation and participation in community article development projects. Again, I really appreciate the technical expertise Avicennasis brings to the Wikipedia project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm still looking through contributions so I haven't made a decision yet, but thought it worth pointing out that Avicennasis has been contributing since 2010 rather than 2006. There were only five edits from 2006 to 2010, and one of those was to remove a warning for creating an article about Shane: "There is an indivual, know only as "Shane" that has managed to anger every goverment office that exists. He is a highly-watched person, and at any given time has around 10 FBI Special Agents watching his every move. He is capable of great destruction in the right conditions and with the right knowledge. Therefore, as the highest matter of National Security, many things must be Kept From Shane. Many of these things, like the building of Atomic Bombs, would lead to great destruction if they were ever learned by Shane." People do mature, and that was a while ago; however, it is relevant for people to know that the positive contributions date from the start of 2010 not from 2006. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not seeing much in the way of discussion. User talkpage edits appear to be mainly templating or categorising, and the same is true of article talkpages. To balance that, there is some involvement in project space, and a cooperative attitude shown during the bot appeal - [6]. Mainspace contributions are mainly in the form of minor repetitive tasks - usually minor formatting such as [7] and [8]. What I am seeing is a user who is well meaning and useful, though I am not yet seeing evidence of judgement and decision making nor of coping in a conflict. There is, really, no reason to object to this nomination; but at the same time there is little solid evidence of the character skills we like to see in an admin on which to base a decision. If we had an easier way in which to recall an admin (it's actually easier to indef block someone than it is to desyop an admin) I would say, yes, give him a go, but as it stands I would rather see more evidence of good judgement, such as time spent in AfD or helping out in dispute resolution, or in doing a Good Article review, before supporting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

About RfB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also change the user name of most users and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfBs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Jc37

(talk page) (59/15/5); Scheduled to end 08:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) – Hi all. I'm submitting this RfB to the community because I'd like to help. It's what I like to do here at Wikipedia. I don't have any FAs (or rather: I haven't successfully sent any articles through the FA process AFAIK), but that's not really been my focus. I tend to enjoy more, creating stubs, or helping a stub on its way, or even more, organising an existing page so that its flow is better, and it's clearer and easier to read. (Incidentally, I dislike that this is supposed to be one big block of text : ) - I suppose I like the editor-ing part of editing. I enjoy cleaning up articles, and in particular, lists and categories. I suppose that all of these might be pretty much considered mostly thankless tasks, but we each contribute to Wikipedia in our own way : ) - As for non-content/article-space, I've been present for/contributed to many policy/process discussions over the years, helping write/re-write many policy/guideline/essay pages. I also like to help out new (and not-so-new) editors. In the past, I've also been a "go-to person" to look over proposed policy/guidelines, particular edits, 3PO etc. I was entrusted with the tools and responsibilities of adminship in 2006. I tend to be most active at CfD, but as I like to help out, I float all over. For example, the other day I noticed that there was a backlog at RfPP, so I cleared most of the page. As you may notice if you look over my contribs, I have had some "gaps" in editing in the past due to various real life issues/concerns (at one point my ancient computer gave up the ghost in the machine : ) - Anyway, to all who take the time to "look me over", thanks for your time : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: C'est moi : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: - I've read a LOT of RfA discussions. And I've seen a fair number of contentious closures. RfA (like most of the processes which grant an individual user-rights and related responsibilities) is pretty much a hybrid between voting and consensus. So with that in mind, while there really is no "magic" number, anything better than 3/4 (75%) is "usually" a successful candidacy, with the region roughly between 2/3 and 3/4 being within discretion. That said, in preparing for this nom, I read over quite a few past successful RfBs, and find that each seems to have their own personal preference on the specifics of the numbers. I seem to remember being in some RfC discussion long (long long) past where many sitting bureaucrats were polled on this, and there was a general agreement on where the "fuzzy middle" of the numbers should lie, but it all pretty much resolved as: it depends on the stuation, we'd rather trust the bureaucrats to be conscientious in their discretion than to affix arbitrary benchmarks in policy - which is part of why there is currently still no mandated numeric amount. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

A: Depends on the situation. "Contentious" covers a lot of ground. In some cases, a 3PO might be a good idea, in others, it may not be necessary. As for "criticised", an RfA often brings together those who disagree, and so there are those who will disagree with (criticise) a closure. Such is life on Wikipedia. The response to that is I believe the same as expected of any closer. Be ready to explain any close. Don't close if you're unsure of the accuracy/appropriateness of the closure. And so on. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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: Because I do? lol. But more seriously, I'm a firm believer in the Consensus model, and in Wikiquette. (See the top of my talk page for some links/examples.) Incidentally, I considered linking the various policy/process pages which related to my statements in my nomination and these questions, but as I did, I realised I could link nearly everything. And since I felt/feel that most commenting here would hopefully be at least somewhat well-versed in such pages, I decided to spare everyone the wall-o-blue : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky caldron

4. Can you explain why (a) you think that the setting on an edit count limit on WP:RFA would be beneficial, (b) your rationale for imposing such an automated limit and (c) in what circumstances you would pass an RFA candidate with 400 edits? See [9]

A: - Well, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that there should be a "set" limit. But I can see the benefits being similar to NOTNOW. Though, thinking about it, I think setting such a limit might be less seemingly confrontational to a newbie than telling them after-the-fact "not now" - being proactive, rather than reactive. As for why 400, I explained in that link why I picked that number. Though, to be sure, numeric edit counting is quite open to gaming, and might need to be locked down some way, like saying that userspace and talk space edits, as well as (semi-)automated edits shouldn't count towards that number. I suppose the idea/intent is to try to come up with a way to assign a benchmark for "minimum experience". And I think even if we set one, IAR, as always should be potentially applicable under certain case-by-case bases. The short answer I suppose is: I'm not convinced one way or other, but I'd be interested in what the rest of the community thinks. If you'd like, I would be happy to discuss this with you and see where you and I may agree and disagree : ) - jc37 09:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from TheSpecialUser

5. What according to you are the minimum requirements for an editor to pass an RfA and under which circumstances or how much % consensus (minimum) will you promote an editor?

A: As a closer? AFAIK, according to policy, other than being a registered Wikipedian (having an account), there are currently no minimum requirements for an editor to pass an RfA. That said, as I noted above (under question 1), we traditionally have rough numeric benchmarks we look toward as a guide. I think I explained this in question 1. However, if there is something you would like me to clarify, I would be happy to do so. (I feel like I'm missing something in your question.) - jc37 10:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing much but, for e.g., there are 2 editors (a and b). A gets 76% S% votes in their rfa while B gets 73% S% votes, so who will be promoted by you, (both? only A? only B? none?) and why? →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 10:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would depend on the substantive discussion in the RfA. Sorry, I don't mean to say (again) "it depends", but it kinda does. But ok, for the sake of whatever, let's pretend that all supports and all opposes are merely "support" and "oppose", then, by the numbers alone, I think I would probably promote both. (Though in that very unlikely case, I would still probably do some due diligence and check their contribs myself, in part to see whether I would feel comfortable being the closer.) Does that better answer? (I know, I've always been terrible with answering hypotheticals : ) - jc37 10:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That was perfect. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Scottywong

6. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate to:

6a. ...add the bot, account creator, or reviewer user group to an account.

A: While in the past I have poked my nose around BAG and such, I would definitely need to brush up and read quite a bit before diving into that. The other user-rights noted are given as an admin, and as far as I recall, I've not given those out.

6b. ...remove the administrator, bot, account creator, IP block exemption, or reviewer user group from an account.

A: Well, removing admin user-rights is an ability only recently given to bureaucrats on en.wiki (last summer, I think). There are very specific situations listed, such as by request, by arbcomm request, or the newish inactive admin policy. As for the rest, I think the same answer as above applies.

6c. ...rename user accounts.

A: The guidelines are listed at Wikipedia:Changing username/Guidelines. The 6 examples listed there: Present name is a policy violation. Privacy reasons. Eliminating SUL conflicts. Personal preference. Trivial renames. You didn't ask about usurptions, or SUL situations, but those are explained on that page as well. - jc37 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

7. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on RfA/RfB discussions than other consensus discussions?

A:Very carefully : )

Kidding aside, a consensus may be determined by reading through the discussion in question and weighing the arguements in light of the current discussion, and in light of the broader Wikipedia previous consensus and common practice (as may be noted on policy/guideline project pages).

As I noted in a question above: RfA/B (like most of the processes which grant an individual user-rights and related responsibilities) is pretty much a hybrid between voting and consensus. Please see questions 1 and 5 for more info. Though please feel free to ask for further clarification. - jc37 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

8. Why do you wish to be a bureaucrat?

A: I saw this, and as I mentioned in the statement at the top, I'd like to help. - jc37 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Juliancolton

9. You have one edit left before your internet connection dies forever, and you can use it for one of three things: to fix a typo in the lead of an article, to block an IP vandal (your edit is notifying them on their talk page), or giving somebody a barnstar or equivalent praise. Which would you choose?

A: Well if I really only get one edit (and knew that in advance), I'd probably give another (presumably active) admin the "barnstar or equivalent praise" and in the same edit let them know about the typo and IP vandal : ) - jc37 16:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Come on, that's the best you got? ;) Bureaucrats don't always have the luxury of being able to kill three birds with one stone. I guess to put it another way: which category of contribution out of those three do you consider the most important? Juliancolton (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Most important for Wikipedia? Or most important to me and that vague sense of perfectionistism that rears it's head at the most inopportune times? (lol)

If the IP is indeed a vandal, then (unfortunately) that should probably be dealt with before a minor typo, or before giving a fellow Wikipedian the support/praise they so likely deserve. (But there's a decent chance I'd still try to find some other way to get the other two options accomplished : ) - jc37 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions (entirely optional) from Kudpung

10. I. appreciate your answers in Q1 & Q4, concerning benchmarks. What is your personal take on 'crat chat' rather than taking a sole decision on borderline cases.

A: I consider it a type of 3PO. (Though I suppose a bit more expansive - allowing for the possibility of a sort of consensual discussion amongst bureaucrats.)

11. What should be, if any, the role of a bureaucrat in calling an RfA to order - especially in the case of obvious trolling, votes based purely on fancruft/vengeance, canvassing, diffs taken deliberately out of context in order to be negative, and lies?

A: Most of your examples could be dealt with by any admin (and depending on the situation, any editor). What I think may affect bureaucrats directly could be to re-affirm/clarify what sorts of things would or wouldn't typically be taken into account in closing. - jc37 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

12. Have you ever read the collated tables and stats that demonstrate trends in RfA candidate pass/fail thresholds? Indeed, have you ever participated in any discussions about possible reforms to the current Admin election process?`

A: yes and yes. (I'm guessing I'm not gonna get off that easy lol - I'll look for diffs in a bit : ) - jc37 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC) - LOTS of discussions at WT:RFA, as well as Wikipedia:RfA Review, and Wikipedia:Adminship poll, among other things. - jc37 05:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

13. Do you think calling adminship a promotion could encourage users to run for office for reasons that might not be entirely appropriate?

A: I suppose I could see that. That said, I think it's a fairly common turn of phrase. I think I personally usually use "granted tools and responsibilities", but that said, I think I've used "promote" at least once on this page. - jc37 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from WilliamH

14. An up-and-coming editor here on en.wikipedia with 650 edits and 3 months experience posts a username change request at WP:CHUS. You check the username he has requested and among the accounts, you find an account on de.wiktionary created in 2009 with 19 edits which last edited 9 months ago. There are a few other accounts on other projects, but they were all created years ago and have no edits, and there is no unified login for the username anyway. What would you do?

A: Ouch @ no SUL. My honest answer right now would be: contact some other bureaucrat for help (You, for example? : ) - But to try to answer: Was the the purpose of the request SUL? (Was the user requesting SUL? Listing at WP:CHUS would suggest they were not.) If not, then a rename sounds like it would be declined due to Target username has edits to another WMF project. (per WP:CHUG). Though if so (they did request this with SUL in mind), I think that this would be declined in this case as well, or at least put on hold for more info. (And I will say, responding to this makes me uncomfortable right now, which means, that I would be unlikely to be the "closer", as it were, of this request until I had more experience with SUL.) But to try to figure out the potholes: While the following might have applied: "If a single-user login has not yet been created, the user with the most edits holds the "claim" to the SUL. (from WP:SUL/C), I think the de.wikt account presents issues: older than 6 months; I don't know whether the following applies to de.wikt "If the wiki has account creation restricted then it is not able to be merged at this time." (from meta:H:UL); and so on. (I keep looking up expecting to see a trout heading my way : ) - So anyway the best answer to this in my opinion (especially as as a novice bureaucrat) would be to go ask for help/advice concerning SUL. (There's something to be said for institutional memory.) And there's always another Wikipedian to ask : ) - jc37 05:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite clear on your response. When you quote that "If a single-user login has not yet been created, the user with the most edits holds the "claim" to the SUL", which user are you saying that applies to? Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from My76Strat

15. Please show a response here to User:Avanu's comment shown here as it begs to be known which position you favor.

A: When I posted there, I was hoping for a broader set of responses. I personally think a discussion is a good thing, and many eyes (and many thoughts/voices) can bring out things that an individual may not be considering or have even thought of. So that was mostly the point of that post. (An attempt to start a discussion.) I had just read how several people were arguing for and against pre-emptive blocking of presumably COI-named accounts. So I wanted to see what they thought about how it meshes with the "preventative, not punative" part of blocking policy (something which, in my experience, has been debated in its applicability to any particular situation in the past). Just as then, I now am not "sure" about it. I suppose my general "leaning" would be to consider things like: The community, though still somewhat in flux about COI editing (we currently seem to have an on again off again debate about paid editors, for example), seems to be leaning towards allowing COI-declared editors to edit within certain strictures (WP:COI). So I guess I might see this as similar to the old userbox-war argument about whether someone should be allowed to list a COI or bias-related userbox on their talk page. At that time I eventually pretty much agreed with the perspective that (as long as the phrasing was positive/civil, etc.) we should allow editors to helpfully express such bias/COI, as such userboxes can provide a helpful clue to other editors when interacting with the editor in question. So it would seem that something similar should apply to usernames. However, as usernames have MUCH more potential visibility than a userbox on a user's talk page, I'm still not sure about this, and would be happy to engage in further discussion about it. (There were also some fairly interesting points in the discussion about questions of asking the individual to abandon the account rather than it being necessary to block the account.) In the meantime, should I be granted the tools to help out at WP:CHU, until such discussions have consensus one way or other, any such naming I would do would obviously be based on existing common practice/policy. (Based partially on his comments here, I think one of the first people I think I would want to ask about all of this would likely be User:MBisanz, who I note doesn't appear to have commented in the aforementioned discussion.) Sorry for the length. I hope I clarified as you asked. But please feel free to ask for further clarification, obviously. - jc37 04:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Jc37: Jc37 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Jc37 can be found here.

• Note: For the sake of transparency, there are roughly a half dozen Wikipedians who I have discussed adminship and/or bureaucratship with in the past. I intend to drop each of them a friendly notice linking to this page. If anyone wishes to oppose due to this, they are of course welcome to. But I think it's merely the polite thing to do. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  Dropped a note with the three who co-nommed me for adminship, and 3 bureaucrats with whom I've discussed such things in the recent (and distant) past. - jc37 09:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Discussion

• Stats on talk. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I see that Jc37 is prepared to take difficult decisions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Support - A good amount of experience as an admin and has good edits. Though I see that their level of activity reduced between few months and has resumed since only 4 months, this user is trustworthy so support (no reason for me to oppose). →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 09:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - Trustworthy candidate, successful administrator. Wrote some nice responses to the questions above. Cheers, C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 09:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Support as user seems to be helpful, considerate, friendly, and I feel can be trusted with the extra tools/responsibilities. Good luck! Warning - I was super close to opposing over this typo ;) GiantSnowman 10:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Support, does good work at CfD, should do equally good work at RfA. - filelakeshoe 10:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
7. Support good amount of experience.....good edits as an admin.. StrikeEagle ^✈ 10:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Support – I have been encountering jc37 for some years now, mainly at cfd, where jc37 is consistently exemplary. Oculi (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Support. I know very little about what bureaucrats do, but I do understand adminship, and jc37 is masterful at that. Jc is thoughtful, friendly, humble, and willing to do the difficult and sometimes unpleasant things. That sounds like what you need as a bureaucrat.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - I really don't see any reason not to.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Support - no issues come up while searching through the user's Admin Actions. We need more Crats, and we need to start here. Achowat (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
12. Support - Has consistently demonstrated good sense and willingness to do heavy lifting (in its many forms). --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
13. Support - acceptably boring and drama free. Competent. No concerns. QU ^TalkQu 13:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - As in strongest possible. Jc37 has proven to be an excellent admin with trustworthy judgment. I have no doubts at all that he will be an excellent bureaucrat as well. --Kbdank71 14:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
15. Support He will manage those extra buttons quite easily. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
16. Support Discussion in question 5 inspires confidence that the candidate understands the role of a crat. Monty₈₄₅ 15:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
17. Support Decent participation in RFA, along with a low non-controversial profile. Secret ^account 15:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
18. Support Will go good with the wrenches and screwdrivers.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 15:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
19. Support. Experienced and trustworthy. The candidate is quite helpful and knows how and when to consult others. Majoreditor (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
20. Support Seems thoroughly prepared. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
21. Support meh, sure. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
22. Support - one important factor to be considered here is whether or not the individual in question actually wants the responsibilities of a given role. I for instance do bloody little as an admin except edit protected templates occasionally, and could not unreasonably have my continued adminship open to question. This editor has done an extremely respectable job as an administrator, and I have no reservations that he would perform just as well in an expanded role. Also, I believe that by requesting this role, already knowing the responsibilities of adminship, he is indicating that he actually wants to assist in this important matter. He seems to know what he is doing as an admin, and what additional duties a bureaucrat has, and willing to take it on. I cannot see any reason to oppose. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
23. Support. Reliable. Resourceful. Responsive. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
24. Support We need all the extra hell.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
25. Support Yes, Cyber, we need hell. :-) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
26. Support, why not?--В и к и T 18:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
27. Support — why not? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
28. Support trustworthy and helpful admin. Dreadstar ☥ 19:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
29. Support per Cyberpower's brilliant rationale, and poking around indicates he is up for the task and can be trusted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

    Weak support. Reasons for 'cratship not entirely convincing, but a good track record of administrative activity and other contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

30. Support - Yes please to Jc37, this user has always worked hard and could handle being a 'crat easily. Rcsprinter (deliver) 20:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
31. Support: Candidate is hard-working, level-headed, and willing. A hella good idea. -- Dianna (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
32. Support: Good creds, great answers to the above questions. — GabeMc (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
33. Support: Solid, reliable, a worthy candidate. Snappy (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
34. Yes, please. →Bmusician 02:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
35. Support: Thank you for your answers to my questions, which on the whole I found rather vague and non-committal.

    Your work as an admin is impeccable, and your regular participation at RfA (339 edits) is laudable - we really do need a core of regular voters rather than those who come out of the woodwork to vote with a vengeance or just because they like the candidate, or because they dislike adminship in general as an institution. Closing RfA is the nearest most users get to seeing the work of induividual bureaucrats, and indeed apart from routine name changing, is probably the most important feature of the job and its associated tools.

    With well over 300 contribs to RfA (339 edits) over the years , the frequent question stacking with your personal boilerplate (and encouraging others to use it) have given me pause over the years. Indiscriminate, and template questions are one of the evils of the process and encourages the newbie voters to copy the idea.

    RfA is one of your favourite pastures and due to your huge number of votes to RfAs, denied the chance of pasting your boilerplate and getting involved in the discussion, it may be difficult for you to take a purely neutral stance when closing one. I am therefore not entirely convinced that you would be able to keep your personal feelings towards a candidate out of your decision should you choose to close a close run RfA.

    I'm not sure about the 'friendly notices' placed on the talk pages of former noms for your RfA, the first of which failed for canvassing. It's not something I would have dared to do, especially on an RfB; in fact I requested users who were canvassed by an anon for my RfA not to come and vote. They were all close collaborators and would almost certainly have heard of the RfA anyway and supported, but they respected my requests to stay away.

    Nevertheless, you have strong support for your bid for 'cratship, and I'm sure you'll take the comments on board. I do not have any compelling reasons not to add my vote in this section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

36. Support. Candidate has clue and is hard-working. Spencer^T♦C 04:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
37. Support I have no clue what a bureaucrat is, because we never seem to have these doggone RfB's ever </humor>, but I support for all the normal reasons. Buggie111 (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
38. Support. Seems a good candidate to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
39. Support I have no reason to think that jc37 will have any issues closing requests for adminships according to consensus, nor do I think he will have any issues with username changes etc. Also, if one is a snob about people editing on comic books and pop culture, that's a very good reason to nudge said people into dry administrative work and away from content creation? —Tom Morris (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
40. Support I have no reason to believe that JC would have any issues performing the role of a 'crat in anything less than an exemplary capacity. Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
41. Support On the whole I like the answer to the questions. Having considered the comments raised by The Uninvited Co., I still believe Jc37 will make a good bureaucrat. KTC (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
42. Support - I don't usually support self-noms, but I trust this guy. :) BOZ (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
43. Support FAs are overrated anyway. Seems to know what he's doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
44. I wasn't quite sold on Jc37 for bureaucratship when I skimmed through his candidate statement, which didn't seem to have much relevance to his credentials in applying for the role. But then I read his answers to the questions, and I have to say, I'm very impressed. Jc37 not only seems to understand the basics of bureaucratship, but he has also demonstrated an amazing comprehension of the grey area for discretion which is so important in closing RfAs. I trust him to use good judgement in making decisions, and I think he'll be an extremely effective bureaucrat. Consider this a strong support. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
45. Support - speaking as a 'crat from another project, I know this one has what it takes. bd2412 T 22:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
46. Support - Largely based on previous impressions, etc., but also in view of a modest review of contributions. I admit that I have, at least once, wondered about the relatively net benefit/harm of boilerplate questions, but I don't see that as affecting my view of this editor's ability to responsibly handle the specific tasks 'crats handle at RfAs. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
47. Support - Garamond Lethe(talk) 23:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
48. Support Good candidate --Morning Sunshine (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
49. Support Anyone in good standing who wants to help the 'pedia is good in my book. Ishdarian 02:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
50. Support - Good user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
51. I truly have been moved to support this bid. I appreciate your thoughtful reply to my question and if deference is placed upon the length of your answer, may it reflect more upon me for framing a question that has no potential for an abbreviated answer. I do wish you the best. My76Strat (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
52. Support Unquestionably qualified, both through knowledge and temperament. Horologium (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
53. Support The user is in good standing and has ample knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Also, as User:MBisanz has noted at WP:AN, there is a requirement for more crats and this user doesn't raise any concerns. EngineerFromVega^★ 17:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
54. Support There really seems to be no huge reason not to support them, although I also think that they will take the opposition's reasons into consideration if they do eventually gain the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
55. Support He's been an excellent administrator with a cool head and great judgment. I have no qualms. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
56. Support No real concerns. "I don't approve of his RfA questions" is not relevant here, imho, because "posting RfA questions" isn't part of the 'crat job description. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
57. Support I see no problem with him getting a few more buttons to press and I trust his judgement. Plus we need more crats around here.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
58. Support per my usual standards. I have no issues. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
59. Support their response to Oppose № 11 strikes me as reasonable; plus, there has been a request recently for more Bureaucrats due to an expected shortage. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reluctant Oppose. I like Jc37 and like to support contributors who have been here a long while. On the other hand, I believe bureaucratship requests should be approved based on the best interests of the project, and I don't think the project is well served by this request for a number of reasons:

   1. I went through the candidate's contributions to RfA for the last three years. During that time, Jc37 has voted twice: 1 2, both opposes on RfAs ultimately approved by the community. The other interactions have involved votes retracted prior to close and the addition of boilerplate questions to individual RfAs. Since I went through Jc37's contributions manually, I may have missed a vote or two but believe the overall point stands that this is not a style of interaction at RfA characteristic of someone in touch with the community and committed to deep involvement in the adminship process.
   2. Looking at article contributions, I can't find any substantive edits (additions of substantial new text or significant improvement of existing text) other than some pop-culture edits very early in the edit history. Since the bureaucrat role has expanded in scope since its inception and is likely to continue to do so, I believe that prospective 'crats should be in touch with the roots of the project, which are in collaborative editing of articles.
   3. Jc37 is recently returned from a lengthy wikibreak, leading me to wonder about the timing of this request.
   4. Given that the candidate has limited interest in the more mechanical user rename work, and given the low prevalence of RfAs these days, I wonder whether there is useful work Jc37 would be able to do.

   The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

   Hi. While you are of course welcome to your interpretation of my edits, I would have to sincerely disagree with your assessment of them. In article space in particular. Without looking, I remember working collaboratively to get Peanuts towards GA. I've cleaned up articles of many types including Caspar Milquetoast, Big Beautiful Woman, Robin (comics), etc. Not to mention work on a myriad amount of List pages. Most recently I started a stub for a requested article on a particular episode of Family Ties.

   So I find your opinion of my edits rather surprising. - jc37 22:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

   I did note that you have edited some of the pop culture topics, which I believe characterizes the subject areas you enumerate. I believe my point stands, as do my other concerns. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

   So what you're saying is that you have a problem with the "subject areas [I] enumerate"?

   Well, I'm sorry to hear that you apparently consider (by implication) subject areas such as comics, literature, film, and television (and whatever else you are grouping as "pop culture"), as not worthy subjects of editorial focus. I will respectfully disagree. Thank you for clarifying. (If in any way I'm misunderstanding you, please feel free to further clarify.) - jc37 03:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Thank you, UninvitedCompany, for reminding me of those RfA contributions. Jc37 is the worst offender for posting unconstructive, tedious boilerplate questions at RfA. It would be preferable that his power at RfA is not increased. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
3. I did think I would tend to support any competent RfB, but Axl and UninvitedCompany have raised really good points. I agree that your RfA opposes often leave something to be desired. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose. The incessant lengthy boilerplate RfA questions indicate, to me, a shallow understanding of RfA and how a candidate should be evaluated. Very concerning, given that bureaucrats need to make decisions on the outcomes of RfAs in, sometimes, the most difficult of circumstances. Further, to have continued with the boilerplate questions after requests to desist, demonstrates a lack of connection with the community and concern for its views. That's disastrous for a 'crat. There's more. In this edit I very politely asked Jc37, for the second time, to withdraw, or at least reconsider, a false allegation he had made in a substantially controversial MfD close. Having not replied the first time for whatever reason, in response to the second request he archived the section with a rather thin excuse about advice elsewhere which did not relate to that specific request. It's not the direction the MfD was closed in that's the concern (though it was certainly controversial), it's the running away from a problem that he had caused another editor while carrying out an administrator task. Although this was considerably more than a year ago, I've not seen anything to convince me that there's been a significant change. And it's a problem - "Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions". We are cautious about giving people admin tools to begin with, and 'crat is a sufficiently more sensitive role that I'd hope to see a glowing record, not this sort of thing. If the admin and Wikipedia space actions were outstanding, then the generally lackluster mainspace contributions wouldn't be a problem; but that's not the case here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose Far below the standard of usual bureaucrats, and (at best) mediocre as an administrator, as has been better said and amply documented by others.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose An editor forum shopping ANI && AN lacks judgement. Nobody Ent 11:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

   Huh? I posted the same note to AN and AN/I because I saw someone who was apparently contacted by outreach and appeared confused about editing on Wikipedia, with the hopes that others might help. All too often new editors are treated to WP:RBI without help, and in this case it seemed to me that this was possibly a case of confusion rather than vandalism. So I thought having others aware might get more possible help (or at the very least more eyes on this). And I see now that User:Bwilkins has attempted to.

   All that aside, I would think calling posting to two noticeboards (and before anyone else had responded) "forum shopping" would seem to be a bit of a tough sell. YMMV of course. - jc37 11:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

7. Weak Oppose The Uninvited Co brings up enough doubts to tip the scales --Guerillero | My Talk 17:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Though I value Jc's contributions to Wikipedia, the concerned raised by other users concern me. Posting the same set of questions about policy on every RfA for the past few months suggests an unhelpful attitude to RfA, which simply draw out textbook answers without helping the community effectively evaluate a user. He has continued to do this after many editors have asked him to stop. Additionally, he only has 5 months of recent experience, after a lengthy Wikibreak, which for me is insufficient for someone who will be making close calls and decisions based on community consensus. I get the feeling that, if someone is to be making close consensus calls, they need to have been active within the community for a while before that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose Not much experience at RfA or any other bureaucrat-related area. I also don't feel he has the high level of judgement usually required of bureaucrats. Epbr123 (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

   You're of course welcome to your opinion on the latter, but what are you basing the former on? Not only do I have long experience with RfA, I have (co-)nominated several people for adminship, even co-nominating someone (successfully) this year. - jc37 18:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

   You have commented on relatively few RfAs, especially during the last few years, and the issue with the boilerplate questions also suggests a lack of experience. Epbr123 (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you for clarifying your opinion. - jc37 19:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Primarily per UnivitedCo. I also share some of ItsZippy's concerns. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose per UC, unfortunately. Jc's a great editor, but a yearlong wikibreak concerns me for someone wanting to be a bcrat. Perhaps the worst part of RFA is the question bombing, in hopes of tripping up a candidate to make a decision easier; it's overkill and completely unhelpful. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) - Ok, I've known you (Wizardman) a long time on wiki. And among many other things, I know you as someone who (like me) will happily discuss : ) - So let's please take this topic head on.

    (This may get lengthy, and I know lengthy discussion in the past has been sometimes moved to the talk page, but I strongly request that this not be. Several people have commented on this topic, and I so think it's directly relevant to the nomination.)

    First (in case there are those who may be unaware) one thing about rfA is that anyone can support/oppose for just about any reason as traditionally this is about how the commenters may trust the individual with the particular tools under request. That's been a long accepted common practice at RfA.

    Well, several years back this started to come out in a FLOOD of ridiculous questions to the candidates. Questions which had little to nothing to do with adminship/bureaucratship (the tools or the related responsibilities). Questions similar to: "What's your favourite colour?"; "Do you like foo TV show"; "Who would win, Superman or the Hulk?" and so on. Also at that time, the various shades of on-wiki drama prevalent at the time started to really come out in the questions. Or demands to release personal info (there was a small drama about underage editors being admins) or demands to do or not do certain things even if approved for the tools ("Even if you get the tools, you'll never protect a page, or you'll restrict yourself to 1RR, etc"). And finally the vast amounts of "gotcha"-style questions. Designed to trip up a candidate, often with no possible "right" answer.

    So in the midst of this, to try to be proactive (and partially just to see if it was possible : ) - I set out to try to create a set of questions which followed the suggested advice concerning questions at the time: That the questions deal solely, directly (and more importantly neutrally) with the tools and responsibilities of adminship.

    I'd like to think I succeeded. I'm listing them here to save you from needing to click the link:

    Optional questions from jc37

    In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

    • 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

    • 5a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?

    • A:

    • 5b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?

    • A:

    • 5c. ...a page to be speedily deleted (or speedily restored)?

    • A:

    • 5d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

    • A:

    • 6. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

    • A:

    • 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

    • A:

    • 8. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

    • A:

    So looking at them, These are all questions which others have consistently and repeatedly posted to RfA. "Why and When is it appropriate to block/protect/speedy?"; "Explain how you'd apply IAR" (in general or to some particular situation of the questioner); "How does one determine consensus" (or the related: look at these (sometimes hypothetical, almost always very complex) discussions, how would you close them?");

    I then tried to develop a single hypothetical, trying to hone it down to its most basic form. "How would you deal with this situation?". No pit traps, a straight forward edit war question. Something that most admins are at least asked about even if they tend to choose to not get involved in such.

    And finally, in my experience and opinion question 1 didn't really ask the candidate directly enough "why" they would like to be an admin.

    Every one of these questions are solidly founded in policy. No pit traps, no "gotcha".

    Are they a fixed set of questions? yes. Personally I think that it would be nice if they were standard for all candidates. That way the candidate could answer then at their leisure before transcluding the nom. And if it turns out that in the process of answering them it becomes a learning experience for the candidate, all the better, I would think.

    Have some editors not liked the questions being posted? Sure. In RfA, everyone has an opinion, and everyone is allowed to (positively) express that opinion. And by the way, as a Wikipedian myself, when commenting in a discussion, that goes for me as well.

    As noted already, any signed in editor may support or oppose any particular nom for pretty much whatever internal criteria they may have. And we allow editors to ask questions to help in that personal decision.

    Incidentally, none of this of course has anything directly to do with being a bureaucrat, as closing is determining the consensus of others, not adding your own (as is commonly said, if you want to comment/"!vote" in a discussion then do so, don't be the closer). But even so, as it's now been brought up a few times in relation to question of trusting me with the tools/responsibilities, I think it's probably worth discussing this.

    So now with all that lengthy information: What is it about these questions is it that you (Wizardman) currently find so troubling? I sincerely would like to know. As I believe you know, I welcome open, honest, positive discussion amongst Wikipedians. And I don't think the fact that I'm requesting some tools to help out should prevent such discussion. - jc37 05:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

    I see your point looking over everything again. Admittedly, the truly ridiculous questions of yore was something I pushed out of my mind long ago and had forgotten about. When it comes to RfA questions, I'm not really a fan of adding in ones where a user can basically cut and paste from a policy and answer it without having to change anything. For the first couple questions, it feels like you could do that; I could take the blocking policy or protection policy, cut out a couple spots, and answer those questions. If the questions are meant to make sure the candidate has actually read them, then fair enough. I'm all for questions if they were to really help understand the candidate more, but when a group of questions mostly just ask if you're reading policies, then it's not the best use of time on either side. The last question is similar to the first one as well (the one asking what you'd use the tools for). The questions could certainly be far worse, and we've both seen them. Then again, I'm from the era where the only questions really added were after editing concerns were found and questions were formed out of that; now people just oppose instead. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

12. Regretful Oppose per UC, I get the feeling that he's a good editor overall, but I think his judgment level is not up to the high standards we associate with bureaucrats. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 04:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose as it would be inappropriate to have as a bureaucrat someone whose involvement in RfA has raised concerns. The weak knowledge of other areas of bureaucrat responsibility mean there is no balancing mitigation in favour of candidate being able to contribute positively there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose I find insufficient supporting evidence that this user needs extra tools at this time. Bureaucrats decide RfAs, and this user has not recently been participating in RfAs; bureaucrats rename users, and this user has not been active on rename boards; and they do bot stuff, and this user does not do bot stuff. Jc37 writes that he is "submitting this RfB to the community because I'd like to help" but then the kind of help that he says he likes to do is unrelated to the bureaucrat toolset. I would be happy to support him in the future after he spends only a little more time on the bureaucrat-related boards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose - after November 2010, jc37 has made contributions to 8 RfAs, all of which display his usual 'optional questions' explained above. These were all in the last 4 months, and the first of these was a co-nomination. In 3 of the remaining 7 RfAs, the he made no vote or comment on the candidate's suitability for the role after asking the questions (here, here and here, though in one of these the candidate did not answer jc37's optional questions). In the 4 RfAs jc37 did vote in, 2 of these (a neutral and an oppose vote) made no reference to the optional question's he asked and did not comment on the quality of the answers (here and here). Both succeeded. In one of the remaining 2 RfAs where jc37 did refer to his questions in his vote, he opposed the candidate before they had a chance to answer his optional questions ([10]), though shortly afterwards he struck the oppose to allow the candidate to answer the questions. Later in that RfA he stated that "...regardless of whether they answer my questions, I sincerely don't want to imagine the editor with the ability to block others, or worse - protect a page" which confirmed that he wasn't asking the questions in order to determine the way in which he would vote, though he never actually voted after he struck his oppose. In the other RfA where he made reference to his questions, he eventually voted Support, after submitting the candidate to a sort of mini-second-RfA (see [11]). This was the only RfA support in the last ~18months (bizarrely, he didn't place a vote for the candidate he co-nominated). My reasons for opposing are similar to UC above (though UC appears to have made some errors with statistics, and I may well have done myself), but mainly I find the recent activity at RfA both sparse and unproductive. Asking lengthy questions of candidates and then seemingly ignoring them in the majority of cases (or, at least, not providing helpful feedback in the majority of cases) doesn't seem productive to me. Mato (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As someone who was co-nominated by jc37 (ironically, Wizardman was one of the other co-noms) I can provide an answer to that. Jc37 considers the nomination itself as implied support; he wouldn't nominate someone he didn't support, after all. And yes, I got the questions as well. I didn't have a problem with that, as the questions were commonly asked at the time, and they helped cut down on some of the nonsense questions that were being asked by directing attention towards the candidate's attitudes towards admin tasks, rather than "Ginger or Mary Ann?" Horologium (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Clearly trustworthy user but too much focus on the intricacies of policies. Policies are helpful to some extent, but harmful as well. As they are ever expanding they take a toll on users and direct efforts away from article editing with the time they take to argue over and discuss. Like all non article building activities, the time spent on them should be minimized while gaining as much of their positive effects as possible. You'll do fine, but please keep that in mind. - Taxman ^Talk 17:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Disagree with Q9 from a sentimentalist viewpoint. Philosophically, I consider Wikipedia's goal to be encyclopedia first and community second, but a barnstar contains emotional value and treats a user with dignity. I have never appreciated the way most community members have reduced certain editors to mere numbers, vandal or not. And typos are inconsequential; they rarely detract from the encyclopedic experience. Perhaps more importantly, I have, on more than one occasion, been inclined to ask this user to refrain from asking more than two boring questions at RfA. I think RfA should invite creative answers; textbook questions have textbook answers, and textbook mistakes are easily resolved. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not positive (and please let me know if I'm misunderstanding), but I think you may have misunderstood my answer in Q9. I believe I totally agree with you. The only reason I answered as I eventually did, is because the IP (if indeed a vandal - I was accepting the premise of the question) represented an issue which presumably (unfortunately) necessitated immediate action. - jc37 04:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   I understand your answer. However, I disagree that most vandalism requires immediate action. (Although, that is because I tend to disagree with the manner in which we generally handle IP vandalism, which is by reducing the user to just a number to be blocked.) Regardless, Q9 is hardly a concern for me in comparison to your questions at RfA. But that is also a bit of an ideological disagreement. Good luck. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Seems a lovely enough bloke; I'm just having some trouble understanding what he actually intends to do with this. But whatever. -— Isarra ༆ 04:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Neutral While he is a great editor and I see him around; I'm not pleased with answers to question #6 by Scottywong. He did not properly answer the questions. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Before anyone misreads this, the quantity of crat actions doesn't matter. But I'm not sure what jc37 intends to do in any quantity whatsoever. By process of elimination from the answers to question 6 I assume we're talking about changing usernames and closing RfAs. Changing usernames is a case of literally applying a clear set of "rules" (for want of a less ambiguous word); closing nigh-on unanimous RfAs is a procedural matter. That leaves judging close RfAs. I'm not opposing because jc37 has demonstrated an understanding of consensus, but I'm not supporting because I have very little idea how jc37 would apply that to tight RfA calls. The only way you can really demonstrate that is to give opinions on tight RfAs as and when they happen. —WFC— 11:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   Hi. What specifically would you like me to clarify? I would be happy to try to help assuage your concerns. - jc37 11:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   I disagree with some of the points made in the oppose section (hence being here). But I guess the simplest way of assuaging my concerns would be to refute User:UninvitedCompany's first point. —WFC— 12:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not sure which parts of his first point you're referring to, but first, please check this.

   Second, closing a discussion, no matter how "close" or "contentious" it may be, does not mean making a "supervote". Our job as closers is to assess the consensus of others. (I defined consensus in at least one of the questions above.)

   Third, that aside, if you are wondering about what my personal criteria is for personally supporting in an RfA, please look here.

   And finally, I've been a very active reader at RfA, and active in commenting in WT:RFA (as well as many associated surveys, polls and the like related to RfA). So I would have to disagree with User:UninvitedCompany's assertions. (However, they are, of course, welcome to their opinions.)

   Is there anything else you feel I'm missing in your concerns? - jc37 12:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   I think UninvitedCompany's first point is quite clear, and while I respect you for not seeking conflict (and encourage you to continue in that vein), I think you need to explain why UC is wrong on that point. You are an admin who does a good job with the tools, and have decided to run for good faith reasons. For that reason I will not be switching my position to oppose, but equally because I continue to agree with UC, I can't support.

   This will probably be my last post in this RfB. I do wish you all the best though, and my parting advice is that if you can directly refute the basis of UninvitedCompany's first point, this RfB will be much more likely to succeed – that user's reasons seem to be the key issue among opposers. —WFC— 20:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   (Moved to support) I don't particularly like red-linked talk pages. My76Strat (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   I'm a bit confused by what you mean by this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

   I apologize for the ambiguity. It occurs to me this RfB deserves a corresponding talk page with edit stats and all. That being my only peeve is not enough to oppose, but sufficient for me to withhold support; for now.My76Strat (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

   I added the stats. Just to let you know, you could have easily added them. They are usually added by one of the first few editors who shows up to the discussion; however, it appears that it hasn't been occurring recently. It isn't on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vibhijain either. I'd add it, but I literally need to leave right now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Related pages

• Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
• Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination