Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy

SoWhy

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (47/16/4); Scheduled to end 14:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

SoWhy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – SoWhy has been an editor since 2004 and an admin since 2008. In that time he has shown himself to be a diligent user dedicated to the best interests of the project.

SoWhy is active in crat areas, having nominated over half a dozens users for adminship and regularly clerking WP:CHU. Further, he is involved with policy discussions, helping to contribute to the speedy deletion definitions and other guidelines. Also, he is a content creator, with 24 DYKs to his record. He has shown himself to be a calm individual who adheres to policy and is able to work with others.

I am nominating SoWhy for bureaucratship today because I believe he can apply that same diligence to crat tasks. I believe he will assist in flagging bots and renaming users on a regular basis. In particular, his German language skills will be useful in coordinating SUL issues with de.wiki natives. For these reasons, I present him to the community today for consideration. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am humbled by this nomination and the trust Matt placed in me. I will do whatever I can to live up to it and I am looking forward to your feedback and comments. I will, of course, try my best to answer all questions that you might have. Regards SoWhy 14:28, 6 January 2010 (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. To give a short answer, there is no way to answer this question in general. There are rough percentages that are generally accepted (i.e. an RFA fails with less than 70% and is successful with more than 75-80% in support) but since every RfX is a discussion and we do not count votes, such rough percentages cannot be applied 1:1 to a specific request (e.g. a 70% RFA can be successful and a 80% RFA unsuccessful). Instead, the job of a bureaucrat judging such a discussion is to determine why people !voted a certain way, i.e. why they supported or opposed the candidate and whether the community (as far as it has participated in that discussion) has reached a consensus on the question whether the candidate in question should be promoted to administrator. Unfortunately, the answer to an abstract question like this can only be equally abstract but I am happy to answer more specific questions that anyone might have.

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

A. Discussions on Wikipedia are sometimes heated and filled with controversy and RfX is not a exception to this rule. First rule of judging the consensus of such a discussion is that a detailed rationale should be provided whenever you close a discussion. For example I have closed a number of AFDs, including a number of such discussions that had no clear consensus and I have been careful to always explain why I decided to close a discussion the way I did (for example I would never close an AFD as "no consensus" without explanation). I think the same applies to a bureaucrat closing RfX discussions and it might be a way to avoid criticism later. In such a case, I would have spent a considerable amount of time carefully reading the whole discussion and weighting arguments, so it would only be fair to take the time to explain exactly how I arrived at this decision. Of course, if I think that a explanation alone will not suffice and/or I think the request is especially contentious, I would initiate a bureaucrat discussion ("crat chat") before making a decision myself. After all, there is nothing wrong with asking for more input when it's needed.

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. Only the community can really judge whether I have adhered to those standards but I think I have shown in multiple discussions I participated in that I know policies and guidelines quite well and I have managed to engage other users in a variety of ways, from welcoming them to adopting them and successfully nominating multiple users for adminship as well as helping whenever I could and trying to initiate discussions. As for fairness, I have always tried to treat everyone as best and civil as I can, I have and there have never been complaints (that I know of) that I had been unfair to anyone (also, I have always tried to separate my personal views on any particular topic from my admin or editor related actions).

Optional additional question from Phantomsteve

4. If a candidate self-nominates themself on an RfA, which is then closed by an admin/'crat as WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, yet insists that they want the RfA open for the full 7 days:

a. under which circumstances would you consider re-opening the RfA?

A Generally, when the RFA in question could end positively, e.g. if a non-crat closed it very fast after only a couple of opposes on a request by someone with much experience and further discussion can likely be a positive thing.

b. under which circumstances would you not consider re-opening the RfA?

A Closing an RFA early is not the normal thing to do, so it should only be done when exceptional circumstances exist. Usually, a NOTNOW/SNOW close serves to avoid further negative !votes that might demoralize the candidate while not contributing anything new to the discussion. If the candidate is faced with such a situation but insists that it should not be closed, their wish should be taken into consideration and probably allowed. That said, I would still not re-open an RFA which has already gone a while with many opposes and where there is not "a snowball's chance in hell" of the request ending in a successful outcome or giving the candidate constructive feedback. The point of WP:SNOW after all is not only to save the candidate time, embarrassment and/or being disillusioned but also to avoid wasting the community's time and resources on a process that is "doomed to fail" anyway (so to speak).

Optional additional question from Ironholds

5. Would you describe yourself as having any particular "wikiphilosophy"? Does this ever colour your thinking when making judgement calls?

A I once tried to write it down at User:SoWhy/Philosophy, that was 1,5 years ago. I think it can be summed up as "be nice, be helpful, never abuse your tools or status, be calm and be bold". Of course I have taken stances on some issues but I never followed any other philosophy completely. And I have never let my personal beliefs, no matter which kind, influence any judgment calls I made as an admin. If I even suspect that they might, I avoid making the call.

Another optional question from Phantomsteve

6. As an admin, you would certainly have mistakes, just as all editors do (and I'm sure we'll find out some in the discussion here!). What mistakes in your admin career would you say you have learnt most from, and what lesson(s) did you learn? (If you want to provide diffs showing "what I was like before" and "what I am like now" then you are most welcome to do so!)

A Of course I have, who hasn't? But I fear I am unable to give specific examples (other than those that I recorded at User:SoWhy/My mistakes). In general, I can say that I probably was a bit hasty and less careful when I started and I have learned that it's important to take the time to carefully handle a situation and that part of being an admin is to know when not to use the tools or when to step back. Also, I have learned that good communication is a important thing and that fixing things can be easier and more helpful than simply criticizing them (as such, I used to tag articles for problems that I could easily fix and leave people generic warnings instead of individual replies). I'm sorry I cannot supply more specific examples but I will do so if I recall them.

Optional additional question from Narson

:7 What do you view as consensus to promote when it comes to RfX?

A

8 How would one handle a RfA that gets successive majority supports but each time falls short of what ever consensus detirmines to be the level?

A I don't think this can be answered in general. Each RFA is unique and as such, each has to be viewed separately. But an RFA that does not achieve consensus, can only be closed as such.

9 Do you view RfA as needing reform? What problems do you identify with the process?

A Ah, yes, the age-old question. Any process on Wikipedia can do with improvement, nothing is perfect and neither is RFA. But I do not belong to the "RFA is broken!" group. There might be things that can be improved but so far the process remains unchanged despite numerous claims that it needs to be reformed, so it can't be that broken. I have participated in the WP:RREV recommendation phase in September 08 here and most of it is still valid today.

10 Under what situations would you WP:IAR (obviously this becomes more important the higher up people go)?

A Well, I am pretty strict on IAR but the general answer is: When I think ignoring the rules improves the encyclopedia. We have many rules but even many rules cannot cover any eventuality. If I encounter a situation which was not considered when the rules were written, I will consider ignoring them if it's in the best interests of the project. But if there is no need to make a IAR decision, I will probably raise the question on a relevant noticeboard instead.

Optional Question from User:Balloonman

- :11. I'm personally not a big fan of these questions, but they are asked every RfB. How would you close these RfA/Bs? Your only options are "Successful" and "Unsuccessful, as even if it goes to a crat chat, you must express an opinion there as the the final determination of the outcome.

• Candidate1 61%:
• Candidate2 63%:
• Candidate3 67%:
• Candidate4 67%:
• Candidate5 68%:
• Candidate6 69%:
• Candidate7 72%:
• Candidate8 73%:
• Candidate9 73%
• Candidate10 74%:
• Candidate11 75%:
• Candidate12 75%:
• Candidate13 76%:
• Candidate14 79%:

• RfB1 79%:
• RfB2 86%:
• RfB3 88%:

(Note: The above RfA/RfB's are from real cases. A few months ago, it was agreed discussed that using individual names simply rehashed bad feelings/negative experiences. While we have made every effort to remove the dates and names of pertinent parties to protect their privacy, it is entirely possible that we may have missed somethings.) <moved discussion on anonymous format to talk page>

A non-Rfx related question from Phantomsteve

12. As mentioned at this discussion, Rfx closure is usually a role which most 'crats do not have to do that often. What can you offer with regard to renaming at WP:CHU and Bot approval at WP:BRFA, which is where is more work which can be done by a 'crat?

A WP:CHU is actually the main reason for running. I am actively clerking there for some time now, especially handling requests that have been misplaced or are malformed, fixing SUL requests and notifying users on their home wikis. CHU is not backlogged but it always has a couple of open requests and I thought more help is never a bad thing. While I'm not a coder, I also comment on bot requests from time to time and I have both suggested a few bot tasks that are currently running as well as managed to get some ideas integrated into other requests.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• I would like to address the WP:NEWT thing that has come up quite a few times now. I agree that it was not the best idea, in retrospective we all are wiser, but I certainly did not do it to "fool" anyone or tried to prove a point. The idea was created out of the genuine desire to experience Wikipedia as a new user, something most of us cannot remember anymore and to see how their contributions are received (which is specifically listed as allowed by policy at WP:SOCK#LEGIT). It was not meant to prove a point since there was no point to be proven - it served to determine what happens, not to prove that a certain reaction will happen. The point of doing so was to see what can be improved for new users and how established users treat new user's contributions compared to those of other established users. And from what I experienced, new page patrol actually worked pretty good and the users involved all gave me positive feedback. Later, some users started pointing out that it could be seen as a "breaching experiment", something no one has raised before and it was stopped. When we learned anything from this, then that the community as a whole is actually pretty much able to deal with criticism. The project was not continued despite criticism, it was stopped and discussion started. I think this alone is a pretty good indication that it was not designed to be pointy, to "fool" people or to be a breaching experiment. It was an idea to collect some data from a first-hand perspective and when people objected to it, pointed out how it could be seen as well, it was stopped. In hindsight, we are all wiser now and I am of course happy to discuss it with anyone who has concerns but I don't think it's fair to claim that the project was created as a "breaching experiment" considering that no one active in it considered it as such and everyone stopped once they realized it could be seen as such. Regards SoWhy 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my French, but that's arrogant bullshit. If you're interested in what happens to new articles, go to Special:NewPages, pick one at random, and add it to your watchlist. You (plural) intentionally set out to create "borderline" articles, wasting the time of all those involved and discouraging people from carrying out desperately-needed work at New Page Patrol, and descended en-masse to abuse anyone who dared tag one of your articles for deletion, even if they had a perfectly valid argument for so doing (the example most readily to hand, but there are plenty of others). NEWT, and your refusal to admit that there was anything wrong with it, was nothing more than a disruptive exercise in "we know better than you, and if you say different you're wrong" baiting; if a genuine new account were to behave like that, it would at the very least get a stern warning and would quite possibly be blocked for trolling. – iridescent 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I said multiple times that, in retrospect, it was not a good idea. But that does not mean that I participated because I wanted to waste time, discourage or abuse people. Yes, it lead to consequences that were undesirable and in retrospect no one would do so again but that does, imho, not mean that you or anyone else should claim that those consequences were intended. There's a difference between consequences that come from good-faith actions and were neither intended nor expected and consequences that were intended to happen. I did not create NEWT but I am sorry to see what happened due to it and I would not participate in such a experiment again because now I know that others, such as yourself, interpret the idea differently. Regards SoWhy 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask Iridescent to redact a rather hateful personal attack leveled at the editors involved with the NEWT project. Saying that people "descend en-masse to abuse anyone who dared tag one of your articles for deletion" is an incredibly mean-spirited distortion of what happened and is a shameful thing to say. I regret participation in the project and think it was a bad idea, but to attribute this to everyone involved with the project (by stating "you (plural)") is disgraceful. I'd appreciate some clarification as to whom this is intended to include, as the only link given to demonstrate this shows a single editor from NEWT and some civil discussion, no "abuse". I'm concerned that some of the backlash to NEWT is due to misconceptions of what the project was about and what actually happened, caused by unsupported and extremely hyperbolic accusations like this. -- Atama頭 19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with Iridescent (though not in such strong terms). The only thing NEWT achieved was pissing off new page patrollers. The point was trying to see how new editors are treated - which, as said, could be done easily just by observing. Deliberately creating borderline articles to trick patrollers and admins, and then shame them on the NEWT results page, was nothing but disruption, hence WP:POINT (I rarely use that link, as it's so frequently abused to mean "making a point" when it's "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point"). This was simply inclusionists disrupting Wikipedia, hence my opposition to those who are clearly such, and those who identify that way, getting further privs (such as bureaucratship). Majorly talk 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised WP:NEWT came up at all here; another NEWT participant's RfB came and went without it being brought up at all just last week. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do tell! But I guess the process isn't really built to work exactly the same every time.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. I feel quite strongly that we need more bureaucrats, and SoWhy seems as good a choice as any. He's consistently friendly, yet stern when appropriate, knowledgeable, familiar with policy, and involved in the two main areas that require bureaucrat assistance: RfA and CHU. No qualms about supporting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Unequivocally. SoWhy has consistently shown time and time again that he can get at the heart of an issue, and always handles himself cordially. I think his current posts on WT:RFA and WT:BN show exactly why this nomination exists, and I think his continuous efforts at WT:CSD show an ability to read closely and examine the full effect a given statement implies. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   For no particularly intelligent reason, I want to add to my rationale above. It seems to me that this is devolving into pro/neutral-NEWT vs. anti-NEWT (at best) or Inclusionist vs. Deletionist (at worst) which is downright unfortunate. There are some very valid !votes in the Oppose section, particular those of Tan and Lara (both of which are very frank and refreshing, I just happen to disagree in this case). Still, the way I see it is that there are four issues here. The first two, renaming and bot flagging, nobody really seems to have an issue with. The third, as Andrevan and others note, relates to his activities on WP:BN regarding "backlogs," clerking, etc. I don't buy that argument because not only do I assume he's just interested, but maybe SoWhy just thinks it matters a bit more. Moreover, isn't the best way to get him to shut up to just promote him? (Not a good support rationale, but a rationale nonetheless)

   Finally, there is the determining of consensus. Now, I liked Majorly's response to my question, but I liked SoWhy's response to that even better. A bureaucrat must be able to determine consensus in an RfA/RfB, and on the few close calls vote-weighing will probably come into play. Still, vote-weighing is not the same as consensus, and while it can play an important role it doesn't have to be an enormous part of that process. Is it theoretically possible that SoWhy's views on CSD could impact his treatment of certain votes in an RfA/RfB? Sure, just like every other 'crat, but it's a very big step to go from NEWT to a relatively minor activity to be of concern to me. Likewise, I more than trust SoWhy as an extremely competent sysop (everybody on this page seems to be in agreement on that fact) and therefore would trust him to NOT close if he felt the slightest twinge of bias. Besides, as he said, odds are he would have !voted in that case anyway, since he feels so strongly.

   In short, I really don't see a strong connection to SoWhy's participation on NEWT and his qualification as a bureaucrat. I don't have to agree with him or what he did, but to oppose based on NEWT would be just doing what I was opposing him for. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

3. I was thinking just the other day that SoWhy would make a good 'crat, and was thinking of raising it. And lo, Support. GedUK  14:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Per the nom really, not much more to say. I think SoWhy would make a great addition to our bureaucrats, and I see him taking interest in the areas that we need more of them :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Support SoWhy is one of the 4 or 5 people who asked me about their running for RfB this past spring... he's only the second one to actually throw their hat in the ring... but this is IMHO a no brainer. Fully support.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC) EDIT: While I still have confidence in SoWhy's ability to be a crat, I have to agree with the first opposer, the experiment to "catch" people was ill conceived. It is one thing to review edits/history, but to intentionally go out and create a scenario whose objective is to entrap people, that I'm not too sure about.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Unequivocally per Amory. Excellent editor. Ikip 17:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Support SoWhy already had my confidence before his involvement in wp:NEWT - which for those who don't know was started by me not SoWhy and I'm a bit surprised that the issue has resurfaced so strongly here and now. For those who aren't familiar with NEWT, SoWhy created four articles, and their fate is detailed at Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD/SoWhy. In my view the difference between what we did in wp:NEWT and a breaching experiment was that NEWT was about creating articles that didn't meet the deletion criteria, and seeing what happened to them and to the newbie accounts that created them. If we'd set out to create articles that did meet the deletion criteria it would indeed have been a breaching experiment, and a pointy one at that. ϢereSpielChequers 17:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Absolutely. Excellent admin, would make a good crat. Not convinced by the opposes. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Support. SoWhy strikes me as smart, clueful, and dedicated. I dislike the way RfB has become such a steep mountain to climb, and I think the complaints that have been raised (not just here) about NEWT have been overblown. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Support Great editor who has shown good judgment in the past and will make a good crat in the future. The WP:NEWT thing/incident and SoWhy's involvement does not bother me, it was an experiment that pissed some people off and did illustrate a point, maybe we will even become a better place because of it. (self disclosure, I did not participate in WP:NEWT) RP459 (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Support a reasonable and fair-minded individual who is all about improving Wikipedia. I hope NEWT actually opened a few eyes to why so many negative things are written about the project in reliable sources. Any group of Admins who take proactive steps to try determine the scope of a perceived problem how it might be corrected, have my respect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Support - I've only seen positive things from this candidate, and his work in WP:NEWT is a positive, not a negative, for me. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Moral Support Doesn't look like you'll be endorsed, but I think the NEWT thing is being blown out of proportion. Yes, it's a great idea to try and make Wikipedia more newbie-friendly, but yes, that could have certainly been done differently. Calling it POINT, however, is unhelpful, and if we hold well-intentioned failures against RfB candidates, then only those who have never dared to try and actually improve Wikipedia could be selected. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Weak Support I am an adoptee of SoWhy, so I'm a little biased – plus I'm at the bottom of the totem pole and don't know much about what it really takes to be a 'crat – so that's why my support doesn't carry much weight. But I do support him. He seems good at what he does, AFAIK. Also, the WP:NEWT issue is a positive for me, not a negative. I don't believe it was "entrapment" of other editors, nor was it "disruptive". It may not have been the greatest idea, but it was most definitely done in good faith. Also, I'm pretty sure a bureaucrat doesn't have to be perfectly flawless.
    -Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
15. (edit conflict) Unconditional support. SoWhy is the most diligent and sensible person on this project. His judgement is more than sound. Also, when I look in the oppose section, I believe it's safe to say that SoWhy has evidently not just done something, but everything right. Seriously though, he will be the best bureaucrat this project has ever seen. --Aitias (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Strong support simply one of the best, most approachable admins and I very much trust his judgment. Probably my first choice for the job including those that have it already. Aslo per Jclemens who makes _really_ good points. Hobit (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
17. Support - I don't normally give a damn who gets to be an Admin or Bureaucrat, but my interactions with SoWhy in the past and every action of his that I have seen have demonstrated that he is posessed of fairness and good judgement. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
18. Support. There were good intentions beind WP:NEWT and I don't think any of them intended to cause any disruption. In retrospect it may have been a mistake, but it doesn't (to me at least) reflect badly upon the type of judgement that must be used by b'crats. I have no reason to believe he would do anything less than a good job as a b'crat. Shereth 20:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
19. Moral Support per NEWT overreaction and having no reason to question SoWhy's judgement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
20. Support. I am of the opinion that bureaucratship is best granted to any experienced admin with demonstrated good judgment. In my view, SoWhy definitely fits this criterion. While I do appreciate some of the instances brought up by opposers, none cause me undue concern - and I've personally had many good experiences with SoWhy's patient and helpful work as an admin. I should probably add that I generally don't subscribe to some of his views on inclusion and speedy deletion; but I do feel they are valid views grounded in sensible thought. ~ mazca ^talk 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
21. Support I'm not a big fan of the NEWT experiment, but it was a good faith attempt to understand certain problems that exist; trying to do something good shouldn't be cause for concern. The rest, per Mazca.-SpacemanSpiff 21:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
22. I've been waiting for SoWhy's RfB for a while now, and I have no hesitations about trusting them with a few extra tools. Jafeluv (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
23. Support An excellent admin and editor. And as I've said before, NEWT was an interesting, perfectly valid and totally nondisruptive way to explore how new editors are being treated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
24. Support I feel that SoWhy has done a good job as both an editor and as an admin. With hindsight, NEWT was probably not the best way to see how newbies are treated, but everything I've seen seems to indicate that it was a GF project. SoWhy has clearly shown that they understand where its problems were, and would not be involved in anything like that again. Although recognising the opposers' arguments, they are not compelling enough for me to oppose, and my respect for SoWhy as an editor and admin is enough to enable me to support without a qualm. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
25. Support As nom. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
26. I came here originally to oppose then realized that my argument was too weak. I think that you will make a good bureaucrat at some later time, but for now you seem to possess the judgment, intelligence, and maturity necessary for a crat. ceranthor 22:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
27. Support His overall record has been good, so I thus support this candidate. Dream Focus 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
28. Support I don't see how his judgement regarding the infamous NEWT project would be problematic as a bureaucrat. It's not as if the extra buttons would make him unreliable. ALI ^{nom nom} 22:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
29. Support As per MBisanz and user has been around since 2004 and a admin since 2008 and track both as user and as a admin is good,further the user is one of those who is here to stay.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
30. Support Extremely helpful editor and I have no doubt that you won't misuse the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
31. Support I have a lot of confidence in SoWhy's capability (currently in his admin capacity) to determine consensus correctly. In my experience, his AfD closes have been accurate reads of consensus in the discussion. SoWhy's contributions in the Wikipedia talk namespace, such as his comments at WT:RfA and WT:CSD, tend to show his ability to articulate and consider points in debates intelligently. In addition, SoWhy's clerking at WP:CHU and its subpages shows a solid understanding of username policy. For these reasons – combined with his extensive experience over the course of almost six years on Wikipedia – I think SoWhy will make a very good bureaucrat. I would like to take note that while I deeply opposed WP:NEWT in every way, I don't think it should be held against any of the established editors who were involved. This issue did not prevent me from supporting Atama's RfA, and it won't stop me from supporting SoWhy's RfB. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
32. Support. Friendly, helpful, knows what he's doing. Not concerned by the opposes. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
33. Support, because: Hanging out at WP:BN or related pages isn't a bad thing if you're thinking about having an RfB at some point. People have in past RfBs asked for a certain amount of experience in the related tasks before they supported candidates. Of course a prospective candidate will look to gain it. Thinking about having an RfB is also not a bad thing. If one is interested in helping in a certain area, then by all means, nobody needs a bureaucrat who doesn't care about that area. I can understand if people are wary about editors who look for status, and I share that feeling generally, but I don't see this motivation here. Lastly, I don't know whether we need more bureaucrats. Everything seems to be handled quickly enough, from what I see and hear. In my opinion, that's still no reason to refuse an additional editor who wants to share the workload, as long as we trust him or her to perform the two, three additional tasks, and I trust SoWhy with that. Amalthea 02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
34. Strong Support SoWhy is be far, one of the most trusted, respected and overall well like people here. (Up there with possibly J.delanoy and Julinacolton; hope you guys dont mind me useing your names) With that being said, I can see no reason whatsoever to oppose this RFB. I have looked over his actions as an admin and I see no flaws, mistakes, or controversial issues that we should judge this editor by. Just begause he's eager to become a crat does'nt mean that he's power-hungry or too eager. Rather, he thinks that this is the bast path for him to follow and I belive that as well. Im proud to support this person and I always will.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
35. SupportWeakest possible support This support is a "default support" without reviewing the WP:NEWT fuss. I would not know why people in the oppose are making a big deal out of it until looking into the said page. However, according to this and that, SoWhy only made 4 and 9 edits to the page and its talk page respectively, so I will give him a benefit of doubt. On the other hand, I've always got a good impressions from SoWhy's demeanor and judgment, so quite don't understand the false labeling as "power hunger" due to his "diligent notifications" to BN. I also find myself tend to disagree to some of RFA regulars in the oppose camp, so I'll follow my gut feeling and observation for at least tentatively a while.--Caspian blue 02:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    I should've at least read the first five bullets on the WP:NEWT page and had a benefit of the doubt to the people's criticism in the oppose camp. I rarely use a profanity or slang, but can't come up with other than this one, WTF? SoWhy's experiment with this whole WP:POINTy project is my first big disappointment on SoWhy's judgment as well as people engaged in the project. So the people seem to forget that the project "in fact" wasted the time of the patrollers and administrators who didn't know the experiment and tagged or deleted the page. Even creating a WP:SOCK to deceive people's eyes, and not risking their Wikicareer are also tsk tsk tsk. However, given this mood, I honestly think that SoWhy's RFB would not succeed. Therefore, I would not switch my vote to oppose but relegate it to "weakest possible support" (="moral support") to encourage him not to repeat the error again.--Caspian blue 04:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

36. WP:NEWT is not a problem to me even though it encountered massive drama from people who felt "tricked" and thought it was "pointy". SoWhy's trustworthiness and general editing ability far outweigh any potential negative there so this is certainly a support.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
37. Weak Support — Solid editor, who I've seen around quite often in my time here. NEWT was not the wisest thing to become involved in, and I personally, as a regular NewPage patroller, was a bit hurt at the apparent goals of the project. I think SoWhy has learned from this, though — it has only made him better — and I see no problems with entrusting SoWhy with the extra buttons. Best of luck! Airplaneman ^talk 03:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
38. Support. Efficient, trustworthy and experienced editor. Granting SoWhy the 'crat tools (ultra-mop? vacuum cleaner? ... yeah, I'll stop now...) will be of great benefit to the project and I trust that he'll use the tools well. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
39. Support. I am not convinced by the arguments about crat "power grabbing." SoWhy will do a good job with the crat tools. I am strongly opposed to WP:NEWT, but I do not see this as a reason to oppose, of all things, an RFB. A bureaucrat renames users and evaluates RFA, not hold the keys to heaven and hell. (And if it's otherwise, I've been stiffed) bibliomaniac15 05:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    "not hold the keys to heaven and hell" – Agreed. I'm pretty sure absolute perfection isn't a requirement.
    -Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

40. Support I'm sorely tempted to oppose per the NEWT thing, and per his views on RfA, but while I disagree with his opinions (RfA criteria, etc.) I trust his judgment and can't oppose in good conscience. Aditya Ex Machina 05:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
41. Support We need more 'crats for an ever expanding wiki. —Terrence and Phillip 06:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
42. SoWhy is he not a crat yet? ;) The Thing _{Editor Review} 06:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
43. Support. I have 100% confidence in SoWhy's ability to impartially determine consensus without letting his personal feelings interfere, a core quality that every bureaucrat should possess. Furthermore, he can always be counted on to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. His experience in crat-related areas is undisputable. A fully trustworthy admin who would do well as a bureaucrat. decltype (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
44. As I said I would. SoWhy has the experience and the know-how. He exercises good judgement. Support. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
45. Weak support I'm not crazy about WP:NEWT, and I think the discussion of well intentioned contributors' actions should have been handled better. Still I'll support. AniMate 09:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
46. Support - Happy to support SoWhy - overall a net gain to this project and is worthy of the next step.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 09:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
47. Seems to follow policy by the word but does have independent judgment - the hallmark of a good bureaucrat. And it's not that big of a deal. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Your involvement in Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion casts doubt on your suitability. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 14:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   May I ask why you view such participation negatively?  Frank  |  talk  14:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   I expect our 'crats not to take part in breaching experiments designed to prove a point and thus alienate some of our best editors. People who do that have no place as a 'crat. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 15:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks, I see there was quite a bit of backlash to this. (I was only peripherally aware WP:NEWT in the first place).  Frank  |  talk  17:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose. SoWhy's judgment is highly questionable; his subjective and policy-ignorant keep argument here, in an AfD that was confirmed as delete and easily survived a DRV, along with the involvement in Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion (a project that created extra work for the encyclopaedia, prevented people from working on actual backlogs and deceived the community simply to prove a point), means that I don't trust his judgement as an admin. His decision here (excluding the subject of the article itself) again shows either a lack of policy knowledge or flawed judgment; to claim that G11 does not apply to the userspace? I think not. I am not prepared to give a user additional tools, with far greater ramifications for incorrect decisions, when he has repeatedly shown poor judgement as a user and as an admin. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   I admit that I made mistakes in the past, we all make them after all. But that speedy you mention was two days into my adminship, 15 months ago, and I did not say that G11 does not apply to the userspace, I just said, that I assumed good faith in this case. Regards SoWhy 15:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   "Assuming good faith I tend to decline such requests in user space, as G11 is not appropriate " is assuming good faith in just that particular case? But fair point about the age - I should've checked, doh. Ironholds (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   It was in this case. But the general approach to G11 in userspace is to decline it then when the page in question could be considered a good-faith attempt to write an article or to represent oneself without being aware of our guidelines on the subject. For example, the page in question in this case [1] did not look like a purely promotional page but like someone trying to write an article and was actively edited by the user in question at that time. I agree that spam has to be deleted asap but we should not delete pages that could simply be someone trying to write a new article in their userspace without knowing all our guidelines. Regards SoWhy 15:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   So your approach is to decline the CSD and then examine the content? Ironholds (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   I may have misunderstood that question but why would it be? You have to examine the content first in order to know whether to decline a speedy, don't you? Regards SoWhy 15:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, my balls-up again; I speed-read it as "the general approach to G11 in userspace is to decline it [and see if] the page in question could be considered a good-faith attempt to write an article". Just ignore me :p. Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Too frequently I feel SoWhy's judgment is wrong regarding ANI, RfA, and other subjective areas. Since this entire position is making one more judgment, I oppose this request. Tan | 39 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
4. It's extremely difficult to obtain this position. Better qualified candidates have failed; one as recent as last week. It seems to me it was made clear in JC's RFB that there isn't a need for more 'crats right now. I personally think "there is no need" is a bullshit reason to oppose and perpetuates the misconception that bureaucratship is more important than it really is. However, because people do pay attention to how many 'crats there are, and like to make it sort of an exclusive group, I'm not inclined to support someone less suited for the position than others who may find themselves unable to get into this over-exclusive boy's club because of it. Lara 15:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   You realise that by opposing this for that reason, you are effectively helping to make bureaucratship an exclusive group? I'd prefer to see something relevant to SoWhy in your oppose, rather then something which reads like you "saving the seat" for other users by opposing other's RfBs. Basically, you may personally believe that there are better suited candidates, but is SoWhy good enough? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   Clearly not, or I would support. Lara 16:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   But your reason is that SoWhy isn't as good as someone else? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   Classic badgering. You are not helping the candidate here, Kingpin. Tan | 39 16:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   The number of active 'crats is mentioned in pretty much every RFB as a reason no more are needed. Granted, it's a stupid as hell argument, and it causes 'cratship to be needlessly exclusive, particularly considering it's not an impressive set of tasks. I don't create the circumstances; I merely acknowledge them. Under the circumstances, I don't believe SoWhy is either qualified nor suited for the position. I also find his answers to the questions thus far to be weak. There are stronger candidates willing to do the job. Why should I support in this case? Because you think he's good enough? No. Lara 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

5. Incredibly reluctant oppose - I've looked through some of SoWhy's actions and some previous successful and unsuccessful RfBs to try to support this, I have a great deal of respect for the nominator an have only seen solid work from the nominee before now, but unfortunatly I could not find that reason (Obviously I'm happy to be swayed by some compelling answers) but at the moment I believe SoWhy to be a good admin, but not quite up to the standard obviously demanded of Crats (As Lara Points out). I believe that, unlikely RfA, RfB switches the onous onto the one being nominated. Rather than it proving you will not do anything wrong with the admin tools, it is proving you will be a worthwhile custodian of the additional tools of a crat as well as the interpretative responsibilities over admin candidates. I am just not convinced, sadly. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose Not because I think you're a bad admin but because this is simply not okay. Deliberately trying to fool your fellow volunteers and admins like this does not indicate to me that you're suited to take on more responsibility than you already have. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
   • Sorry but I'm not buying your response to this. You showed up on a fellow administrator's talk page and deliberately covered your tracks by "forgetting" to sign your message and then argue as if you were unaware of why he had chosen to delete it. Your articles were deliberately written to test if the np patroller would grab the bait and tag them. Do you have any idea how unpleasent it is to talk to someone and not know that you are in fact talking to someone else who is trying to mislead you? If you haven't been on the recieving end of this sort of abuse of trust then I suspect you don't but try to see this from the other person's perspective. How would you feel if someone did this to you? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   It might have happened, I don't know. Honestly, and I know it might sound fake but I really think this, I would not mind. Quite the opposite actually: The fact that I never know who the person is that comes to talk to me makes me treat everyone the same and if someone came to me afterwards, saying they did so to see how I react when I don't know that it was them, then I would understand it and if someone discovers something that I did wrong while doing so, I'd be happy to find out about it. As I said in my NEWT statement, all editors involved with my part in NEWT (like tedder) actually responded positively and welcomed the possibility of constructive criticism. But I did not create the articles to see whether they would be tagged - I created them as a newbie would and wanted to see what happens to them. Regards SoWhy 18:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

7. Oppose per Redvers and Lara. Not the strongest candidate, and the entrapment experiment wasn't very impressive. I'll revisit this once all the questions have been answered, particularly Q11. GlassCobra 16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Per Redvers. Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion was as clear-cut as it's possible to be an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and I wouldn't trust anyone involved with it – and certainly not someone who fails to even recognize in retrospect just how disruptive their parlor-games were – with any position of authority; if there were a working desysop mechanism, I'd have nominated all those involved for it. – iridescent 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
9. I could overlook NEWT by itself, but in general I agree with Tan here. I would observe in response to Lara that people in the oppose section pointing out that we don't need more 'crats are often just responding to the supporters and even the candidate's nominating statement claiming that desperately, desperately we do need more. Since Jeffrey Gustafson left, I'm not sure need has been the sole basis of an oppose, merely that some people have felt it necessary to refute the claims of supporters that we need to open the bcrat trophy to as many people as possible. --JayHenry (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
10. I have concerns regarding inclusionism and participation in the disaster that was NEWT. We have enough awful articles that get "saved" by people following policy to the letter that are nothing but an embarrassment for Wikipedia. An admin holding an inclusionist ethos is bad enough, but a bureaucrat is worse. Too many times have I seen SoWhy oppose perfectly decent RFA candidates over nit-picking CSD so-called concerns (usually one-off mistakes from months ago; or, not mistakes, but the editor using a thing called common sense when dealing with a mess that is supposed to be an article). We will never be a respectable encyclopedia if junk is kept because it happened to be mentioned briefly somewhere. I think he misunderstands adminship, and that is not what I want from a bureaucrat at all. Majorly talk 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    So, to boil it down, you feel that SoWhy's beliefs toward articles would affect his ability to determine consensus on a close RfA? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    I feel he has poor judgement and may consider weak-reasoned opposes based on old CSD mistakes as more important than they actually are. Majorly talk 18:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Cratship is judging consensus, not only weighting !votes. If there were only one or two such opposes, then they would not weigh much. If a number of opposes exist for the same reason, they would weigh more. Judging an RFA is not (only) about the reasoning of the !votes, it's about whether those !votes are reflection of what the community thinks of the candidate. If the community shares a certain concern that is related to adminship, it does not only show up in one !vote. It will influence a number of them. Whatever I personally think of CSD would not influence me, just as I can close an AFD as delete even if I think the article should be kept. And of course I would probably not close an RFA where such concerns feature prominently anyway because I most likely !voted in it. Regards SoWhy 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Good to hear, but not worth the risk. I am adamantly opposed to any editor who is clearly inclusionist-inclined to receiving further privs. Majorly talk 19:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Wow. Just wow. Next time anyone claims that "inclusionists are playing politics at XXXX" I'm going to point them to this. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    I really appreciate the sarcasm. As it happens, I am sick and tired of inclusionists like SoWhy opposing people's RFAs with really minor quibbles over mistaken taggings. I think he has very poor judgement - there are much worse things than a couple of mistaken taggings. Such as plagiarism, copyvios, hoaxes, libel etc, all the kind of thing which inclusionists bend over backwards to "save". That is why I would oppose inclusionists, though I would always make exceptions. I would also oppose any editor who made questionable votes at RFA, as SoWhy has done often. Majorly talk 20:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Inclusionists support plagiarism, copyvios, hoaxes, and libel? Please. I'd really like to see some diffs of SoWhy actually supporting any of these. Really: put up or shut up, please. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Never said SoWhy supported any of those things. If you read what I wrote, you'll notice I said they (inclusionists) "save" articles from deletion, and yes, they often do contain plagiarism and copyvios. In fact, in Ironholds' RFA, some instances of "bad" tagging were in fact blatant plagiarism, and Ironholds was being opposed for tagging to delete blatant copyvios. But, the inclusionists so desperate to prevent the article being deleted, were careless and didn't check to see that this was the case. My issue is that with the mindset to keep anything and everything without actually caring to check, all sorts of rubbish ends up on Wikipedia, which is why no real scholar takes Wikipedia seriously. Majorly talk 21:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    For the record, there wasn't the smallest bit of sarcasm in my comment. I'm honestly not sure what you think was sarcastic. I meant it literally. Don't know if that makes it better or worse in your estimation, but you appear to have misunderstood my intent. I'll take it to your talk page. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

11. Judgement seriously questioned by allowing that oh-so-obvious WP:POINT breach to go ahead. I mean, I'm a bit of an inclusionist too, but even I could see that was disruptive and we were better off without it.  GARDEN  18:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose per interactions of the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the above opposes. Andrevan@ 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Could you please point out some instances of problematic interactions at BN? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    [2] [3] [4] Andrevan@ 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    I honestly fail to see the problem with any of those diffs. Unless you are using it as evidence that a potential crat should be aware of these things? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) I'm not sure I see the issue with any of those. BN is currently a public noticeboard; if the bureaucrats don't want "regular" users to comment there or request attention to a certain matter, that's fine, but I can't see anything but good faith in SoWhy's posts there. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    My issue is with the attempt to paint the bureaucrat tasks as backlogged, which strikes me as a power grab or an attempt to set up a successful bureaucrat nomination. This is extremely silly, as bureaucrat is a very specific and technical position with no extra bonuses or benefits. Andrevan@ 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Why assume the worst? People post at ANI all the time letting us know about backlogs at ANI, UAA, or RFPP, yet we don't take that as a sign of power hunger simply because they're trying to be helpful. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Number one, it wasn't even a backlog. Number two, there's no reason why users should be concerned about backlog on pages like CHU, which are completely non-essential to encyclopedia functioning, do not have deadlines or time constraints, and in fact concern only the users who request the renames and nobody else. And finally, consistent clerking at CHU suggests a desire to become a bureaucrat, and to then point out a non-existent backlog strikes me as simple power hunger. Note that I don't believe this should reflect negatively on this user's considerable content contributions, which I wish he would return to instead of running for dubiously worthwhile extra hats. Andrevan@ 00:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

13. Oppose - I wasn't even aware of NEWT until this very RfB. What a terrible idea. It's more than enough to oppose this RfB. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose per evidence of terrible judgment with the breaching experiment called NEWT.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Weak Oppose - Great guy, solid editor, waaaaaaaaaaaayyy to desperate for the 'crat flag. Ironically, when I reviewed Julian's recent RFB I had the impression that SoWhy also seemed to be far to "regular" at WP:BN - i.e. over and above giving input but trying to get himelf noticed. No disrespect, and I reiterate that SoWhy is a sterling admin and editor; it's just that these seems rather like hat collecting to me. Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Strong Oppose - per involvement with WP:NEWT. Kcowolf (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I just can't seem to decide, this user is excellent in a variety of areas, but those opposing do make a good point (specifically NEWT, and a bit on what Lara said). Leaning toward support, but I'm looking into some things right now.  fetchcomms☛ 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
2. WP:NEWT was a lousy idea and counter to our basic principles of assume good faith and transparency, but SoWhy's participation was relatively minor. I don't see it as definitive. Chick Bowen 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral but want to say that the protestations of the opposers based on WP:NEWT is absurd. Patently absurd. This "breaching experiment" resulted in some articles being created. Oh the horror! We can't have new articles being created here! Whatever would we do!?!?!?!?!? Just a dash of common sense, please. Wow. Nothing was disrupted, and some useful information came from it. Nothing negative came of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

   It's not really true that nothing negative came out of it; see the talk page for discussion of this. If you believe that the positives outweighed the negatives, that's understandable, but I think your dismissiveness here is uncalled for. Chick Bowen 01:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

4. I do see both sides, completely. I plan on coming back over the weekend to support or oppose if this isn't withdrawn by then. iMatthew ^talk at 22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)