Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

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. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. 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 the WP:RFB forum, where new bureaucrats (administrators with heightened access) are elected.

Contents 1 About RfA 2 Nominating 3 Current nominations for adminship 3.1 Synergy 3.1.1 Questions for the candidate 3.1.2 General comments 3.1.3 Discussion 3.1.3.1 Support 3.1.3.2 Oppose 3.1.3.3 Neutral 4 About RfB 5 Current nominations for bureaucratship 5.1 Bibliomaniac15 5.1.1 Questions for the candidate 5.1.2 General comments 5.1.3 Discussion 5.1.3.1 Support 5.1.3.2 Oppose 5.1.3.3 Neutral 6 Related pages

About RfA

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.

Nomination standards

There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this; for examples of what the community is looking for, look at some successful requests and some unsuccessful ones.

Decision process

Any user may nominate another user with an account. Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time 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 that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion.

Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please don't close any requests that you have taken part in. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also de-list 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 extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.

Expressing opinions

Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections. 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 will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions.

Nominating

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly. Users interested in becoming administrators may add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. A list of these users including additional information is automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 23:18:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

---

Synergy

Voice your opinion (talk page) (42/17/6); Scheduled to end 01:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Synergy (talk · contribs) - Once again, here I am, a little over three months later. I generally feel that after reviewing the concerns raised during my last RfA, I have worked on all of the issues. There was, I believe, one instance in June that an MfD was contested and overturned. This was my last mistake. I have continued to close AfD's, but very rarely have they been as speedy keep per snow. Since my last RfAs I have helped out with a few GA prospects (as noted in question 2), finally tested out AWB, and started creating more articles (see my activities page). I had also begun helping to fix malformed requests at CHU (one of the reasons I did this was because of the assumptions I had made during EVula's RfB) and learned a great in the process. I stopped when I noticed a bot doing most of the work I was doing.

I withdrew my last RfA for personal reasons, discussed it with a few admins, and in the end I took one admins advice and followed it.

For about a month, I was "adopted" by LaraLove. It was less like an adoption and more of a Q and A approach. We did a lot of talking and she gave me general advice on my weaknesses, my strong points, and how to focus. I only hope that I've followed her advice to the best of my ability, as the communication has had a lasting effect on me.

So why do I need the tools? There are numerous reasons why I could benefit from aquiring these buttons. To name just two:

• I've been on patrol with DragonflySixtyseven at the far end of the new pages log a number of times (to quickly clarify, this is where articles that have slipped by the new page patrollers remain for approx. one month. We patrol at the far end in the hopes of catching these bad articles before they leave the log.) to work on the buffer. Often enough I find many articles that don't meet our standards after 30 days.
• For a few months now, I've been helping to maintain MfD until the bot is up and running again (this bot might also be run by me, as soon as nixeagle is finished with the coding). MfD is not a popular spot, and there are plenty of times where a discussion will go unclosed for many, many days. I usually have to solicit the help of an admin to take care of it, so I can close and archive the debates.

Overall, I feel like I've improved, I'm ready to assume the role, and with this request I would like to know if the community feels the same. Synergy 01:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: The areas I will be most active in are AfD, AIV, UAA, and RFPP. I might go back to CHU (I used to partially clerk there) and if I get the tools, USURP. Also, if and when the merge takes place at SSP2, I plan on applying for a clerk in training position.

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

A: I just recently joined a spectacular project (spotlight) a few weeks ago, at the request of another editor. I've learned a great deal in just a short period of time working with these editors. So far, since I joined this group, we've managed to get at least one article to GA (with the help of an amazing copyeditor) and more on the way. I've found the idea of a group effort, working on one article at a time to be rather enjoyable and plan to continue working with them if this request is granted (and even if it doesn't).

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 have indeed been in a few conflicts in my time, but nothing that causes me stress or has affected my editing since my last RfA. I usually try to remain as neutral, civil, and understanding of the editors opinions I am talking to. For instance, by looking at my talk page, you can see a few of the objections that were raised by my edits, and how I have handled it. I plan to be just the same now, as I am with extra buttons.

Optional questions I want to get out of the way

4. This is normally xeno's RfA question. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. I'd have to assume that an uninvolved admin has notified me (or I'm either browsing through the category or in the irc channel #wikipedia-en-unblock) at this point, since I wouldn't know of the request directly and it is likely that it would have already been declined given the ip's amendment of the unblock rationale from from ...you really are a cockfag to yo man i was just playing... Given that this is the case (that someone has informed me of this request in order to get my opinion), I believe I would be lenient and grant the unblock request. It may be hard for some editors to believe, but vandals can and are reformed. Once unblocked I would then watch over their edits possibly for a few days. After that, I would think that if there are anymore issues with this specific ip they would be reported to WP:AIV and reblocked by someone else with an increased duration.

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

• 5a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A: To prevent any further unproductive or otherwise nonconstructive edits that are considered to be damaging to our editors, viewers or articles.

• 5b. ...a page to be protected?

• A: When there is edit warring by multiple users with no discussion on the articles talk page, then full protection is needed. If its only one editor causing the disruption, then a block might be more appropriate (see answer to 5a above). Semi protection is best used to prevent vandalism from ip's. This should be judged very carefully and according to the status of the article (is it a current event? is it on the main page? BLP? etc). In the instance that there is only one and sometimes (though rarely) two ip's vandalizing the article (as compared to possibly 3 or more ip's with constructive edits), then again, a block is more appropriate. In short, protection is on a case by case basis and should be judged according to the issue(s).

• 5c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: By experience, the most common speedy deleted pages (and here I mean the fastest, not the top reasons) are those that are either attack pages, vandalism, patent nonsense or clear copyright violations. Generally, all other article pages should not be deleted so soon after being created (as there are times when new editors are still working on the article and notability might not be clear upon creation; this is where patience needs to be exorcised as well as the better judgment of admins). But by definition/usage, a speedy deletion is meant for a quick deletion of a page (article, redirect, template, category, etc.) without having to resort to an XfD (so basically, a clear cut deletion that does not require a discussion or community consensus).

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

• A: Rarely if ever. I believe this policy is here to remind us of two things: The first being that policies are descriptive and not prescriptive; that if common sense or your better judgment tells you to do something that might not be a common outcome and is likely to be controversial, yet at the same time improves the pedia, then by all means, be bold and fix or apply it. And second, that our policies are not fine tuned. Things change. If need be, we have to change them in accordance with common practice so we don't have a thousand decisions based on blanket IAR edits just for the sake of ignoring the rules.

Optional question by Gonzo fan2007

6 As much is lost when reading comments over the internet, was this comment a joke, or is this the reason you are going for RFA right now?

• A: The comment was in fact a joke (I make them often). It was some strange coincidence that MastCell had said that while I was doing a bit of pre writing for this RfA. Once I noticed it, I felt compelled to say something.

Cool, I thought it was, but wasn't sure :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Protonk (talk)

7 Why does Wikipedia have a notability guideline? By this I mean, why in the philosophical sense, not "how did wikipedia come to have a notability guideline".

Optional questions by miranda

8. Why do you need the tools for USURP? Aren't bureaucrats the main ones who are supposed to use the tools for that action? Non-admins can clerk for USURP. Please explain why you need to be an admin for only USURP over non-admins?

• A: The reason I chose to state my intent on working there, was because it runs so closely together with CHU. I'm not sure how much a non admin can do for the crats over there but one of the reasons you would need the buttons is when the username being requested has had edits but are not GFDL significant an can be deleted.

9. Have you made any substantial contributions to FAs/GAs/DYKs or content contributions?

• A: No, I don't believe I have.

10. Looking back at the Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, I am worried about this edit, because the IP was trying to help out the effort. I am also worried about how you handled the situation. If the person says that he is a scholar in his field (and wishes to keep his anonymity), then let him be. Please explain your actions for warning the IP (who may or not be a collegiate scholar).

• A: I did leave him be. The fact is, he was making changes that were going against consensus. He left long messages on a few of the contributors talk pages, and one was move to the Lafayette articles talk page. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, only one revert.

Question from Sandstein

11. Are you over 18 years old?

• A: Sure am. And you can verify this by checking the last version of my recently deleted userpage.

General comments

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

• Links for Synergy: Synergy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Synergy before commenting.

Discussion

• I went ahead and provided the answers to some of the more common questions that are asked because I may not have enough time to respond to all questions during this RfA due to work (my job) related activity. I'd like to ask that someone please add in my two previous RfA's to the little box that should be there and adjust the end time to be more accurate once this is transcluded. Thanks. Synergy 02:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is it really required to answer Q #11? It is a disruptive and discriminative inappropriate question and I support striking it out. Macy 19:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh - we think alike. (edit conflicted :P ). The user is mature, and that's all that matters. It's also a personal question, and he has a right to withhold that information if he chooses. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't even know why people take age as a requirement to pass a RfA :-?. Macy 20:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Editors may ask any question they like, but the candidate is not required to answer them. Likewise, editors may support or oppose a candidate for any reason, including his or her age, but the closing bureaucrat may discount such votes if he or she believes they are at odds with established policies. (As far as I know, that is not the case with respect to age-based supports or opposes.)  Sandstein  21:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I have started a discussion about this on the talk page. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
          • By which you mean Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#"Are you over 18".  Sandstein  05:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I've interacted with this user on a number of occasions, and all I've seen is good work. I'm especially impressed by his boldness when closing XfDs. You have my full support. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support No question in my mind that Synergy is responsible, understands the needs of the community, and understands the role and limitations of an administrator. Avruch ^T 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Contributions will equal a net positive for the Community. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Support LittleMountain5 ^review! 02:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support- I see this user around quite a bit, and I've always been impressed with their edits. Excellent answers to the questions too. I have no issues about giving Synergy the tools. Reyk _YO! 03:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Support — The article sourcing gruntwork that he does is extremely useful, the concerns from his last RfA have been addressed, the concerns from his first RfA have been tempered by significant experience, his talk and process contributions show an accessible and fairminded editor, and he doesn't seem to get into pissing matches or slapfights. The former maggot (does the name change mean he has graduated to fly status?) will make a good administrator. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Weak support. Support for the answers to the questions, the weakness for his mainspace contributions, as pointed out by Giggy in opposition. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 04:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Support I've worked with Synergy via Spotlight on the Lafayette article. I found his contributions to be helpful and on-point. Additionally, I have seen Synergy around on various noticeboards and am impressed with his clear and generally neutral postings. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support OK, so I have seen a few, erm, "dry" responses, but I get a sense of honesty which is refreshing. Thinks about things, which is a plus, and I am pleased about the mainspace contribs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support a very sensible user, answers to questions are decent. Opposes don't bother me at all. The claim that he is inclusionist beyond reason makes no sense as Syn votes 'delete' just as much or more often than he votes 'keep' (at least as far as I looked; last 2 months). The other diffs presented by the opposer's worry me not at all; that article work is more than sufficent and (IMHO) and while they criticize him for clinging too tightly to policy they act like its Watergate that he once told someone something that is common knowledge but is contradicted by a tiny line that was written several years ago (yes the questions are denoted as 'optional questions' but are not treated as such, just see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RMHED 2). - Icewedge (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Weak Support. I'm not a fan of candidates who use automated tools excessively immediately prior to an RFA, but in this case, I think the pros outweigh the cons and making ex-SynergisticMaggot an admin would be a net positive. Useight (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support: Looks good. Excellent answers to all parts of Q5. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Epbr123 (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Support ktr (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Strong support - Wonderful interaction with the user! Best of luck, --Cameron* 10:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Support per my nom in his second RfA (as SynergeticMaggot). weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Support No major concerns here. America69 (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Net positive Dlohcierekim 13:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Support, seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Icewedges response to iridecent got me. I'm more or less convinced at this point that Synergy would make a great admin, regardless of how minor his article work is.--KojiDude ^(C) 14:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - Opposed last time, support this time. My concerns are alleviated. Also, per Koji above. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Support I'm going to go with my gut right now. I won't say that I am completely without concern, there are some issues that demonstrate some immaturity or areas for growth, but overall, I think he'll do a decent job. When he asked me to coach him, my initial question to him was "Why did he need it?"---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
24. Strong Support - Have known editor for a while and have had only positive interactions with him. I have also found him to be very helpful, knowledgeable and reasonable in interactions with me and with others that i have seen him interact with. Is someone i would like to see have the tools. Lucifer (Talk) 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - I have no issues with the user, and the opposers haven't brought up anything sufficient to make me oppose. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 17:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Wow, yes. SQL^{Query me!} 19:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Strong Support :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
28. Support No negative interaction. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. Malinaccier (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - I've had a lot of interactions with Synergy, and watched his editing on wiki. I don't see any reason for him to not have the tools. --Coffee // talk // ark // 23:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
31. Following in Balloonman's footsteps here. Also to help even out what I consider a bit of a pile-on for non-deal-breaking reasons. user:Everyme 00:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
32. Links from Wikipedia Review don't convince me that a candidate is untrustworthy. What matters most is Synergy's on-site contributions, and from what I can tell they are sterling. Steven Walling (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
33. Support. I've had nothing but good experiences with Synergy, I really get the impression that he knows what he's doing and could make great use of admin tools. I waited a while to see if anything was brought up to concern me in the opposes, but most of them are either based on differing criteria (I personally feel that major article-building experience is a fairly irrelevant requirement for an otherwise-clued-up admin candidate, but many others disagree), or interpretations of situations that I don't see a problem with. Overall I have no concerns, and as far as I can see nearly all of his XfD closes have been pretty sensible. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 01:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
34. Support I recognize the reasons for other editors to oppose below, but I have interacted with this user on Wiki, esp on IRC. I think Synergy will be a net positive to the project. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Please login or register for an account before voting in an RfA. Avruch ^T 02:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    sorry, on my friend's comp...apparently cookies expired right when I clicked submit. replacing w/ my signature. wow Avruch, that was fast!!!! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

35. Hello, my brother-in-law got his head stuck in a tuba and I need to buy a blowtorch to get him...oh, wrong queue. All seriousness aside: Support -- I have no qualms about this candidate's ability and intelligence (my brother-in-law, however, is another matter). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
36. Support: Contribs seem solid enough. Sure, the user isn't perfect, but who among us is? The relevant question to ask is: will this user (accidentally or otherwise) cause significant harm if given the tools? I don't see any evidence that leads me to believe that this user will, therefore I support. Oren0 (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
37. Support. My interactions with Synergy have been nothing but positive, and he seems to have a firm grasp of policy. If this RfA is successful, I suspect he'll be very productive as an admin. Good luck! - auburnpilot talk 04:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
38. Support per Oren0. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
39. Support due to a great experience with this user recently. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
40. Support i see this user alot on wikipedia. HereFord 14:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. As much as I do dislike Synergy's inappropriate XFD closings, I don't see a way how can that make him a bad admin. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
42. Support. Seems solid enough; makes mistakes, but nothing alarming. - grubber (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Nah, mainly per [1], as well as per Editorofthewiki and GlassCobra at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SynergeticMaggot 2. —Giggy 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   You're opposing...per contributions? Also, Giggy, I'm not sure, but it seems to me that Synergy's views on policies, as evidenced by his answer 5d, have certainly changed. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   No, I'm opposing as his mainspace contributions are hardly significant (mostly AWB/typo fixing). The justification for this opposition is well outlined elsewhere. Since you point me to 5d, I point you to the fact that he starts off with a blanket statement ("Rarely if ever.") that goes on to contradict the rest of his answer. I also point you to the fact that it's one's actual actions, not the answers they give under in the RfA spotlight, that count. —Giggy 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you feel that way giggy. I know that my article work can never compare to your own, because you're just that good at it, where I am not. But I am learning more and more everyday. Synergy 03:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I appreciate the compliment but think it misses the point. —Giggy 06:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Strong oppose per Fut.Perf. below. How comments such as "Is it an issue to do with women's sexuality or your own national identity that you find difficult?" can possibly not contain an obvious damaging inference (yes, it's not "directly explicit"... that's the point) is beyond me. Giggy (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Sorry, but Oppose. Synergy is someone I have a number of different problems with, none of which are "killers" in themselves, but which together add up to "not enough to trust him", and a general feeling (right or wrong) that this is someone who has an over-rigid "policy is there to be enforced" mentality, except when it applies to him. I've gone through every AfD contribution of his from the whole of August, and I can't find one single example of him saying anything other than "keep", aside from a single "redirect" here; extreme inclusionism is all well and good, but there comes a limit. While (although I'd consider myself an inclusionist) I disagree with the hardline stance of, for example, DGG, I trust DGG to weigh issues fairly when closing XfDs, and to be honest – given the number of times I've warned Synergy about his inappropriate non-admin closures – I don't trust him at AfD, which is the first place he says he specifically wants to work. Yes, these were in the past, but they weren't "borderline" decisions; these were outright WP:ILIKEIT decisions, most notoriously speedy-closing this MfD as "keep". Only a couple of weeks ago, Synergy was explaining to a 'crat that "the questions aren't optional", despite the "You may wish to answer the following optional questions" at the top of every RFA/B. And the combination of "WP:IAR should be applied rarely if ever", coming from an editor who only a couple of months ago was posting unsourced fancruft grates on me. Sorry, but while Synergy is fine with the dot-the-i's-and-cross-the-t's side of maintenance, I don't trust him to exercise common sense in the Wikipedia space, which is where I suspect from his history he'll end up spending most of his time. – iridescent 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Hey iridescent, haven't talked to you in a while. Out of general curiosity I'd like to see which AfD's I've closed due to ilikeit. The only one you link, shows my final decision as delete. The article you called fancruft is actually not a band I listen to. I created it because they are on the same record label that I usually buy my cds on, and they didn't have an article yet clearly meet our criteria. Synergy 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Iridescent, in response to your statement that "I've gone through every AfD contribution of his from the whole of August, and I can't find one single example of him saying anything other than keep" please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet turtles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Sized, while 2 is not exactly a lot you must also look at the context (which you noticeably did not provide): during the month of August Synergy closed maybe one hundred AfD's as keep but only voted to keep himself as far as I can determine 2 times; please explain how 2 delete, 1 redirect, and 2 keeps in one month is indicative of the kind of rabid inclusionism we should be afraid of.- Icewedge (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I went through all of his !votes to AFD in July and this is what I found: Delete Delete Keep Strong Keep Indifferent Merge Delete Speedy Delete Redirect Keep, merge, or userfy --Coffee // talk // ark // 01:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose, has shown poor judgment on the few occasions I noticed him, most outrageously here (cf. background). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose, comments such as "Incidentally, Diligent Terrier is an idiot"[2] do not inspire confidence in the candidate. EJF (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Incidentally, Diligent Terrier is not an idiot. user:Everyme 11:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think that comment was made by the candidate. Looking through maggot3's other posts it wouldn't appear (to me) to be the same person. Giggy (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I am not a registered user at Wikipedia Review. Synergy 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

5. I agree with Giggy in this instance. naerii 13:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose per his unique comments and judgments on ANI.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Sorry, but it's just too risky given your abusive comments and lack of understanding of policy, etc. SpecialK 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose - Stronger article building needed, too soon since your last RfA attempt for me and incivil comments. — Realist² 17:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And, answer to #8 doesn't show me that you need the tools. miranda 17:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong oppose. Then called Synergetic Maggot, this user speedy closed a controversial MfD after only two hours. He then left an increasingly bizarre and often belligerent series of comment on my talk page and on his own.[3] [4] I don't object to the fact that he screwed up. We're not looking for perfection in administrators. What most concerned me, however, was that at no point did he ever seem to get the point that he'd screwed up. Indeed, just a few hours after being told that his speedy close was out of line, he added the following text to his user page:

    I believe that if an XfD is found to be frivolous, out of place, out of order, or in bad faith, it should no longer take place. I frequently close them on this basis, but not on this basis alone. If others can delete pages, that are not backed by current policy or guidelines, then others can keep based on good old fashion rationale.

    The clear implication was that, despite being told otherwise by multiple editors, he still believed that the MfD in question was "frivolous, out of place, out of order, or in bad faith." In my view a user is unfit for administratorship if he or she believes that belligerence and bravado are the correct responses when their mistakes are pointed out to them. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

    Hello Jbmurray. Below I point out to GlassCobra that I did in fact admit it was a mistake in the third sentence of my opening statement. Just thought I'd point this out to you. :) Synergy 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

    So it takes three months and an RfA before you can admit to a mistake? Not impressed. Especially when you could have easily and graciously dealt with the issue at the time. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    I admitted it less than one month after it happened in my editor review. Synergy 01:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

11. Sorry, but I think that all these opposes offer good reasons for you not to become an administrator. Being an editor is one thing, being a sysop is another. I think you need to gain more maturity on the site and just keep all your anger inside you when you're annoyed. Civility is a huge thing on RFA. I'd like to support, but too many things the Diligent Terrier comment are forcing me to hold back for right now. —Sunday ^Scribe 20:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose Can't support here. Synergy is still closing XfDs when he shouldn't be, even after several editors brought it up as concerns in his last RfA. Further, even though I'm not as strict on requiring content contribution, the total lack of involvement in this area does influence my decision. GlassCobra 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

    Hey GC. I'd like you to provide a few diffs at your convenience. You say I am still closing XfDs that I shouldn't be. Which ones are you talking about? In my opening statement (I believe its the third sentence), I made mention of the last XfD I closed (which was the MfD everyone is linking from June and was a mistake, as I said). Synergy 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

    You're lying, Synergy. About 10 hours before you created your RfA you closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (second nomination). Days before that you closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:PROVEIT and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WilliamWQuick. Clearly, the last XfD you closed was not in June; I have a hard time believing you can't remember the ones you closed 24 hours ago. Giggy (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Giggy, friend. I never said that I stopped closing XfDs. I've closed many since my last RfA. But none of them have been overturned. None of them were closed wrong. And none of them, since the June MfD have hit my talk page with opposition. I'm not lying giggy. But I think this is where we stop talking about all of this. You're just a bit too hostile at the moment. Very best regards. Synergy 00:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    "In my opening statement (I believe its the third sentence), I made mention of the last XfD I closed". You, at 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC). The condescending tone is appreciated. Giggy (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Right. Well that was my fault for not specifying what I meant. I will attempt to fix it: "In my opening statement (I believe its the third sentence), I made mention of the last XfD I closed wrong (I bolded where I added the word I should have). Apologies if that was confusing. I would never come here and tell everyone that I have completely stopped closing XfD's. And point them to my talk page no less in one of my answers! ;p Synergy 00:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

13. The issues that concerned me in the last RfA haven't gone away. Adding to that, iridescent's analysis really worries me. So oppose. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Thank you for answering my question. I am of the opinion, though, that administrators should have substantial content creation experience, which it appears you still lack. Also, the tone and substance of your personal website that is linked to in a deleted version of your old userpage is of concern to me, because it is not how someone I would like to be in charge of anything would choose to present him- or herself to the world. Thank you for your understanding.  Sandstein  06:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Does this mean you are partly opposing me because of my personal beliefs? That website is outdated and I had to have an independent admin even locate it for me, because I was not aware that I linked it to my userpage in 2006. Synergy 12:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    No. I have no opinion about the merits of your beliefs (insofar as I understand them at all), and I am, frankly, not interested at all in these matters. But this discussion is an assessment of your character as relating to your suitability for a position of responsability (unfair and subjective though it may be), and I do have the a feeling that a person with the traits that I look for in an admin would not publish that sort of personal website. I would react in the same way to a hypothetical personal website featuring, e.g., dancing Teletubbies, titles set in blinking yellow fifty point Comic Sans, or twenty-page ALL-CAPS rants about obscure details of string theory. That aspect is not determinative, anyway; the lack of content contributions and some of the other concerns above are.  Sandstein  13:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Then I'd like to know further, why you mentioned it? That website, which is still up (since I have since lost the password, and cannot delete it) is my past religious or otherwise philosophical views. You said it was a concern, and I only wanted to know more. I am of the opinion that ones personal views (and mine are obviously not of a fundamental nature) have nothing to do with editing, or their candidacy. Synergy 14:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    I believe that I have answered your question in my post of 13:55, above. If that does not satisfy you, I hope that the following text taken from WP:MOP, the adminship policy, will help: "Adminship is oriented to communal trust and confidence, rather than checklists and edit counts; each user will have their own way to assess their confidence in a candidates' readiness for the role."  Sandstein  14:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Opposing based on one's religious and philosophical beliefs is pretty lame. Regardless of whether or not those are his current beliefs, or whether or not you agree with such beliefs, is irrelevant to adminship on this site. Synergy, just let this be it. He can't answer your question because there is no good reason for bringing it up here. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Seconding Lara here. Not only is it lame, but it is rather regrettable to oppose based on someones personal beliefs and their expression of such. Also, the "Oh i think your personal beliefs are despicable, but thats not really why i am opposing, even though i did say that" argument is rather weak. Everyone has a right to express their views in whichever way they like, as long as they are not disrupting or being otherwise uncivil. Ironically it is sandstein himself who is being narrow minded and disrespectful of others by saying that they should not be publishing their religious beliefs, esp if they conflict with his. (No, i have not seen the website, and it most likely is something i would not agree with myself, but i respect others assertion of their views). Lucifer (Talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Treat others the way you want to be treated! I'm relatively certain that's in The Bible!--KojiDude ^(C) 21:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)I obviously dont intend for this comment to be taken 100% seriously

15. Weak oppose per iridescent - if Synergy agreed not to close XfD discussions, then I would reconsider. PhilKnight (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    If you can provide diffs, to a pattern of problematic closures since the June MfD cited above in which I have noted was a mistake, then I will agree to not close XfDs. Synergy 12:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    I've looked through your recent closings, and they seem ok. I've downgraded to a weak oppose based on the MfD incident. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    As recent experience should tell, such agreements made in RFAs are totally unenforceable. It would also suggest they'd never be "competent" to close ths discussions. Surely it'd be better to examine the contributions and see if you are comfortable that lessons have been learnt and use of discretion in which discussions to close and why will be suitably exercised in future. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Hello anon, I trust Synergy, but the MfD incident is a little too recent. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose Mainly per Giggy, but I believe most article writing experience is needed. iMatthew (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Q4. I would find Xenocidic's hypothetical a little hard myself; I would not have gotten to a week's block that soon. But it's a gullibility test: a calm response, immediately following a profanity which immediately follows the block, is very likely to be an act. That Synergy does not consider the possibility, especially when reversing someone else's block (as he stipulates) is dismaying. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Strong Support How could I not, when you haven't made any mistakes since June, and have such an unbelievable amount of edits to RFPP in your last 500 and an even more incredible amount of edits to AIV and UAA in your last 500, all of which being areas you want to work in the most. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Per lack of recent activity in 3 out of four admin areas he wants to work in, irresponsible XfD closes, and lack of improvement on RfA issues. Sorry for the sarcasm. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    That seemed rather unnecessary, Erik. Isn't there a more civil way you could have worded your statement? GlassCobra 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Also, I'd probably say three RFPP requests in 500 edits is well above the average, I don't know many editors that run across that many pages that need protecting. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Actually, its the same article thrice. To GlassCobra, isn't there a more humble way he could have said that he though he has done well as a Wikipedian since June? Making brazen claims such as that is not appropriate for an admin candidate. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    No, I agree with the above. The wording of your oppose is dripping sarcasm. It was wholly unnecessary and I suggest you retract it by striking it with an apology. Find another way to express your opposition. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I would oppose but I wonder if my judgment is clouded by my past encounter with this editor. I refer to what I felt was a hostile, insulting and uncommunicative response to my neutral at Gazimoff's RFA. Maybe this is his only such bout, and if so it wouldn't be fair to oppose for the time lightning struck and I happened to be involved. Gazimoff's RFA was clearly passing and I just wanted to note a concern. I think his behavior in that encounter directly contradicts his answer to Q3. He claims he tries to be understanding, yet when I attempted to talk to him, he was rude, explicitly uninterested in understanding what I was saying. He was even bothered by the idea that I'd try to explain my opinion on an RFA at that RFA. That's just about the opposite of an editor interested in understanding. --JayHenry (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral, to be fair, this candidate has improved enormously since their last couple of RFAs, and I believe that they are a 'net positive' to the project, so I wouldn't feel right opposing. However, the diffs provided by User:JayHenry and User:Iridescent are worrying, so I can't support at this time either. Reserve the right to move into the Support column if the candidate can come up with some brilliant counterarguments though (and I hope they do!) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Haha. I won't be creating any counter arguments. JayHenry is right in what he says, for the most part. I let my emotions get the better of me around the time that Gazimoff went through RfA, and I took his comments too personal. I have since not let this happen. As for Iridescent... I currently have one article at AfD that I initiated as delete, and have made several delete votes. I'm only hoping that someone is able to notice these edits, instead of any attempts made by myself at arguing over whether I am a deletionist or an inclusionist. I'm still waiting on her to show me at least a few examples where I have closed AfD's in the manner in which she asserts that I do. Synergy 14:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral I REALLY want to support... I really do. But the concerns above are enough to hold me back. This is a time where I really want to be pushed into the support column. Irridescents accusation of illusionist is pretty concerning.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC) (Note: Balloonman has switched to Support)

   Neutral — You're a great Wikipedian, but with a lot to learn. The concerns above, particularly from Fut.Perf, are enough to prevent me supporting. Sorry and good luck. Switched to support. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   I would like to point out, and not just to you but for everyone, that the only reason I brought that conversation to FutPer's attention, was because he wished to block the user over it. Now, I supported a block, there was no question of it. I just felt that, he was taking things a little too personal when he announced on (either AN or AN/I) a thread that he wanted the user blocked based on his honor. To me, that was a bad blocking reason, so I talked it over with him. Apparently, I was wrong so I left his talk page at his request. The user went on to be blocked for something else entirely. :) Synergy 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Echoing others here. Generally yes, but not now. user:Everyme 11:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral, at least for now. Can't quite make up my mind either way here. Would rather like to see an answer to Q7 of Protonk, especially in view of XfD issues raised at previous RfA and since the candidate states in the answer to Q1 that he intends to be active as an admin in the AfD area. Nsk92 (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral I find compelling arguments from editors I respect on both sides and will have to ponder longer. I may switch and am leaning toward support.  Frank  |  talk  01:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I can't come to a decision, despite examining scores of Synergy's edits and the agruments made by both pro and con camps. Some of the accusations leveled at Synergy hold little merit; however, I'm too concerned with Synergy's tone in some interactions to be able to cast a supporting vote. Majoreditor (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral I came here to support, giving the amazement I felt in the past, when I often wondered whenever I encountered him, why this editor was no admin already. He was always acting like one and usually that is a strong argument for an RfA (based on that if users believe you to be an admin, then you should be one). But the concerns raised by the opposing side worry me a bit and I cannot support yet without having a bad feeling. I will await further development and maybe switch my vote then. SoWhy 10:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

---

About RfB

Shortcut: WP:RFB

Bureaucrats are users with the ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of any user 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. 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 this section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Bibliomaniac15

Voice your opinion (talk page) (119/1/0); Scheduled to end 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - I've decided to give RFB a go, partly because I'm curious to see how this will turn out, and partly because I think Wikipedia can benefit with another bureaucrat. I'm not a Dweller or a WJBscribe; I don't think I'll ever match the editing potential that these two have reached. I am simply someone who has been around for some time and observed how this encyclopedia works. So who am I? You all know me as bibliomaniac15, biblio for short. I have edited for 3 years since my first anonymous edits around May 2005, and I have served as an administrator for more than a year. I've sought to do a little of everything around here, whether it be writing an FA or helping to clear a backlog at CAT:CSD.

Since this is an RFB, I expect people will be most interested in why I am submitting this nomination, and about my experience with usernames and RFA. I have much experience with RFA, having participated on both the talk page and on candidate subpages. I have been an admin coach for more than half a year now. I am proud to have coached ten fine users, five of which have passed RFA, as well as having nominated or co-nominated eight other users. I am not ashamed of my admin coaching, rather I wear it as a badge of pride. The fact that I have helped these editors mature in their outlook on Wikipedia, that I have helped them learn new things, and that I have helped them attain the confidence they wanted to pass RFA is something that I am very proud. I expect criticism on my admin coaching, so I will make it clear that I have never taught my coachees to game the system, nor have I done so myself. On the subject of usernames, I have been active in WP:UAA ever since its inception (I happened to have been sysopped a day before the page was created). I've done some clerking around CHU, but the other clerks around there do such a good job that I don't have much to do.

Why, then, am I submitting, of all things, a self-nomination to WP:RFB? No, it has nothing to do with suicidal/masochistic feelings; rather, I feel that with only 27 active crats, only around half of whom are active in actual crat tasks, one more couldn't hurt. I also feel that the more crats we have, the more diverse views we can have in a crat chat or on the noticeboard. Lastly, I feel that I have the time and the energy to handle the extra tasks bureaucratship would give me. With these words, I humbly submit my request and hope that the community will carefully and fairly judge my contributions. bibliomaniac15 23:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A. I don't like to think in RFA passing or failing in terms of a simple percentage. Rather, I feel that RFA measures how much trust the community places in a candidate. As such, the opposition must be carefully read to find why a candidate might not be trusted to gain the tools, whether it be incivility or inexperience. Are the points that the opposition give fair? Are they grounded in past behavior for the user, or are they simply cut and pasted? Do a significant number of users echo these concerns? All these must be taken into account when analyzing an RFA for its consensus: Do a significant number of users feel that the user would or would not make an able administrator after considering opposing views? If so, that is a consensus. It is not so much as how many people supported or opposed as it is how the community feels a user would be able to act both as a technical system operator and as a role model. Do numbers factor in? They certainly do.

Lately RFA reform has been sort of a hot topic, so I'll make my position clear. I believe that RFA as a process is not doomed, although it certainly isn't perfect or even excellent. I feel that the true problem lies in actions of !voters: the nitpicking of opposers that seems to be so prevalent, as well as the hostile questioning of opposes that is just as common. I feel that before we can address the problem of RFA reform, we need to curb this tendency for Wikidrama. I'm not a Luddite, or an anti-reformist in anyway, I am simply but strongly anti-drama. I also do not believe in auto-opposing; I believe that every candidate deserves to be looked at as a whole, although there might be aspects of their behavior that affect the whole.

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

A. There is strength in numbers. I feel that the simplest and fairest way to deal with this is to initiate discussion, in other words, a crat chat. I can see how people could try to use a crat chat to increase t3h dramaz, but I believe that the more views and input we have to close, the better. If the RFA really is getting heated even until the end, I would probably extend for 2-3 days to hopefully achieve more of a consensus. I don't really like to close anything as a "No consensus," but I always keep it in my pool of possibilities because there are those times when there truly is no real consensus. I feel that each !voter should make sure that they are not turning the RFA atmosphere hostile, but since I have seen RFAs degenerate quite a few times, I'd say that I support a crat intervention when things get really contentious and Godwin's Law-esque in the form of a polite but firm "Okay, guys, this is going too far, let's break the fight up."

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

A. I have always remembered Essjay's words: "Everytime you click 'save this page,' be completely convinced that what you are saving will make Wikipedia a better, more friendly, and more successful project, and if what you've typed won't do that, don't click save." It is the single maxim that I edit by; if I have nothing nice or meaningful to say, I won't say it. I readily admit my mistakes, and I am willing to listen, teach, and learn from others. I hope that my contributions have evidenced these qualities.

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

A. Yes, I do. I already visit RFA and CHU very regularly, and while I have not had much experience with bots or programming, I hope to eventually be able to participate in BRFA.

• Optional questions from MBisanz

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

A. I'm not one to oppose on grounds of "desire for the tools," but I think that being given the crat tools and not using them at all isn't exactly putting to good use what you've been entrusted with by the community. I don't think that crats should have their tools yanked from them just because others are taking on what they've been doing just fine. On the other hand, I think that crats ought to be fairly active in what they've been entrusted with. I'd say that the best point of action is a little nudge on the talk page, saying something like: "Hey, there's a backlog on WP:CHU and we could use some help." As for the RFA closure, it would depend on the circumstance. As long as they have fairly and impartially reviewed the consensus, then there's not much to worry about. Does it set me on edge? I admit it does if the RFA is a borderline one, especially since RFA attitudes have changed so much in the past four years.

6. Not too long ago the first Bot-RFC was filed. How do you reconcile this process with the WT:BRFA process? How would you as a crat interpret a Bot-RFC in deciding whether or not to involuntarily deflag a bot?

A. I am not an expert with bots, but according to our five pillars, Wikipedia has a code of conduct that applies everywhere. This must definitely be considered in the BRFA process, in the case of automated newbie reversion. I believe that anything that violates this must not be taken lightly and must be raised as a concern. In the case of a bot RFC, I feel that if there is a consensus that a feature is not in line with Wikipedian policy, it should be taken out, but that the bot shouldn't be deflagged unless that is its sole function. In the case of VoABot, I wouldn't deflag the bot just because it reverted newbies in a single article.

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

A. This is one of the best questions I've seen in a long time. I