User:MBisanz/Qs/RfBCandidate2

RfBCandidate2
Final (237/39/4); Closed by WjBscribe following discussion with other bureaucrats as to the outcome at 14:06, 8 March 2099 (UTC)

- Hi there :) I know that any RfB means *tons* of question-answering, nit-picking and soul-searching, so I'll make my opening statement as brief as I possibly can. It'll probably be boring anyway. I'm RfBCandidate2. I've been an admin for little over a year now, and an editor for about 20 months. I have a pretty good handle on how things get done around here, and try at all times to enforce rules with a large dose of common sense rather than with rigidity.

As far as cratting goes, my main interest lies in RfA. I frankly enjoy the process, with all its quirks and imperfections. It's symbolic of a community which is constantly learning new things about itself, and striving for improvement. I've taken part in most RfAs in late 2006-2007 (not so much 2099, unless a candidate catches my eye), and I feel I have a good understanding of what the community looks for in an admin, and what it considers good or bad closures. I also feel the community makes its choices well, bar some few exceptions who have something so obviously wrong with them, that they get caught up anyway. It is because I trust this community that I also believe that it is up to them to choose a candidate, not up to a crat.

It's hard to define the boundary where community opinion and bureaucrat discretion blend. I can say this much - if I am personally invested in an RfA in any way, I will not take action. If I believe a promotion will be controversial should I do it alone - and I am conservative enough to have a broad definition of 'controversy' - I will suspend a discussion in order to confer with other bureaucrats, no matter how long it might take. At the end of the day, I feel that we, as a project, need to remember that we are run by humans, and that human error encourages us to improve.

I've made plenty of RfA nominations myself. Most have been successful, and have gone on to become wonderful and respected admins. The unsuccessful ones, I continue to hold in high esteem. Some of these were bad choices for adminship, in hindsight, and I am happy to answer questions about them. I reiterate my firm belief that by and large, the community is correct. One does not become an administrator for oneself, but for the community, and it will judge best.

I'm also happy to help out with CHU/USURP. I'll go slow in this region because it looks a little trickier than just adding +sysop :) I'm also completely flummoxed by the bot process - they scare and confuse me! ;) - but there are so many experienced and helpful Wikipedians working in this area that I'm reasonably confident that I should be able to figure my way out eventually, should I ever need to.

Why apply for 'crat at this time? People seem to think we need more. I honestly think we need more, and I'm not very bothered if I become another statistic in the unsuccessful RfBs table - I'd just like to see loads more people doing this kind of work. I've always had an issue with Wikimedia's minimalism when it comes to higher-up positions, and strongly believe that the more trusted people doing an important task, the better. Our current crats are fab guys (and gal) and do a terrific job, but things could definitely be smoother and more efficient.

I'm happy to discuss anything you want. I love talking, especially about myself. For the sake of neatness, I might respond on the talkpage.

If you've stuck with me so far, congratulations. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 02:14, 28 December 2099 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Heh. Yes please! ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 04:15, 1 March 2099 (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. Bar the Carnildo affair, which had more undercurrents than an episode of The Young and the Restless, I've followed every controversial decision so far. I'm a bigger reader than a talker, so you may or may not have seen me at these discussions. I hate to break things down to numbers, but here's what I feel - anything above ~75% is alright. Anything below ~65% is probably not a good idea. Anything between that is open to interpretation and discretion, when arguments should be weighed on an individual basis.
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. Here's what I feel. We throw around the term 'bureaucratic discretion' a lot. However, it's important that we're actually discreet about this sort of thing. Bureaucrats achieve little through controversial promotions; one admin vs a mob of disappointed people who feel they've wasted their time. I don't feel we have a problem separating a candidate from the numbers - the numbers come from how people feel about the candidate, after all. At the point where the need for discretion arises, I'd protect a discussion and have a crat chat. At all times I'd consider opinions from the community, but at this point it'd ultimately be up to the bureaucrats.
 * 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 don't know that this is a question I can answer for myself, really - it's one for you guys! I can say this much: I've always tried my very hardest not to change my behaviour towards others despite having a sysop bit. I try to make it mean as little as possible in my interactions with others. I know policy well enough to be trusted with adminship, OTRS and a place on the ArbCom-appointed Working Group. That's all I can think of, really - I'll have to let my actions speak for themselves, and assist you on any specific points.
 * 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. A little too much. *sigh* :)


 * Question from SorryGuy
 * 5. Without specifically referring to your opinion on the ^demon RfA, although you are more than free to explain such, what is your general stance on reconfirmation RfAs? Do you believe that the bar should be set lower than the 75% level you described for what you feel normal promotion range should be? Any additional thoughts on reconfirmation RfAs are welcome. SorryGuy Talk  02:49, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * A. OK, do you mind if I discuss the ^demon issue in VanTucky's question? :) I'm not a huge fan of the concept of reconfirmation, frankly. For most returning admins it would be unnecessary. However, I think it takes a lot less time to just give your support/opposition than pontificate about the process. I've supported all the reconfirmation RfAs, AFAIK (save Majorly's, where I withdrew my support, and I've apologised for that). I mean, if you really want to put yourself through that again, more power to you. ;)


 * I don't think the bar should be set lower for reconfirmation. I don't see any reason why it should be. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


 * Question from Van Tucky
 * 6. What is your assessment on the recent resysopping of ^demon, despite the reconfirmation RFA closing with less than 65% support? How would you have closed it and why?
 * A. Hm, good question. With all respect to WJB, I wouldn't have closed it this way, and I wouldn't have flown solo on a controversial decision like this - it's best to get your head checked in these situations. I supported, and I thought that was the right thing to do. I also think that ^demon was and is a fine admin. However, the opposes were strong and reasonable, and they should have been considered further. Will's explanation was great and sufficient, and his standing with me remains as it ever was - but I personally would have asked for wider opinions, or, if I were going to do things individually, closed this as no consensus.


 * Questions from J.L.W.S. The Special One
 * 7. "Potentially controversial nominations should be decided through a discussion between multiple bureaucrats, rather than closed by a single bureaucrat." How far do you agree? Explain your answer.
 * A. I agree completely. As I've written before, it's always best for a sanity check in situations like this, or to check whether you've personally biased towards a person in any way.
 * 8. (question amended slightly) Your answer to question 2 mentions "bureaucratic discretion". Define "bureaucratic discretion", then state and explain at least three factors involved in bureaucratic discretion.
 * A. Ooh! This reminds me of high school :) Hmm, well:
 * Discretion - We seem to forget about this one a lot! I tend to make conservative judgements and try to follow the path of least harm.
 * A willingness to explain yourself - I'm not saying bad decisions can be made to go away just by having a good cover story, but you will need to explain your actions over and over again, and it's really good to sort out exactly why you're doing something, before you do it.
 * Dispassionate weighing of individual arguments - No matter whether you personally support these arguments or not. Try and put yourself in each user's shoes, and see precisely where they're coming from.
 * (amended answer) I define bureaucratic discretion as the very reason we choose humans to be 'crats, rather than giving the permission to a vote-calculating bot. It's having the sensibility and judgement to weigh individual arguments against each other, evaluate merits of an overall debate, separate one's opinions of a candidate and the voters from the arguments put forward by the voters, and eventually being able to give a considered and careful evaluation and conclusion to a debate. It's being prepared to have common sense rather than a inflexible interpretation of what vote margins should look like, and to explain yourself when things go wrong (or when any member of the community feels it has gone wrong). ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 03:09, 2 March 2099 (UTC)


 * (Not really optional) questions from User:Twooars
 * 9.It is obvious to me that when a 'crat closes a difficult RfA, a certain amount of personal bias does exist in the final decision and this can not be avoided. I would just like to choose 'crats knowing their biases and standards rather than someone who sidesteps the question saying "my opinion doesn't matter, I'll just determine whether there is consensus or not". Hence the following questions; unlike at an RfA, a refusal to answer may be sufficient reason for an automatic default oppose from me but answering them honestly will probably bring you more opposes, so.... :)


 * a)How do you feel about the following oppose reasons, assuming that they are the oppose rationales in their entirety (responses on a scale of "wtf?" to "well said!" :)
 * A OK. where 0 is "wtf?"


 * Not enough experience - relevant depending upon circumstances. Don't ask for 2 years and 10000 edits, it's just dumb.
 * Not enough time spent - depending on what your definition of 'enough time' is.
 * Uses automated tools - whatever gets the job done, right? 100% AWB stuff is obviously not desirable. Some original thinking is nice.
 * No participation at XFD / AIV / RFPP - even if lots of admins happily go through life (and do a great job) without visiting these areas. It's good to have a handle on this sort of thing anyway.
 * No need for tools - arguably none of us do.
 * Not enough mainspace contributions - it's harder to waste your time completely there.
 * Not enough wikipedia space contributions - some people just don't like this area, which is fair enough. I think you can be a competent admin without dealing in the project space.
 * Low mainspace:wikipedia space ratio (or any other ratio) - No. Still evidence of work.
 * Unfriendly / curt when communicating with fellow editors - very relevant, although the best and friendliest people will bite your head off if you keep poking them.
 * "I'll oppose all self nominations" - - it's an opinion, but I hope it will never be a popular one. Mind you, it may be true in some very isolated incidences. Certainly not enough to refuse to weigh any other qualities a candidate may bring.
 * "Weak answers to questions" / "did not bother to answer to questions" - - communication skills are important for an admin. But what's with all the non-optional optional questions? :)
 * Weak vs. strong oppose - - Definitely something to consider, and helps RfA become a little more than a straight 'aye' or 'nay'.
 * 
 * - People say not giving a support reason means 'I agree with the nomination statement'. I think, by the same token, not giving an oppose reason could mean 'I disagree with the nomination statement'. I'd personally have been insulted if I just got an unsubstantiated oppose on my own RfA - it seems to imply that the person isn't even worth just a little bit of explanation. I don't know... I'm kinda on the fence, leaning towards not liking them.


 * b)How do you feel about reconfirmation RfA's? Do you think they should have a different yardstick? Do you plan to apply a different yardstick?
 * A I feel I have answered this previously in Q5. If you have any other concerns will you please let me know?
 * c)When you are in doubt about an RfA closing and there are no other crats available to discuss with, what would you do, close as successful or unsuccessful?
 * 'A I feel I have answered this previously in Q6. If you have any other concerns will you please let me know?


 * Optional questions from Yechiel
 * 10. I read User:RfBCandidate2/RfA. How has your role in nominating users for adminship prepared you for closing RFAs?  In particular, is there a contradiction between your somewhat cheerful desire to support anyone who "has clue" with the need for a bureaucrat to judge neutrally? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:52, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * A: I don't think these facets are related, personally. How I feel about a candidate will never influence how I close an RfA. And yes, I'm happy to support anyone clueful. I think everyone is.
 * 11. You wrote in the above-linked page that recent nominations for RFA, including mine, have been "cursed." Did you really expect these all to succeed, or were you just hoping they would? (And at the end of the day, does it really matter?) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:52, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * A: "Cursed" is jocular and I certainly hope that no more than 30% of the things I say are taken seriously! :) No, I did not expect them all to succeed. I'd have liked them to. I believe that RfA is a learning process, for the nominator, for the nominee and for the community. Each controversial RfA teaches us a little bit more about ourselves and how we approach issues as a whole; how we judge people, what we look for in admins, what their purpose here is. At the end of the day... of course it matters. Not for me, but for the candidate. No one likes a strike-out on their record. But life goes on, especially if you've learned something from it.


 * Questions fromMBisanz
 * 12a. Crats flag Bots per WP:BAG consensus. They also interpret close elections of editors to the BAG.  What is your standard for an editor passing a BAG election?
 * A: Eek, bots! Can I just say, first off, that I'm really unlikely to go near bots, especially in the initial stages? Only if absolutely necessary, and even then, I would proceed only with the judgement and guidance of my more experienced colleagues. That said, here's my response: Consensus of all Wikipedians who have participated, whether they are existing BAG members or not. The BAG is not a self-perpetuating group, as noted by a consensus in the MfD last year. It's not a vote, so I'd feel uncomfortable giving a percentage. Basically, if the close is uncontroversial (eg. unanimous either way), the bureaucrats typically haven't closed BAG nominations, but rather left to others. If it is controversial, I will analyse the discussion how I would any other discussion on Wikipedia and look for a consensus; if none exists, I am to understand that (as with all other processes on Wikipedia) the status quo remains, and I would have to close it as unsuccessful.
 * 12b. BAG approves Bots in the WP:RBA process. How many BAGers supporting a Bot function would you require to flag a bot?  What if there was opposition from non-BAGers?
 * A: One, provided something isn't seriously wrong, and everything seems uncontroversial to be in order. If there is opposition from non-BAGers to the bot getting a flag, I would expect that the basis for the opposition be addressed or dismissed by consensus before the bot is approved by the BAG for flagging; if not, I would hesitate to flag the bot and make my hesitation known on the RFBA page, although in highly exceptional circumstances, proceed using common sense and my best intentions.
 * 12c Currently the process to involuntarily de-flag a bot is handled in an ad-hoc manner at WT:RFBA. Where, from whom, and in what form, would you require consensus to de-flag a bot against its owner's wishes?  Against the BAG's wishes, but with the community's consensus?
 * A: I would expect any discussion that takes place on that discussion page to have been linked from the operators' talk page, the bots' userpage, AN, the technical village pump page, and also the talk page of BAG. A consensus would be exactly that: a consensus of participating Wikipedians after a discussion of sufficient length and with sufficient input for me to consider it a "consensus representing the general community's wishes". Depending on the nature of BAG's opposition, I would analyse it closely and make my decision based on how I feel their position as confirmed members of the technically-responsible group affects the influence and strength of their argument. For example, if their opposition is based on technical issues, I would be more hesitant to consider a consensus to exist and deflag the bot; if their opposition is more morally-based (ie. not technically-based), I would probably ignore the fact that they are BAG members and consider their arguments as normal Wikipedians. However, as always, one or two people dissenting does not mean a consensus cannot exist, even if their background and their position within BAG means they have a technically-savvy background. Analysing consensus means weighing up strength of argument and support of argument, so the fact that certain people are members of BAG may become a small consideration. I would act, as I always attempt to, in a responsible manner using my best judgement, and with common sense.


 * Question from Daniel


 * 13. One of your nominees, who I won't name out of courtesy and for fear of distraction to the purpose of this question, you nominated with a statement to the effect of (paraphrased) "he doesn't edit articles, but this doesn't mean he is not a good candidate". Users are occasionally opposed based on this rationale, with the justification being along the lines of this. Above in the question where you used numbers to rate RfA reasons, you gave it "8", which is basically that this argument will more often persuade you than it will not. Under what circumstances would you a) consider this rationale persuasive and b) ignore this rationale when judging consensus on an RfA? Daniel (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * A: This is difficult because I was heavily personally invested in the RfA you speak of - I really wanted it to pass, to what clearly was the detriment of my nomination statement, where I wore my heart a little too much on my sleeve - and I rarely, if ever, am so invested. In general, at a very fundamental level, certain admins never need any experience with article writing, in order to become admins. But most of us do, and I think most of us know that we never end up doing only the things we thought we'd do before RfA. It's very easy to say "I will only do patrol 3RR, do moves and block usernames", but way trickier in reality - next thing you know, you're off banning nationalists and patrolling fair use! That said, that nominee of mine continues to have my full support.
 * Less personal: If this rationale for opposition became the defining issue in what would otherwise be a clear-cut RfA, I'd consider it very seriously. It's most certainly a viable concern. I'd say I'd ignore it if it were clear that the candidate would never venture into article territory (and bar the CSCWEMs, there are few who don't) - or if the candidate were exceptional in other areas (knowledge of policy, communication skills, positive interactions with others, clue). ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 14:40, 29 December 2099 (UTC)


 * Question from Pedro
 * 14 According to discussion here, and my talk page, there is some bearing on the final out come of this RfB and my particular commentary in oppose. Note - that's according to to others, not me. I wish it were otherwise. Therefore my question is simple, and, sadly, direct. What have your learnt from your nomination of Controversial Former Admin? In a similar situation, would you do it again? Pedro : Chat  20:14, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * A: Now, how much does this look like cadging for votes? Ah well, I'm on RfB, I've lost all dignity anyway :) As a personal response to you, Pedro - I've responded to the 'too nice' concern on the talk, and perhaps you'll have a look at it, should you have the chance. And please don't change your vote for any other reason than your own belief that you should.
 * What have I learned? The same thing that's apparent to me in every step of this RfB - there are undercurrents, agendas, old wounds, old friendships, old alliances, which no time can heal, no RfC can resolve, no accusations can break. Call it wikidrama. Call it cabal. I think of it more like a tapestry; wonderful and structured on the one side, tangled and dark and deeply interesting on the other. And these are not things that I, as a single user, as the nominator of a single RfA, am in a position to change.
 * You ask me a direct question. I do not give you a direct answer - you may be looking for something like "I learned Controversial Former Admin was great but people are dumb" or "I learned I may have been suffering from a brain seizure". I really can't do that. It, like now, was one of the times I found us at our most frustrating and our most endearing - people have opinions and relationships which they hold on to and nurture. And that's fair enough. I'll respect anyone who sticks to their guns, and to their friends.
 * Would I do it again? Darlin', I might be a masochist, but I'm not insatiable! ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 20:33, 29 December 2099 (UTC)


 * Questions from Dorftrottel
 * 15. Hypothetically speaking, if an RfA were to be opposed by a relatively large number of people who have a significant history of voting in unison, would that influence the weight you assign those opposes or not? Dorftrottel (criticise) 01:44, March 1, 2008
 * A: As with all other comments, these should be weighed on their own merits, and considered not for who they come from, but what they contain. You seem to imply cliquery or solicited votes. Yeah, it happens. But it doesn't mean the opinions are bad or wrong. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 02:00, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 15.a What is your opinion on Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes? In your own opinion, did the numbers (201/71/4, 73,9% support) and the overall quality of the opposes justify that closure? How would you have commented on Requests for adminship/Gracenotes/Bureaucrat chat? Dorftrottel (talk) 08:33, March 3, 2008
 * A: RfA/Gracenotes was pretty farcical all around, IMO, with the best and the worst of us shining through. Massive amounts of AGF from lots of people, which was great - and absolutely none at all on the other. I wish Gracenotes had passed, but I still think that closing it as unsuccessful was the right call, given the nature and gravity of the opposition's concerns. This doesn't mean I believe those accusations were *correct* - but I'm trying to make a distinction between my opinion of the accusations, and the substance of the accusations, if that makes sense. I think Cecropia made some pretty good calls throughout that argument, and I was impressed by his clear-headedness, even if I believe that it was unclear uptil the last stages of that debate what his final call would be - and that it was mainly based on GN's own withdrawal. I probably would have tried to submit a point-by-point analysis of opposers' concerns, weighed the benefits the candidate would bring to the table against the negative impact it might have, and I would stay away from discussing esoterica such as whether it was indicative of something wrong with the RfA process - I don't think that's helpful in the midst of a discussion. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 02:10, 4 March 2099 (UTC)


 * Questions from Tim Smith
 * 16a. As an administrator, you are to be commended for making yourself open to recall. There is currently no analogous process for bureaucrats.  Should bureaucrats be open to recall?  Would you support a Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats open to recall?
 * A: Thank you for the question - it's definitely something I've thought about, given that I strongly believe in the admin recall process, or any process that makes us more culpable for our actions. That said, I'm not sure how necessary a complimentary bureaucrat recall option is. For one, administrative actions have a much larger and more immediate impact on what we do here. For another, admin actions are higher in volume than 'crat actions (just as an example, our most active admin as 208,771 actions - our most active bureaucrat does not approach a tenth of that number). Certainly bureaucrat actions can be controversial - we wouldn't be here having this massive discussion if they weren't! But I feel that these can be adequately dealt with on an individual basis, based on the action itself, without it becoming a reflection on a bureaucrat's work as a whole. To put it simply, you're more likely to develop patterns, whether constructive or destructive, as an admin. That's how I feel right now.


 * 16b. What level of support is required for a successful RfB?
 * A: I believe - and continue to believe, despite current discussions on WT:RFA - that a range between 85% to 90% is an ideal level of support. Bureaucrats have been adjudged by the community to require even higher levels of trust, skill and intelligence than an administrator, and as long as this belief holds, this range should also hold.
 * That said, the strength of arguments should always be the largest factor in evaluating the success or failure of a candidacy.


 * 16c. As a bureaucrat, would you close or participate in closing a discussion in which you had commented?
 * A: If my comments were supportive or negative towards an admin candidate/bot request in any manner, I would not close or participate in closing a discussion, as I have an admitted bias towards the outcome. I don't believe that this would hold me back from taking part in normal talkpage discussion or commentary, as a member of the community, but I would probably check with my peers to ensure that none of my participation could be judged to be biased in any manner. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 01:14, 2 March 2099 (UTC)


 * Question from uncle uncle uncle
 * 17 Determining consensus
 * 17.1 When determining consensus, do you give equal weight to a "Support"/"Oppose" with no comment as to one with a comment?
 * A: I may have responded to some aspects of this in one of Twooars's questions, but let's discuss it again. I've seen lots of people badgering opposers who simply 'oppose' to provide a rationale. In my opinion, just as a simple 'support' could be considered a general agreement with the nomination statement and the candidate's contributions/reputation, a simple 'oppose' could be considered a disagreement with the same. I'm much more likely to give credence to - and, as a participant in an RfA, be persuaded by - a comment with a rationale, evidence, etc. What I'm trying to say is I view supports and opposes with no rationale equally, and proper testimonials rate higher than simple votes.


 * 17.2 When determining consensus, would you consider "Support" and "Oppose" to have equal value, or is does one have more weight than the other?
 * A: Good question! Opposes are naturally always more troubling, and worth thinking about for longer. I'd honestly give more thought to one well-considered oppose than 5 simple supports.


 * 17.3 When determining consensus, does the identity of the "voter" matter when determining weight? For instance, would you give equal weight to the opinion of a long time editor in good standing as to the opinion of an editor who was found by the Arbitration Committee to have used multiple sockpuppets during prior voting?
 * A: In your example, it most definitely would matter, and I can say without hesitation that they would not be given equal weight - not without careful consideration about whether the latter editor could possibly have changed their ways since that time. However, would a new editor's opinion matter less than that of an editor with 10000 edits? Maybe, maybe not. New editors often have perspectives which long-term folks have either never had, or have lost, and can be very insightful. On the other hand, they might not have gotten into the swing of things yet.
 * As I write elsewhere, old relationships - negative or positive - are important to Wikipedia's social structure. So, when votes come down to these, it's important as a bureaucrat to be able to separate a candidate from the relationships s/he has with the identity of voters. The identity should be considered, but not given undue weight, and not to the detriment of evaluating the merits of the overall discussion. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 02:42, 2 March 2099 (UTC)


 * Questions from Seresin
 * I am in the support camp right now, but since it seems the vote/consensus threshold may be lowered from the normal 90%, and allowing this to result in a pass, I'd like to make a more informed decision. So here are my questions for you.
 * 18. Say an administrator voluntarily resigns his flag. A month later, he decides he wants it back. For whatever reason, he feels the compulsion to go through a so-called "reconfirmation RfA", although it is agreed that as per the ArbCom ruling, he should be able to get them back by asking because he did not relinquish them "under a cloud", as it were. For whatever reason, during the course of the RfA, he withdraws it early. He trots back over to WP:BN, and asks for his flag back. Do you believe that he should be able to get them back if the RfA was clearly going to pass? If it might have passed? If there was very little chance he would pass? Also, after deciding to discuss with your fellow bureaucrats, you find that the collective bureaucracy is split on the issue. Who determines consensus among bureaucrats?
 * A: If it were failing? I feel that if you are (ostensibly) feeling responsible enough to reconfirm the community's trust, you should be responsible enough to abide by the community's decision. If they don't want you to go through - they don't. To paraphrase an opposing comment at a recent reconfirmation RfA, people have had a chance to see you in action, and if there's something they don't like, they can oppose, and you should stick to that decision.
 * If it might have been passing - I think discussion among bureaucrats would be necessary.
 * If it was going to pass - no worries, although people would probably call you out about wasting their time, so beware!
 * Who determines consensus among bureaucrats - heh, tough. I would hope that such trusted users would be able to find enough points to agree upon at some point, but if not, a higher court of appeal might have to step into the fray. I imagine this would be a fairly rare occurence, though.


 * 19. Similar to the above, and may seem an obvious answer but you never know with those tricky ArbCom rulings. An editor who was previously an administrator decides to have another RfA; it fails. However, he did not resign "under a cloud." Can he get his +sysop back by asking? Or must he then have a successful RfA to get it back?
 * A: I do not think they should get it back automatically if this is the case. Follow the community's concerns and attempt to improve upon them. This would be unabashed gaming of the system and acting against consensus, and would rightfully get a lot of people very angry.


 * 20. You see a contentious RfA, and one where there are likely to be problems regardless of how it is closed. We can use the <70% RfAs, if you'd like. There is not cut and dried consensus. You decide that you want to get other bureaucrats' opinions on this RfA before closing. On BN, or on a /crat chat page, you have both bureaucrat and non-crat opinions. Do the non-RfB passers' opinions matter in determining whether or not there is consensus?
 * A: Oh, absolutely. New perspectives are always refreshing. Ultimately, though, it's the closing bureaucrat's call, and her/his responsibility to explain her/himself - and no blaming your choices on the others at this point! :)


 * 21. I've always wondered about this. It is probably not something the bureaucrats have authority over, but rather the community, so feel absolutely free to indicate if that is what you believe. Bureaucrat X closes an RfA as successful (in good faith). You, however, (also in good faith) believe that it clearly failed; you believe this very strongly. Is it within a bureaucrat's authority to say another bureaucrat was wrong, and therefore re-close the RfA as failed, and ask a steward to remove the flag? Or does a bureaucrat's authority only lie in being the first one to get to an RfA?
 * A: Bureaucratic wheel-warring, eh? :) And like admin wheel-warring, this would require a great deal of thought (maybe even more thought - RfA can be an emotional business, especially if it's one that's just scraped through, and people's feelings are at stake here). I can't see any circumstances under which I would do this, to be honest. If I felt strongly enough I would question the other 'crat about his actions, but only as a member of the community. And I definitely wouldn't get a steward involved, nor would I expect any of our stewards to abide by my request.


 * 22 We're done with RfA questions. Now to renames. Can non-bureaucrats shape rename policy/guideline/convention? Or, rather, is it like ArbCom where the ArbCom (and Jimbo) have authority to dictate such things? What is your opinion on a bureaucrat violating a long-standing convention on renames?
 * A: I think all policies/guidelines/similar pages on different topics, are shaped by the community as a whole, not merely ArbCom or Jimbo. ArbCom can ensure policy is adhered to, but said policy is a work in progress, and that's the beauty of a wiki. Similarly, non-bureaucrats should absolutely have the right to help perfect rename guidelines, hand-in-hand with bureaucrats, in order to maintain order and ensure that suggestions are within the bounds of reason.
 * A bureaucrat defying convention would need to be dealt with the same way any bureaucratic action - questioning as to the motives, expecting a reasonable response, and undoing any damage, if necessary. And as with all things, consider the action on its own merits, and not let it become a reflection on the 'crat's work as a whole, unless absolutely necessary.


 * 23, for good measure Short and quick, though. Here on enwiki, we do not currently have regular "reconfirmation" of administrators, nor do we desysop inactive admins, as they do on many projects. (See meta's process, for example) How do you feel this should be applied to bureaucrats, if at all?
 * A: While I'm personally fine with the concept of reconfirmation as it exists on Meta, I believe this would be a tedious, time-consuming and impractical process for enWP, where community involvement in RfA/B is high, as is the number of administrators. And, kinda contradictorily, I don't believe we have enough bureaucrats here to justify a reconfirmation process for inactivity. Although it might stop people making those 'We already have enough 'crats' arguments! :) EnWP is vastly different to other wikis, and processes elsewhere do not necessarily apply here. People's actions while they are here are more important than their lack of action. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 12:25, 2 March 2099 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm asking you anything before voicing my opinion, but here we are :)
 * Surprising(ly) optional questions from Fvasconcellos
 * 23 Let me star off by saying I believe you are one of our best admins; you're also one of the most no-nonsense folks I know or have interacted with on Wiki. However, "no-nonsense" can mean "a bit harsh" in some people's eyes (God knows we've got our share of BITEy admins, though I don't think you're one of them): though I've never seen you react in a way that was ultimately detrimental to the community, do you think you can keep a supremely cool head in the face of controversy?
 * A: Thank you for your compliments, FV - you'll make this dark girl blush! ;) Just for starters, I'm assuming that some part of this question is motivated by the diffs provided below of my less controlled outbursts. I can say without hesitation and with a great deal of shame that, given that I am prone to self-examination, I am very aware of when I am being rude to someone, and I am never so unintentionally. I can also say that these diffs are honestly the very, very few times I recall being rude to someone onwiki (apart from trolls and vandals, but really... ) I intended to be rude. I got the effect I was looking for. This makes me an occasionally evil person. But mostly not. All I can say is that I try not to be rude to people who don't deserve it.
 * The most awful thing that has happened to me onwiki was being accused of being a sockpuppet of a banned user in my early days. I think I handled it in a silly and inexperienced way, but certainly not rudely or excitably. I feel embarrassed when I think of the way I handled it, but not regretful. I'm pretty sure I can and have managed to keep my cool 99.234% of the time.


 * 24 Would you close an RfA in which you have a personal interest, whether "for" or "against" the candidate? Specifically, would you "close for the enemy", implementing a community decision you feel to be misguided? I realize this would be an exceedingly rare occurrence, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
 * A: Simple answer - absolutely not! I'd take part as a member of the community though, if I felt strongly enough. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 02:33, 4 March 2099 (UTC)


 * 25 Now, for a deliberately vague question: what impact do you think being a 'crat will have on your administrative actions?
 * A: You know, none, I'm hoping. Perverse as I am, I enjoy admin stuff, and wouldn't want to cut down on it too much. I'd just get more moves in my logs ;) ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 02:33, 4 March 2099 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore these, by the way. My opinion isn't hanging on your answers :) Fvasconcellos (t•c) 14:02, 2 March 2099 (UTC)

General comments

 * See RfBCandidate2's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

 * Just a note. Cheers, ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 07:22, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Per my longstanding custom, I don't "vote". I think this is a trustworthy candidate and we are in chronic need of new bureaucrats, however, so I want to express my support for the nomination. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:13, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * In response to opposition based on the Controversial Former Admin RFA: RfBCandidate2 wasn't the only one who got suckered. In the early going, Former Admin_2&oldid=161332847 that RFA was passing at 17/1/0.  I think it's unfair to place all of the blame, or even one third of the blame, on her. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:35, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * I find it very disturbing how people talk about RfBCandidate2's bad judgement when 10 or so other admins supported the nomination; and two others co-nominated it. Do they have bad judgement too for that one incident? RfBCandidate2's been on Wikipedia for years, does one incident automatically scratch out all her useful and helpful contributions? Is that reasonable? &mdash;Dark (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest, RfBCandidate2's being punished for daring to not hate who the cool kids hate. And I dare someone to tell me I'm wrong. Mike H. Fierce! 10:13, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. Ne?l ?  11:14, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * I think there's perhaps an element of daring to hate who the cool kids hate. But I don't think it's quite as tribal as you suggest.  As nominator you have some responsibility to assess a candidate's suitability for the role and to make an honest nominating statement about it.  Similarly, if you take an action that some people consider an egregious mistake, especially as a bureaucrat, you have some obligation to explain yourself.  That she initiated (though likely inadvertently) an exercise in trolling at RFA is something that could use an explanation.  But the fact that she declines to answer questions about it is, I believe, a very legitimate cause for concern. --JayHenry (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Or not a concern at all, and people are blowing it up out of nothing. I think people pearl-clutch more often than they need to about these things. Maybe she didn't feel it needed to be answered? I don't know. But it does seem like one of those situations where she would be damned if she did answer and damned if she didn't. And again, tell me I'm wrong. Mike H. Fierce! 22:01, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * I am amazed that NO ONE in this discussion has realized the possibilities of constructive trolling. Moreschi (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I, for one, have not. I can't quite imagine what "constructive trolling" is supposed to be either, tho. --Conti|? 15:45, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, there is no constructive trolling. See WP:POINT. Matt Yeager ? (Talk?)  21:08, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * I think people who are voting oppose solely (or indeed, largely) over the entire Controversial Former Admin issue need to read and consider carefully Pedro's well thought-out support below. The issue is a 5-month old issue; which is a lifetime in the Wiki-world.  What these opposes are essentially saying is that any lapses in judgement, even if a singular incident, will be held against a person in-perpetuity.  There is no pattern of behavior here, rather there is a singular mistake, which RfBCandidate2 has used to inform herself with, and which has actually improved her decision making process.   This RFB is proof that of the maxim that one ill-thought-out act will undo a million positive ones.  The entire thing is a red herring, and what it says is "Screw up once early in your career and you will have no chance for improvement".  I urge all people to consider their votes in the context of this: Consider the worst mistake you ever did.  Do you want people to judge you forever on that singular event, or on the course of your life since that mistake?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:39, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * I am beginning university again today and will not be very active online for at least the next 2-3 days. All questions will unfortunately have to wait. Thank you and best wishes to all! ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 23:01, 2 March 2099 (UTC)


 * Hi Jayron and others, no I wouldn't vote oppose solely over the KM thing, we all have people we are attached to who are daft sometimes.:) But I feel I've seen RfBCandidate2 be a 'follower' or something over some other events, I could be wrong though, and don't ask me to find diffs, that's just my special, random inkling.:)  She also strikes me as quite an intense person, and then there's the "f**k" incident. Special  Random  (Merkinsmum)  02:58, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * So instead of a follower, intense, and "f**k," you want someone who's a leader, but bland and sweet as pie. I don't think Marie Osmond has an account, but let's nominate her, surely she's what you're looking for. :) Mike H. Fierce! 08:46, 3 March 2099 (UTC)


 * Please stop saying "f**k that". RfBCandidate2 didn't say that. She said Fuck that. WP:NOTCENSORED, folks. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:24, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * To any and all opposing over the Jimbo, Veropedia, "fuck that" issue - all I can say is that I, for one, am rather glad that I am honest enough not to have deleted my userpage and started from scratch, as so many do. My fit of anger was not particularly publicised, except among friends here, and if I had chosen to delete that, no one here would be the wiser. I didn't. Make of that what you will. I honestly think it was rather transparent of me to keep it, given the ridiculous ease with which I could have gotten rid of it. I kept it to remind me that we have high times and low. And that I am not necessarily in complete agreement with every direction this project takes, but that I defend its core goals to the end. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 13:54, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * This response is yet another reason I feel very comfortable supporting RfBCandidate2. She is absolutely right that some people have their userpages deleted (non-admins) or delete them themselves (admins) to hide such "low times." Kudos for not being one of those people, RfBCandidate2. Bellwether B  C  14:23, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Basically, a lot of the opposes come down to "She made an RfA nom that didn't have a chance of passing and said a bad word!" Well, really people...it's silly, and fuck that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:55, 5 March 2099 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) First! Support - duh Will (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Glad to be first second. Don't go crazy! :)  Majorly  (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) (oh noes, double ec) Strongest support ever. Z-man and RfBCandidate2 would both make excellent 'crats, and if Acalamari runs now as I've begged, I will be dancing with myself. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 02:25, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * All that said, I am concerned by the Controversial Former Admin nom. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:19, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1)  Dloh  cierekim  02:25, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, good user, been around a while. Prodego  talk  02:26, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Absolutely yes! Captain   panda  02:27, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Obvious support. Somitho (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 5) Hell yeah!  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:29, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes: I am always convinced by RfBCandidate2's judgment. That is a sufficient reason for me to support. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 7) I trust RfBCandidate2 completely. Acalamari 02:32, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 8) Excellent. --barneca (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Since I supported relatively early, before the KM issue was raised (I had forgotten about that): Confirming my strong support. --barneca (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: Another familiar name, and see no reason not to support. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) I definitely trust RfBCandidate2 to make the right choices. Strong support. --Agüeybaná 02:43, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Strong candidate, knows bureaucrat policies, and has a history of logical decision-making. ~Kylu ( u | t )  02:50, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 4) I assume you're R-dizzle? Lookin' and Lovin'!!!!  Jus tin (Gmail?)(u) 02:52, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 5) zOMG YES! RfBCandidate2 has always impressed me. She's perfect for this position.  Lara  ?  Love  02:53, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 6) Add mine. Avruch  T 02:57, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 7) Absolutely!  SQL Query me!  03:01, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Van Tucky 03:02, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 9) Sense and sensibility. What's not to like? Ronnotel (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Is it me or is there something oddly auto-erotic about the frequency with which RfBCandidate2 has, er, herself. Ronnotel (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * rofl. Er, don't ask. :P ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 05:12, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Sorry, RfBCandidate2, I keep telling myself: 'Tequila, quaaludes, posting at WP, pick two', but it never works out that way. :( Ronnotel (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Of course Easy decision. « Gonzo fan2007  talk ? contribs 03:06, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Support We need more admin's 'cuz it's raining more than ever. RfBCandidate2 is the umbrella (ella ella eh eh eh) crat for the job. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ?  03:07, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) Sound judgement. I see no reason to oppose :) seicer  |  talk  |  contribs  03:08, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Yep.  Cbrown1023    talk   03:09, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - excellent candidate with valuable experience in crat areas.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  03:09, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 6) x3 Strongest possible support She will make a great 'crat. She's helped me out on & off-wiki, going above and beyond her call of duty. She's always happy & helpful, just what we need.  ??w^??? ?  03:10, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - stealing support #27. Nihiltres { t .l } 03:24, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - definitely will make a good crat.   jj137   (talk)  03:11, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Another Of course. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 10) You get my support RfBCandidate2 but do I have to write another damn Haiku?-- VS talk 03:13, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Her judgment has my confidence.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 03:26, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 12) Support My experiences with RfBCandidate2 as an administrator have been nothing short of stellar. May she bring honor to the B'crat position. ;) -Jéské ( v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing ) 03:26, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - RfBCandidate2 has been a very trustworthy administrator and I rarely have seen her get involved in significant conflicts. I believe she would be a fine crat.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  03:28, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong support - absolutely 100%. A phenomenally trustworthy admin. She will make an excellent 'crat! - A l is o n  ? 03:32, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 15) Strongest Support that cannot be matched unless Newyorkbrad runs for something new :D. RfBCandidate2=great admin, great admin=great crat, great crat=RfBCandidate2. <- Perfect logic folks. Seriously, RfBCandidate2 is a great admin and user (and person :]) and has been able to deal with many problems well. I trust RfBCandidate2 to continue her excellence :) -- R Talk Contribs@ 03:36, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Everything else about RfBCandidate2 made her look like a great bcrat, and the answer to my and VanTucky's questions give me even more confidence in her abilities. Best of luck, SorryGuy Talk  03:36, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 17) Support She is an excellent admin in my view, and I had positive interactions with her. Pre  ston  H  03:40, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 18) Support She has a huge amount of support from other established users and from all the great experiences I have had with her (small but significant) I think she will make a great bureaucrat! Drizzt   Ja  mo  04:02, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Been around enough to have an idea of 'bigger picture'-type issues. Good to get some female representation unlike the 2020 summit too....Casliber (talk • contribs) 04:04, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Consistently good judgment and good answers to the questions.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. I must concur with my esteemed colleagues, above - RfBCandidate2 is a Class act, her unorthodox block log aside. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 04:16, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Another good one.  MBisanz  talk 04:31, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Demonstrates the maturity and even temperament required from bureaucrats.  Horologium  (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - How can I oppose, there are no red flags. Tiptoety  talk 04:52, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 25) I've had this watchlisted for a very, very long time. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:53, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 26) Support I like the answers on q 5 and 6...I think it's important that the bureaucrats seek consensus among themselves when considering controversial or "close" RFA's. Community consensus in those cases is important enough to spend some time getting right. RxS (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Good track record of RfA nominations, very cordial and shows good judgment. Can only think o one reason to oppose and it's inconsequential to me.  Wizardman  05:03, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Excellent record and is well-known for level-headedness and judgment. JPG-GR (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 29) Yes, if she is willing to take on the extra work load :) Spebi 05:12, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - No reason to oppose and much to support.--Sunny910910 (talk 05:12, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 31) Ok. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:19, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 32) Support In my experience, always patient and kind. A good listener and clear thinker.  Is likely to be active, but is unlikely to replace community consensus with her own opinions, and this is something we need in 'crats right now.  Sees the role as one of helping rather than one of power and would, in my opinion, be a good balance to the current bureaucracy. --JayHenry (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * I do think, however, that FeloniousMonk raises a fair point below, and I'd actually like to know what happened there. --JayHenry (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. Dekimasu ?! 05:23, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - one of the most clueful sysops out there, we need more 'crats, and RfBCandidate2's perfect for the job. Everybody wins. Keilana | Parlez ici 05:30, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Absolutely. This user has my complete trust. GlassCobra 05:42, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 4) Cla68 (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 5) Support 100%. Mike H. Fierce! 06:07, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 6) Passes the "'crat qualities" checklist with flying colours. Spellcast (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per Miranda. "Just get rid of the holier-than-thou attitude, I prefer bitches. ~ RfBCandidate2"  Classic.  ? Hi DrNick ! 06:48, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - trustworthy admin. Addhoc (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 9) To sum it all up, the best admin I've ever interacted with. What else can I say? &mdash;Dark (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Will be a great 'crat, but 102 opposes on the KM RfA, WTF? -MBK004 08:11, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, alright, nominating Controversial Former Admin for admin was a really, really bad idea, but we've all had our moments. Overall, RfBCandidate2 is an excellent editor and admin, and I have no doubt will be an excellent crat. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:12, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 12) Support no reason not to. Viridae Talk 08:32, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Level headed and intelligent. --Stephen 08:53, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, definitely.  R. Baley (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 15) Tarragon Support Snort, snort, snort, snort, snort!  Dfrg_ msc  09:17, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 16) Sufficient taste in music. She'll do fine. Dorftrottel (warn) 09:19, December 28, 2008
 * Amend to strong support in light of what to me personally looks a tiny bit like coordinated opposition by a group of people who is infamous for sinking RfAs in order to punish and make an example of dissenters. Also echo others here: I have no reservations whatsoever regarding RfBCandidate2's suitability. For all I know, she might be the best bureaucrat we ever had. She's always thoughtful, she's intelligent, soft-spoken and an all-around great person. Dorftrottel (bait) 16:55, March 3, 2008
 * 1) Strong Support per Acalamari. —?????? •'discussion'• 10:52, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per the opinions above. Jehochman Talk 11:08, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Kind in tone, but cool and, I hope, disinterested in judgment. An editor who respects consensus. Regarding one of the oppose-reasons below, it is certainly possible to see Controversial Former Admin's re-nomination for adminship as poor judgment, but it is also possible to see it as an instance of giving Controversial Former Admin and the community a chance for reconsideration without pretending to "know" in advance what the community wants. Sluzzelin talk  11:26, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I would most certainly trust RfBCandidate2 with the bureaucrat tools. :) --Core desat 11:30, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, as I believe the Controversial Former Admin nomination was a temporary mental lapse, and everything else is near perfect. ;) • AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  11:31, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Definitely. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 7) Huggles Support - Go RfBCandidate2 \o/ ....-- Cometstyles 11:46, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Fair, trustworthy and knowledgable. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Ne?l <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">?  11:48, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Thought you were one already... heh. Jmlk  1  7  11:58, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 10) Support one of the fairest admins here. I certainly can't imagine a finer candidate for bureaucratship. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Fair and trustworthy. Woody (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Experienced and trusted user. utcursch | talk 12:21, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I trust this user to not abuse the tools. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 14) Pile on support; a role model! &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 15) RfBCandidate2 has both brains and balls. A rare combination. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:50, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 16) Support interesting and experienced admin. Outstanding answer to question 2 (with an unfortunate error in the final sentence, which we may have to set straight), shows a very good spidey-sense of how to handle these kind of situations in both the abstract and the specific, with a care for both the immediate question to hand and the flow patterns in the community after it. Question 6 shows a similar gnauss for such things. I think that RfBCandidate2 would make a skilful, careful and respectful bureaucrat who would smooth the RfA/B processes rather than adding hairpin bends to them. Splash - tk 13:53, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 17) Any interaction I have had with RfBCandidate2 has been fine.  I have considerable respect for her & feel that this task should be well within her capabilities -- Herby  talk thyme 14:06, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong Support Great track and record.Fully trustworthy and impartial.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 19) Strong Support RfBCandidate2 is among the trustworthiest users we have. How could she not make an outstanding bureaucrat? Hús  ö  nd  14:34, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. My recent experiences with RfBCandidate2 have been nothing but positive. There has only been incident between RfBCandidate2 and I that was negative, but that was resolved before christmas, and I've got over it. So, good luck :) Qst (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Experienced. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:45, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. No offense to the other noms, but this one is the only one I'm actually kind of excited to support. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 14:51, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. RfA's and RfB;s, at their core, are referendums about editor judgement and community trust. In my interactions with, and observations of, RfBCandidate2, I have felt that his judgment is deliberate and thoughtful, and I am willing to extend my trust that he will make decisions using his judgment for what is best for the project, even if I would disagree with them at times, and I am also certain that these decisions will be based on sound reasoning and he would be able to defend his decisions adequately. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 24) Support per nomination of Controversial Former Admin . — CharlotteWebb 15:27, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. The only thing the Controversial Former Admin episode showed was that even the best wikipedians have their off moments. But then, who's perfect? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 15:39, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Trusted Agathoclea (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 27) Strong support. RfBCandidate2 is a perfect choice for the role of 'crat - trustworthy, and with excellent judgment. :) <b style="color: #ff9900">krimpet</b><b style="color: #ff6699">?</b> 16:13, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 28) --EJF (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 29) I think Controversial Former Admin "trolled" the people who put that RfA up for her, taking advantage of their good faith, so I would not hold that against them much. Maybe a minor lapse of judgement, yes but not enough to worry about really. I'm ok with people acting in good faith even if it turns out not to work out, I've done it myself more than once and gotten burned by it. Support ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * You know, you might not feel so taxed in assuimg RfBCandidate2's good faith if you weren't already making glaring assumptions of bad faith on the part of others. — CharlotteWebb 15:14, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not following that very clearly. Are you sure it's directed at me? I'm not having any trouble assuming RfBCandidate2's good faith in this matter in any way, it is pretty apparent. Perhaps you could clarify. ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) RfBCandidate2. Where to start? Intelligent, increadibly capable, coherent and possibly the best knowledge of policy by a user not yet a bureaucrat? Yeah, okay. Rudget . 16:39, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, absolutely. AGK (contact) 16:44, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. She's a person of good judgment. None of the items mentioned by the oppose voters worries me. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Support: A very knowledgeable user. I have no major worries. seicer  |  talk  |  contribs  17:10, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Already at 23. Rudget . 17:26, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Ed, This has been indented because Seicer already participated at #23. Wonderful as RfBCandidate2 is, he doesn't get to support her twice. --JayHenry (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Support and a little jealous; I used to have ambitions to become a b-crat, but then I stopped editing for a while :) &mdash; Deckiller 17:20, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rianna is consistently one of the best admins, and her clearly levelheaded use of the admin tools has shown me she will be a worthy 'crat. Not that she needs my support at this point, but I am glad to give it.   --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:55, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely. per #'s 1-103.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:36, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Changing to Strong support, based on superb answer to Pedro's question above.  (Not that it matters in the scheme of things.  I just really liked your answer!   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:52, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Hell yeah Support!-From what I've heard RfBCandidate2 is an amazing administrator, has excellent judgment, and is an overall good hearted person. I gladly support you!   CWii ( Talk  18:53, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Nothing raised makes me think will not a good crat. Davewild (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) strong support —DerHexer (Talk) 19:59, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 4) Defo. - <span style="font-family:Skia, Trebuchet MS; color:#0088FF;">Zeibura  <sup style="color:#0088FF;">(  talk  ) 20:07, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Obviously, no more suitable crat candidate than her.-- Phoenix -  wiki  21:09, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: The Controversial Former Admin thing was certainly unfortunate, but weighed in the context of what RfBCandidate2 brings to the table and her track record I feel comfortable that she would make an excellent bureaucrat (and only on Wikipedia is that a compliment). MastCell Talk 21:14, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Is it just me or did we miss WP:100? Anyway, regardless of such, RfBCandidate2 tells it how it is.  That's what Wikipedia needs.  Good luck!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. For lack of a better way to put this, "Fuck yes." RfBCandidate2 is smart, sane, and level-headed. She's just rogue enough to be interesting, but never so much that you'd question her judgement. I highly doubt she'll explode WP with 'Crat tools, so let's hand them over. ?P M C? 21:54, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 9) Support very sensible --BozMo talk 21:58, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - I trust RfBCandidate2's judgment. Sean William @ 22:02, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 11) Support The opposing arguments seem too weak to reject this good candidate.--Bedivere (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 12) Support She's been a great admin, and will be a great 'crat.  Burner 0718  <sup style="color:black;">JibbaJabba!  22:33, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - per MastCell. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 23:00, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 14) Yup.--Docg 23:02, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 15) Support VartanM (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong support Is mature and exercises good judgement consistently, shows good faith and operates firmly within process. Has not shown any signs of abusing admin tools and I would trust her with bureaucrat tools. Orderinchaos 23:54, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 17) Support – Notwithstanding the next clause, I have, in fact, supported. —<b style="color:#002BB8">Animum</b> (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong support Great admin work, and RfBCandidate2 is now clear for even more tools. She can be trusted with the bureaucrat tools. NHRHS  2010   01:42, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 19) Support I have seen nothing to make me question her judgment and worthiness for the position.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  01:54, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 20) Support- one of our best admins! Bearian (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 21) Although I don't believe we should have more bureaucrats currently, we seem to have some occasional backlogs, and I believe that RfBCandidate2 is a very strong candidate, and I have been extremely impressed with her, and therefore I support her. seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:31, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 22) Weak Support. I'd have said strong support if it weren't for the Controversial Former Admin affair. Despite that, RfBCandidate2 has a good track record, understands the RfA process, and is trustworthy. Majoreditor (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - per above, I trust RfBCandidate2. -- Chetblong T  C 02:59, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 24) Definite Support. Oe of the most trustworthy (and trusted) admins around can definitely be given a little more authority. --soum talk 03:43, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - per all of the above statements - Epousesquecido (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 26) Support I think RfBCandidate2 has clue, and will be a sensible and serious bureaucrat. Modernist (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - in my dealings with (and observations of) her, I have formed the impression that RfBCandidate2 would be a trustworthy and hardworking bureaucrat. - Mark 05:05, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 28) Support - would make a fine bureaucrat. Danny (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 29) Daniel (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - nicely worded nom statement, good work on the project, would do well as a 'crat. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. I have read through the support arguments and the oppose arguments and I know something of this editors work. The support arguments for me clearly win the day. --Bduke (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 32) Support - I had to think hard about this and read all the comments for and against. I do have some concern over the Controversial Former Admin affair but I believe it was a genuine mistake by RfBCandidate2 and something she has learnt from. She will make a fine crat. Astral (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 33) Coming out of wikibreak to support. Incidents cited by opposers reinforce my pre-existing impression of sufficiently good judgment for 'cratship.  —CComMack (t–c) 08:26, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 34) Support, trustworthy, excellent candidate for the position. -- M P er el 08:37, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 35) Support I have always trusted RfBCandidate2 for about a year now. I think she would be fine. King   Lopez  Contribs 10:51, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 36) Switched from Oppose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 37) Support (changed from neutral). Answers to Q12 showed the analytical clarity I was looking for. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:50, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 38) Support; No reason not to. Many of the opposes seem to be The Usual Suspects in the old-line clique playing their usual guilt-by-association character-assasination games; hopefully they and their mindset are now thoroughly discredited around here. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 39) Support - I have seen RfBCandidate2’s work as an admin and, while some valid points have been made in opposition, I still believe that she is an excellent candidate. — Travis talk  13:15, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 40) Support No problems here. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me 13:17, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 41) Most definately Support this highly visible and hard working user. aliasd•U•T 13:37, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 42) Absolutely Spartaz Humbug! 14:15, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 43) Support. Of course. - David Gerard (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 44) Support. Not perfect, but few of us are, and the oppositions based on the Controversial Former Admin RfA several months ago are without merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 45) Support - It's Scar-ree-un. Or Sca-ree-un. Scarian <sup style="color:red;">Call me Pat  18:10, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 46) Support with the quickness Better than some admins and 'crats that have been here for years. Better to be a 'crat than a 'kraut anyday! - ? <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLSTAR ? echo 19:30, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 47) Support I've read through the Controversial Former Admin RfA. I guess I don't get opposing this RfB based on this incident.  She gave an enthusiastic co-nomination, and a couple of mild comments.  She didn't run around trying to put a stake through the heart of every opposer or any other classic RfA bad behavior.  Maybe she should have known better than to nominate Controversial Former Admin, but sometimes you go with your gut and your gut disagrees with everyone else's thinking.  What RfBCandidate2 did at the point when that became clear to her is what is relevant to me.  And she's a great admin as far as my review of her work can see.  Darkspots (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 48) Support without reservations. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:04, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 49) I respectfully disagree with the comments in the opposition. While I too would have opposed the Controversial Former Admin RFA, I don't think the being KM's co nominator in any way decreases her ability to judge consensus. Does that mean that all those users who BOLDly self-nominate themselves but who don't pass are also bad judgers of consensus? I don't think so. RfBCandidate2 has the added benefit of being a widely-respected admin who I believe is quite good at judging tricky situations and who is neutral to the extreme in most situations in article- and user conduct-related spaces. The post on her userpage is her own opinion, similar to this. Maxim's response to Oppose 16 is exactly the question I want to ask: why is believing that a user is up to admin standards even if the majority of the community thinks he/she isn't an indicator that one is horrible at judging consensus? I can see how some might criticize her for "wasting time" by creating what others might believe is a nomination bound to fail, but an indicator of consensus? All these concerns aside, RfBCandidate2 (even though I've never interacted personally with her) comes across as one of the most helpful and most efficient admins I have seen; the Robdurbar blocking rampage was undone in less than 17 minutes due to her quick thought and action and would, I believe, have taken less time had she not AGFed first. The support comments above solidify my opinion of her. Support. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 21:15, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 50) Support with no reservations. Rianna is an exemplary admin and Wikipedian with overall excellent judgment. No one can get it right every single time. Her answer to Pedro's question is excellent (and poetical!). There is no doubt in my mind she will be an excellent 'crat. - Revolving Bugbear  21:16, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 51) Support And I'm going to give a decent rational without blue links and bullets that make people take note, but I'd like people to consider it anyway. My motivation in opposing this RfA was my feeling that RfBCandidate2's judgement was "clouded" by being too nice i.e. she may pass a dubious RfA assuming good faith, when I'm afraid good faith stops at the door on RfA - otherwise every editor would be an admin on sign up. This belief stemmed from her nomination of Controversial Former Admin, and the subsequent clear community decision that Controversial Former Admin should not be re-granted admin tools. After much discussion (note: entirely on wiki) I now believe and feel the following; RfBCandidate2 does not, per se, consider the nomination a mistake or error. She does, however, recognise that she has learnt things from it. We all learn, all the time. No one is demonstrably capable of being a rollbacker, admin, 'crat, steward on their first edit here - it takes the Wikipedia learning experience to access those tools. I find in recent discussion that RfBCandidate2 has taken away positive messages regarding that RfA nomination, and its effect on her RfB. I also find that she has the ability to change or (a better word) modify her viewpoint, whilst still holding the underlying grit and perspective that is vital to acting out consensus driven decisions as both an administrator of Wikipedia and as a Bureaucrat. Essentialy, on reading all available evidence, I find that granting RfBCandidate2 Beureaucrat tools will be a net positive to Wikipedia. And it is not any editors place to deny the progression of this project. Pedro : Chat  21:22, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 52) Support -- I know RfBCandidate2 will always uphold the community's trust in her and I am confident that RfBCandidate2 will make a good bureaucrat. -- A. B. (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 53) Support High level of trustworthiness, the issues raised in the oppose section are not serious enough to undermine this candidate's great work. GDonato (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 54) Support. A very high calibre candidate indeed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 55) Support Logical reasoning and seems to assume good faith. Plus, seems experienced and trustworthy. ?  TomasBat   22:01, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I am concerned about the diff cited by the opposers. ?  TomasBat   00:15, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) I have no doubt that RfBCandidate2 is the right woman for the job. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:08, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The list of opposers present pretty solid evidence RfBCandidate2 is doing the right thing. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * 3) Support - One more couldn't hurt, heh. But seriously, good admin - will make a great 'crat. I liked the opening statement - really sells the candidate.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:30, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes! &mdash; E  talk 01:35, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Enough has already been said. -- FastLizard4  (Talk•Index•Sign) 02:11, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I'm not giving a reason until someone else gives a reason against RfBCandidate2. Basketball  110   what famous people say  ? 03:38, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support: You aren't a 'crat already o_o? P.S. You forgot to state your acceptance at the top :P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedjatclubrock (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 December 2099
 * Hehe. Good point. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 04:15, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) - Two  Oars  04:50, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Yes for RfBCandidate2! --?????? ???????????? 05:13, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) Support — She's high-profile, so it's hard to miss seeing what she does; I've liked what I've seen and have no worries. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:49, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support per SchmuckyTheCat. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:11, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Watched her work here and met her offline...formed an impression of calmness, good judgement - Peripitus (Talk) 13:05, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 6) Support will bring significant qualities to the position. Kbthompson (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 7)  Strong Support A voice of reason and a source of good judgement. The extraordinary weakness of the oppose rationales here is bothersome to me - quite frankly, if we can't trust RfBCandidate2 to be a good bureaucrat, who can we trust? Wily D  14:58, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Demonstrates good judgment; trustworthy. -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 9) Support trustworthy. Spencer  T?C 20:13, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes. DS (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Support - Of course! Spawn Man (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 12) Haemo (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Absolute no-brainer. Cliche, but all-rounder with all the proper experience and attitude, and most importantly, a team player. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 02:55, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Emotional beings (i.e. humans) can be 'crat's, too, or else all's lost. Shenme (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Derktar (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2099 (UTC).
 * 16) Support - very impressed by her edits and temperament. Will be an excellent bureaucrat. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 07:53, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 17) Yes Martinp23 10:52, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Catchpole (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 19) SupportZero (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2099 (UTC)Will help wikipedia in the long term.
 * 20) Support. RfBCandidate2 has my trust. Admins judge and implement consensus every day; good admin = good 'crat. Fvasconcellos (t•c) 14:05, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Eusebeus (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Per above <b style="color:blue;">Alex</b><b style="color:red;">fusco</b><sup style="color:green;">5 17:42, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. I have no doubts about trusting this editors to be a bureaucrat. Sluzzelin, GlobeGores and Pedro have already stated anything I would say about the opposition to this RfB. Vassyana (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - Overall, I think you would make a good bureaucrat and have overall, despite the links provided by the opposition, would use the bureaucrat to the net benefit to the project. You are human and everyone makes mistakes (I also have nothing against you sense of humour) - I think you have learnt lessons from these, which is the important thing. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. From anyone else, the Controversial Former Admin RfA would have been a killer. But I know RfBCandidate2 well enough by now to act on the assumption that she did the wrong thing for the right reasons. I am not a fan of political correctness, nor do I have much social capital around here anymore; thus I would not be endorsing her if I did not genuinely, honestly believe that she has what it takes. Wikipedia has not been important in my life recently, and I admit that I'm out of the loop. In the words of Toby Keith, not as good as I once was. I can only be bothered to log on, generally, to voice my concern about impending disasters, because I do care about this encyclopedia, and I don't want it to go down the shitter. So I didn't expect to find myself actually saying anything positive. But RfBCandidate2 is a good Wikipedian and - trite as it sounds - a good person, and I trust her with bureaucratship (a frighteningly powerful position which I would not trust myself with, let alone most other people). WaltonOne 21:19, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. I basically agree with almost everything said below in the Oppose section, but one instance isn't a killer, especially given that she has apologized. :) <b style="color: #DF0001">Matt Yeager</b> <b style="font-size:medium; color:#B46611">?</b> (Talk?)  21:23, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 27) Support but of course! -- The  Helpful   One  (Review) 21:36, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Seems fine to me <b style="color:red;">Terra</b> <sup style="color:red;">What do you want? 22:09, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 29) Need more crats, want more crats. This editor is a shoe in, or should be.  I'll support. (To give rationale to my support - the editor can grok consensus and I do believe has what it takes to do these things, close RFA, make bots, and renames, etc.  NonvocalScream (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - We need bureaucrats, and this looks like a qualified person for that role. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 31) dvd  rw  02:37, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 32) Strong Support, if I still may, on my permanate wikibreak. Fully qualified.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. RfBCandidate2 is a good admin and is very patient in her interactions with others. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:35, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. Seems fine to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 35) Support She will do a fine job as a bureaucrat. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Well qualified. - Shudde   talk  07:11, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 37) Support Notwithstanding the witchhunt rash of score-settling below, will make a fine crat Mayalld (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * As a supporter who addressed some of the opposes in my comment, I ask Mayalld to reconsider the word "witchhunt". ---Sluzzelin talk  14:23, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Reconsidered (but only a little). Whilst I see some opposes that are born of a genuine (if incorrect IMHO) conviction that the candidate would be a poor crat, I see a more that seem to be more about payback for past disagreement, rather than any view about how well the candidate will use the crat tools. This is, to my mind, a bad thing. The required margin for passing an RfB is such that the many excellent candidates will be blocked by old scores being settled. Mayalld (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Support RfBCandidate2 is a great copy-editor, wonderful friend and excellent administrator. Although her answers to my questions are by no means perfect, they convince me that she has what it takes to be a bureaucrat. The "f*** that" comment initially concerned me, but it appears to be an isolated incident which RfBCandidate2 has learnt from. Finally, how does co-nominating Controversial Former Admin for adminship suggest she is unsuitable for bureaucratship? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Support ready for the next level, very willing to help others which is important for a 'crat. Royal broil  14:47, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support. Experienced admin that's familiar with the RfA process. -- TBC !?!  14:56, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support - I agree whole heartedly agree with The Special One's last comment. RfBCandidate2 is an admin I genuinely respect, always willing to help and is someone I know I personally can rely on for insight and help in any given situation. Always thoughtful, I have no doubts at all about their capabilities and ability to be a 'crat. All the best. Khu  kri  16:41, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 5) I've had a peek or two at RfBCandidate2's recent contributions, and found lots and lots of reasons to support this RfB. I still stand by my words below, but the positives far outweigh the one negative thing that I could find. --Conti|? 17:45, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I see no reason not to. --Folantin (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 7) 'Support. And congrats on breaking WP:200 <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 18:33, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Absolutely. Why hasn't this happened earlier? Xdenizen (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 9) --Kbdank71 21:45, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 10)  Polo <b style="color: black">te</b><b style="color: orange">t</b> 00:00, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. RfBCandidate2 has in my experience always shown good judgement. &mdash;Moondyne click! 00:21, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I see no reason to question her judgment.  She vehemently disagreed with something Jimbo said regarding WP, and expressed it in a reasonable manner.  I'm inclined to see the opposition as merely fishing for an excuse. S?eptomaniac??????? 00:47, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I don't feel that any user should be punished for one specific incident. I have full confidence that RfBCandidate2 will be an excellent bureaucrat. Icestorm815  •  Talk  03:17, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. But of course. MrPrada (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Good candidate for bureacratship SatuSuro 06:43, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. I trust RfBCandidate2's judgment, and good judgment is the main requirement of 'cratship. Bellwether B  C  07:00, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 17) Question 14 satisfies many of my concerns present when I opposed.  While I'm still not entirely convinced that RfBCandidate2 is the best person for the job, I nevertheless feel can trust her.  Ral315 (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Self-nom and answers to questions indicate RfBCandidate2 has a head on her shoulders. Plus I consider many of the opposes below to be quite spurious: while of course nominating someone for adminship involves a bit of putting one's own reputation on the line, saying someone would not be a good bureaucrat since they nominated a contentious candidate the community did not support several months ago is off the wall. Martinp (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 19) Strong support - good candidate. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong Support Good head on her shoulders, nuanced answers, good judgement. SirFozzie (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 21) Strong Support - Will make a good bureaucrat.  -- Cobi(t 17:48, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:02, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. I think RfBCandidate2 brings good qualities to the job. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 24) Support per above. Graham 87 04:12, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 25) Support, and even a free smile with it :) -- lucasbfr  talk 09:09, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 26) Support: I haven't seen anything that makes me overly worried. The number of bureaucrats does need to go up slightly in my opinion, and nobody's provided a convincing reason to me this far that RfBCandidate2 would not make a good bureaucrat. Judging consensus is a skill that does need to be honed over time, and I have no doubt that she'll rise to the challenge <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;?l?x•mull?r 10:30, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 27) Kusma (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 28) Weak (not that it matters) Support. This was a tough call. On one hand; a highly qualified and popular candidate. On the other; there is that whole Controversial Former Admin thing. On the otherhand, I'm Zaphod Beeblebrox. We all make mistakes and maybe having Controversial Former Admin back as an admin would be a good thing. "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out."--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 29) Oh certainly. Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:18, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. KTC (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - I believe RfBCandidate2 will be a good b'crat. To be honest, the Controversial Former Admin RfA makes me scratch my head and say What the %..#??? For the most part, I think that RfBCandidate2 has good judgment, and simply had a lapse of it based on her nomination of KM in Oct '07. Hey, we are all human here - I hope that she will consider the opposes' reasoning below. This was tough for me. Any other candidate for B'crat would have had my oppose expressed below with no second thought. Like I mentioned, I am still 'scratching my head'. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:50, 6 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 32) Support An excellent choice for crat. One Night In Hackney  303  00:52, 6 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 33) Support From my observations of, and rare interactions with, this candidate, a thoughtful and level-headed admin, worthy of the bureaucrat tools. Franamax (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Found none of the Opposes compelling Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 35) Support to balance out the KM votes. Sure many people oppose KM now, but at one point she was a respected admin. Things went downhill from there, but she did have a lot of clue at one point, and I suppose still does. Many folks seem to think that that fact is not enough to be an admin (due to the infamous userbox affair), and Controversial Former Admin has become somewhat bitter, unfortunately. Even so, there's a lot of nuance to folks nominating KM. So I'm going to support to counterbalance some of the opposers. (normally I'd take much more time for this, but the RFB is almost closing already). A quick private chat also assures me that RfBCandidate2 is sane. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2099 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose — More seriously, I disagree with the "position" on ^demon's RfA, in which consensus was clearly lacking. I'd rather see a 'crat who follows what the majority wants over rewriting how consensus works and ignoring what the community wants. From my understanding RfBCandidate2 supported the close of ^demon's rfa, leading me to oppose this rfb. Sorry. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"> Mønobi  03:59, 28 December 2099 (UTC)


 * 1) Lacks the amount of good judgment necessary for the position. Mike R (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) This conversation shows that the user is unstable and can't solve conflicts well with other users.  m ir a nd a   05:58, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * One incident can show all that? I could show you many situations in which RfBCandidate2 has shown the utmost level of civility and stability, and managed to solve the conflict at the same time. Can you show why you think that this incident manages to silence the rest? Spebi 06:05, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Considering your past history I find that rich coming from you. I don't need to elaborate, you know what you did. Mike H. Fierce! 06:06, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I don't remember who was the most incivil there. Just a guess, but it's definitely not RfBCandidate2. &mdash;Dark (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * I was rude. That much is correct. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 08:03, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Miranda, bureaucrats are people, and people can overreact and flip out when other people provoke them. There's nothing strange about that. If you don't want bureaucrats that get angry once in their life, you should get my access removed right now. --Deskana (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that RfBCandidate2 handled that better than most people would. She didn't resort to name-calling or anything, she simply set out her opinion of the situation.  ??w^??? ?  17:58, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * *ahem* DNFT. John Reaves 21:07, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, and it was me she was commenting on, I said some bad stuff... I didn't realise that thread even existed or I would have commented there with an opinion at the time. Hopefully this doesn't bring up that specific issue again. Still neutral for me even after bringing that issue up... Ans e ll  06:48, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Mike R mentions necessary good judgment for the position being absent; co-nominating Controversial Former Admin during the last RfA clinches it for me: Requests_for_adminship/Controversial Former Admin_2 FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 06:22, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose--Filll (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain why?...-- Cometstyles 12:34, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Per FM - that nom raises serious questions about her judgment.  Guettarda (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Oppose And this hurts me RfBCandidate2. I have no doubt about your communication skills, your admin skills, your work ethic, your encyclopedia skills et. al. But I've just re-read your nom for Controversial Former Admin. Now this is decidedly not the place to discuss that RfA, indeed it would be extremly unfair to Controversial Former Admin to do so. I personally feel that making that nomination, in ringing and endorsing tones, clearly failed to take account of the extensive reasons why KM was not likely to be wanted as an amdin by the community. In short, this is not about "faulty judgement" as such (though I feel that was a poor judgement), but that you're too nice and forgiving. Admirable traits, but not in judging consensus at RfA which needs to be dispassionate. Sorry. Very Sorry. Pedro : Chat  08:15, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that RfBCandidate2 will stick to pure consensus for promoting and ask for further opinion by bureaucrats if the case is too difficult. She will not, in my opinion, use her own personal opinion to judge it. &mdash;Dark (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Please note that bureaucrats do not promote RfAs unless there is a community consensus, and that bureaucrats recuse themselves from RfAs that they've nominated or supported or opposed. Kingturtle (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I kind of already know that. Perhaps you'd explain how your comment is relevant to my opposition argument Kingturtle? Pedro : Chat  20:06, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Pedro, you should read Vandenburg's response under Friday, and DarkFalls' response under AniMate. It was mostly Controversial Former Admin's fault that the RfA went so badly, not RfBCandidate2's. GlassCobra 22:19, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * GlassCobra, I've read the responses but you're misunderstanding my opposition. I'm hardly opposing due to the nomination failing. I'm opposing because I feel that RfBCandidate2 was far to nice for her own good in this instance, both in terms of nominating and her nomination statement. This RfB looks healthy, and my opposition really won't make a difference. But I am entitled to voice my concerns that she was all to easily swayed, and my belief that this may cause problems on marginal RfA's. Best. Pedro : Chat  22:44, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Actually, the RfB is not "healthy", it now is in danger of failing. If you were making a protest or point and really wanted to see it succeed, you may want to change your vote. But I'll go further, and suggest that even if you weren't, you may want to consider changing your vote, as might every other person opposing for this reason. RfBs are notoriously hard to pass... (90% is a tough hurdle to pass). What this oppose says to me is that you don't like the idea of someone giving another person the benefit of the doubt. We all get burned sometimes assuming good faith. But that's a far better thing than to not assume it. Did RfBCandidate2 get trolled? Yes. It happens from time to time. Will it happen again? Not this particular way, but maybe, sure. If you want a perfect candidate, you will be waiting a long time. But here's a candidate who is among the very best we have to offer, with 130+ supports, but who happens to be human and who happens to be a nice person that clever trolls can take advantage of. That does NOT impact her ability to judge the outcome of RfAs in any way. I think the opposers because of Controversial Former Admin's RfA have to do a bit more to show it does before their opposes are actually valid (other than just being their opinion which of course they get to hold as they like... what I mean is that if they want other people to consider they are REASONABLE opposes, they haven't made the case, at least not to my or 130+ other people's satisfaction) So I'd ask you and everyone else opposing over this to reconsider, to really look deep within yourself and decide if you really think her judgment about closings, and renames, and bots, is likely to be bad just because her willingness to AGF let her get trolled once trying to be nice. ++Lar: t/c 11:14, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * See support rationale, please Pedro : Chat  21:23, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Pedro, thank you very much for changing your views. Your considered, reasoned approach in opposing, the willingness to think about it, the question you asked, and your ultimate support statement are all the kind of consensus building thoughtful contributions that we all should strive for. I hope that those citing your (now former) oppose will also give consideration to changing their views as well. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Oppose per FeloniousMonk...this episode is less than one year old and I hold crats to even higher standards than I do admins. However, RfBCandidate2 has always been an outstanding asset to this project and I would consider supporting at a later date.--MONGO 13:34, 28 December 2099 (UTC) Withdrawing my opposition...--MONGO 19:16, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Anyone who thinks Controversial Former Admin was a suitable candidate should go nowhere near the promote button.  We already promote too many drama queen admins.  Friday (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between RfBCandidate2 being one of three parties to put KM up for adminship, which involves community analysis, discussion and consensus, and RfBCandidate2 personally taking responsibility for doing the task of promoting. Some are saying that it was a lapse of judgement on RfBCandidate2's part, but I dont see that - KM asked for three fools, and as an ordinary member of the community, RfBCandidate2 decided it was worth a go.  If you read RfBCandidate2's nomination, she is very forthright, providing an overview of the highs and lows.  KM then sunk her own RFA with answers like "The only aspects of admin tools that I have any real interest in is the ability to edit through autoblocks".  In the end, the community roundly rejected that RFA, but it could have turned out different if KM had really tried to express why she should be trusted with the tools again. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * We must have crats for some reason, so what is that reason? It's not vote-counting, otherwise we'd use a bot.  Admins are already trusted to "interpret consensus" at AFD, but not at RFA.  So, it must be the case that we expect crats to use better judgement than admins.  "Judgement" is another way of saying "personal discretion".  This means we give the crats a wider mandate to disregard any misguided portions of the community, and do the right thing.  Thus, I want to see crats who will promote qualified candidates, and not promote unqualified ones.  With KM, we already know how it turns out when she's an admin, and it wasn't pretty.  Thus, supporting her as a candidate was a grave error in judgement.  And, because that is exactly the area in which we expect the best possible judgement from crats, this sinks the candidacy, in my opinion.  Friday (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, the three people who co-nommed Controversial Former Admin at RFA were being trolled by her, and were probably unaware they were being trolled. See the link to her blog in one of the neutral arguments below. --Core desat 16:17, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but I don't see why this matters. RfBCandidate2 supported one of the least qualified candidates we've seen in a long time.  KM's motivations are irrelevant.  Crats occasionally need to step in and save the community from bad decisions.  Encouraging bad decisions is the exact opposite of this.   Friday (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) RfBCandidate2 is great person, great user. But her answers to the questions are simply poor, IMHO. She doesn't mention ever "consensus" in her nom nor her first four answer. Her answer to Q1 is very surprising - it indicates to me that she will close by the numbers. I think there's too much reliance on numbers here, no the actual arguments. For example, if an RfA is at 81% but about 45 users oppose over alleged sockpuppetry issues, would you close that as promote as you said anything over 75% is a clear promote? --  Maxim (talk)  21:14, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Would you mind taking a look at the answers to her more recent questions please? Especially the answers to the ones by uncle uncle uncle. &mdash;Dark (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per FeloniousMonk. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as per FeloniousMonk, Pedro and others. ? jossi ? (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Pedro has, after reflection, and a very thoughtful question and corresponding thoughtful answer from RfBCandidate2, changed his views. I hope you would consider changing yours as well, Jossi. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose sorry, Controversial Former Admin RFA is a killer for me. Secret account 23:00, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of misjudgement over the Archtransit affair. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * That seems like a stretch. AT was a very careful troll and that R was drawn into his web of deceit only shows that she suffers from an exceedingly high concentration of WP:AGF. What's wrong with that? Ronnotel (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Wow! While I'm certain RfBCandidate2 can separate her AGF from bureaucratic duties, we were all suckered by Archtransit, including myself and I'd run enough checkusers on his socks. I know you're entitled to voice your opinion here, but just that ... well, it's maybe just a little unfair - A l is o n  ? 23:27, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * That was nothing to do with RfBCandidate2 in the slightest - I was the one that suggested mentorship, and asked RfBCandidate2 to come on board because she's got sound judgement - she certainly didn't suggest it, and she wasn't keen given she was extremely concenred about his actions. I don't think it's fair to hold this against her because it honestly had nothing to do with her.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:31, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Agreed - we were all suckered. RfBCandidate2 didn't use her admin powers at any time during that situation so was a largely uninvolved user like most of us who offered opinions. As one of Archtransit's early opponents, I had no idea he was what he turned out to be, I just thought he was a new admin in need of far far more help/guidance/controls than the average, and when RfBCandidate2 and Ryan offered mentorship I thought that was an almost ideal solution. Orderinchaos 23:51, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per FeloniousMonk as well. That trumps some redeeming factors. <b style="color:purple;">Netkinetic</b> <sup style="color:green;"> (t / c / @) 00:42, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per FeloniousMonk. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:55, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - past support for Controversial Former Admin is a show stopper. --tickle me 02:00, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * What is so wrong with supporting a user, any user? Will that make RfBCandidate2 a bad bureaucrat because she supported a user, out of good faith, 5 months ago??  Maxim (talk)  02:03, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Concerned about judgement. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:20, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. This is not my idea of an admin, let alone a crat. Crum375 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) oppose I'm sorry; I really wanted to support this; The Controversial Former Admin matter I could probably let slide because we all make mistakes. But the dif linked above by Crum and others is pretty disturbing but could maybe let slide. And Maxim brings up points that are problematic but not overly so. However, the sum of all three issues pushes me into opposition. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above.  Yahel  Guhan  03:33, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose The distinctive responsibility of a B'crat is the responsibility to evaluate possibly problematic RfAs. She has, unfortunately, already shown a lack of ability to judge accurately in such situations. We do not need another similar mistake. DGG (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Putting aside the K. Martin disaster, I just don't see the level of discernment and circumspection I'd expect of a b'crat. Xoloz (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Per FeloniousMonk.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:06, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * This is an absolutely tough oppose. I have a few questions about RfBCandidate2's ability to judge consensus.  For me, the Controversial Former Admin RFA poses a problem not because RfBCandidate2 likes Controversial Former Admin (I'll be happy to elaborate on my opinions on Controversial Former Admin outside this RfB -- via talk page or e-mail), but because RfBCandidate2 believed a consensus could exist to promote Controversial Former Admin.  This tells me that RfBCandidate2 may be out of touch with the views of the community.  I like Controversial Former Admin for the most part, but she's been extremely controversial for the last couple years, and most people should have realized that her RFA was destined to fail.  I find it unlikely that RfBCandidate2 proposed the candidacy with the intent of disrupting Wikipedia, and don't fault her for the result there.  However, as a bureaucrat, knowing the opinions of the community, and how to interpret them, is important.  I'm not convinced RfBCandidate2 knows the former.  Ral315 (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * See comments in Support above. Ral315 (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * So what you want is somebody better-versed in groupthink, with the ability to ruthlessly self-suppress any opinion of theirs that they judge might be going against the way the wind is currently blowing with regard to community opinion? *Dan T.* (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * That was quick :) I wouldn't call it groupthink at all, and I would support RfBCandidate2 for absolutely any other position with regards to the Controversial Former Admin RfA.  But a bureaucrat's specific duty is to interpret community consensus.  I would have expected better from RfBCandidate2, to interpret consensus prior to nominating Controversial Former Admin.  In fact, if anything I worry more about RfBCandidate2 participating in groupthink, believing that the Former Admin_2&oldid=161332847 support of the minority equals the support of the community as a whole.  But again, I respect RfBCandidate2; I just think her nomination was misguided, and not a good sign in a bureaucrat.  Ral315 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't think that was what you meant, either. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 19:17, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Your view still sounds like you're saying that somebody should refrain from even making any proposals that, after reading tea-leaves, can be seen to be likely to fail. Is there any indication that RfBCandidate2 wouldn't abide by community consensus on any issue after the discussion/voting period is complete, just because she may sometimes propose things that end up not passing?  I think we need a few more gadflies and devil's-advocates within our ranks to ensure a lively discussion of all possibilities... or do you want to leave that function to the so-called attack sites alone? *Dan T.* (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if "interpret consensus prior to nominating" would be an anachronism or a non sequitur. Paging Miss Cleo... — CharlotteWebb 20:20, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Ral, intepreting the consensus before an RfA is not the easiest thing to do. Keep in mind that at one stage,consensus was showing a tally of Former Admin_2&oldid=161332847 17/1/0. If a bureaucrat can intepret the consensus before an RfA, then what's the RfA process' use? Why don't they get automatically sysopped? An RfA is used to find consensus to promote, bureaucrats are just the judges of said consensus. &mdash;Dark (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * As someone who uses IRC and doesn't believe it's run by a "cabal" or anything of the sort, I'd bet good money that someone mentioned the RfA on IRC, and it drew interest from IRC users, who are more familiar with Controversial Former Admin and more likely to support her. That's not consensus, that's a minority of the community who came out in large numbers in the first few hours of the RfA.  When other editors weighed in, obviously the support percentage dipped dramatically. Ral315 (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather see somebody with ideas of their own that they're not afraid to put forward, even if they know they're likely to get shot down, rather than somebody who slavishly follows whatever he/she surmises the "conventional wisdom" of the moment to be. This should also be tempered with a willingness to abide by the ultimate consensus as it develops, even when it goes against him/her, and I see no evidence the nominee does not have this too. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * I admit, I'm also having trouble figuring out this oppose. RfBCandidate2 was supposed to know that a user would or would not pass an RfA before the RfA begins? I'm in agreement with Dtobias here, bureaucrats aren't supposed to be fortune-tellers. GlassCobra 02:20, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * That's not my point. I'm not trying to drag Controversial Former Admin's name in the mud here -- as I said, I like Controversial Former Admin.  But anyone who believed that she'd have the support of the full community in an RfA was highly deluded.  I'm arguing that someone who cannot anticipate consensus in such a clear case shouldn't be interpreting it, either.  See AniMate's comment below:  "Putting Controversial Former Admin up for adminship was a monstrously bad idea, and common sense should have stopped her as everyone could see that it had no chance of passing and every chance to create unnecessary divisiveness and drama."  That's my    point, written much better than I could have.  Ral315 (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Surely one incident/lapse of judgement/mistake about half a year ago shouldn't be the pinnacle/deciding point that portray RfBCandidate2 as a person with questionable judgement? I mean, everyone makes mistakes; it's human nature. I supported because RfBCandidate2 didn't have a pattern of questionable edits, and she learns from the mistakes. Is it fair to demand perfection from a person? &mdash;Dark (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per FeloniousMonk, Jossi, Guettarda, OM, etc., etc. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:39, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Oppose per "such persuits." I've switched. I'm not so sure about this RfB. Basketball  110   what famous people say  ? 01:49, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I'm not sure I understand your meaning. What 'persuits'? ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 01:53, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Quite a while back, I made a rather stupid presidential poll. You helped in deleting it (you did correctly, sorry about that) and you also told me to change my signature (then it was  Basketball 110  Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Paul?) while I'm "not busy with such pursuits." See . That struck me (maybe I'm just strange that way) as a bit of a bite to an old newcomer (that's me). Well, tell me what you think of all this.  Basketball  110   what famous people say  ? 02:39, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Any administrator would ask you to change that signature. It's against WP:SIG. I would have done the same. RfBCandidate2 voiced her concern politely, it was definitely not bitey. &mdash;Dark (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that was right after you made the snappy 'I'm glad you helped destroy it. Thanks! :)' comment on my talkpage. That struck me as rude. I'm not going to attempt to change your mind, your opinions are your own. Just trying to clarify what your concern was. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 02:46, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if I ever have a RfB or RfA I encourage you to bring that up. As you said, "your opinions are your own." I thought that what you said was a bit pinching, and what I said was extremely bitingly stupid (really stupid). Basketball  110   what famous people say  ? 02:52, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * I do believe that I "said I was sorry," see . I was fretting of whether you would accept or not, but never did, and that sent me a bit mad (in the British sense of the word). Basketball  110   what famous people say  ? 02:59, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose- poor judgement, plus the 'f**k that' edit someone linked to above suggests she can be rather moody. Special Random  (Merkinsmum)  02:49, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * How does saying "fuck" once in a year indicate moodiness? Everyone shows a little emotion once in a while, and even RfBCandidate2 can get angry. Bureaucrats are not gods, they're human. &mdash;Dark (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * She didn't just say 'fu*k', she said she was going to stick to veropedia or something like that. And she didn't just say f**k, she typed f**k in a wikipedia setting, I never swear in an argument personally, because I try to use logic and sound reasoned.  I personally have no need to swear in this setting because I think before I type, or I've never been that annoyed or had a strop on wikipedia that she said she would leave, or something like that. I'm not against swearing and saying they will leave, it can be quite intriguing to watch from a distance, but it's not measured and bureaucrat-like. Special  Random  (Merkinsmum)  19:59, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * There's never any guideline and never would be a guideline restricting someone from saying fuck. WP:CENSOR. RfBCandidate2 did not insult a particlar person, she was using it solely for emphasis. If she said "I have reversed my previous thoughts about this speech", would you still be opposing? Basically what she says was a slightly more "loud" version of that. And sticking with veropedia basically means she will dedicate more time to article writing, and away from dispute resolution, more than anything. Please see this. "in order to contribute to Veropedia it is necessary to improve Wikipedia first." &mdash;Dark (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per Xoloz. I think this user needs a little more experience, possibly a little more distance on recent events. I think the bar has to be set high here, far higher than folks are setting the bar for admins. IronDuke  03:19, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I want to thank the nominee for what many judge to be good work.  And, I do not want to imply that the foregoing reflects on the beautiful value of the nominee as a person.  However, I must say I get a very strange vibe here.   I read on this page that one of the nominee’s greatest weaknesses is being too nice.  Then, I read this, which is only a month old.
 * When the nominee asserts that there is only one reason that a human being does something, it suggests to me: (1) the possibility of a style and habit of thinking that leads to poor decisions and/or (2) a mean spirited penchant for rhetorical drama and/or (3) too much confidence in one’s own POV. I’m also concerned about what appears as a deep violation of trust and ethics where the nominee publicly outs the nature of her antagonist’s personal email.  It too seems mean spirited and I’m left wondering, what does this have to do with an Encyclopedia?  Then I read “I love that you can flaunt Esperanza in your signature and yet not see basic issues . . .”.  I find this to be suggestive of a kind of passive/aggressive personal attack and style of communication that is not suggestive of the kind of person I would want to have any authority whatsoever.  Additionally, I find it dripping with a mean spirited sarcasm and vindictiveness.  These are my perceptions and opinions. Best regards, Doright (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * See the second oppose please. She was stating her opinion on the situation, nothing more, nothing less. The supposed "outing" of the email was ridiculous, she hardly gave any context to it. As for the issue with Ansell, she was also stating her opinion. Honesty or mollycoddling for civility's sake, take your pick. &mdash;Dark (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * I regret that you find my concern "ridiculous." I would suggest that says something about the standards used to judge this candidate.  I also note approximately a dozen rebuttals by you to editors that have taken an "oppose" position.  Perhaps you can explain the purpose of this statement made only 1 month ago:  "I remember your 'apology' e-mail to me not one month ago. But that was fake, wasn't it? Just like you wanting 'the drama to die down' - come on! You thrive on this shit."  It seems to me that it is an attempt to inflict emotional pain on the editor and subject that person to public humiliation.  I guess this is what you call "stating her opinion."  Even in my cursory review, I’ve noticed repeated use of vulgar language and an intemperate style of communication.  These are additional sources of concern.  Regards, Doright (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * I didn't find your oppose to be ridiculous, I merely commented that I viewed that such vague detail would be considered as revealing prior correspondence to be ridiculous. Frankly, I am at a loss why my rebuttals to other editors should be your concern, or adds any context to this discussion. As a question, are you familiar what the actual content of the email was? Then please do not assert that I view public humiliation as "stating her opinion". &mdash;Dark (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I must agree with DarkFalls here. This was very much a isolated incident, and in consideration of the dedication and time RfBCandidate2 has put into the place, it's expected for things to go wrong once or twice. Both of which have made themselves present at this RfB. We can't judge one person on a couple of mistakes, if we did, we'd probably lose a lot of the good editors 'round here. Rudget . 17:24, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts. It seems to me that this thing you call an "isolated incident" is fairly recent (that's a concern) and that albeit perhaps one of the more flagrant examples of something going "wrong" with the candidate, I do not see it as isolated. Frankly, I don't think we are going to lose any editors by setting a modestly high standard for candidates for this position.  Personally, I would reconsider this candidate after 6 months.  Regards,Doright (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely understanding your logic, Doright. The statement to Miranda most definitely is an isolated incident involving an editor who I'm sure many would agree can be uncivil and tendentious. In the vast majority of her edits (read: 99.999%), RfBCandidate2 has overwhelmingly shown her knowledge of policy, stoic civility, and willingness to work with others. GlassCobra 04:13, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per overweight on the side of the opposition. -- Iterator12n  Talk  14:19, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * There's also around 175 supports so I don't see how it is overweight in the opposition? &mdash;Dark (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) per FM, Friday. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:14, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per JoshuaZ . . dave souza, talk 16:53, 1 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 3) Too involved in social drama, and the Controversial Former Admin nom. Naerii (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't believe RfBCandidate2 would be a positive addition to the current pool of bureaucrats. I am not confident that she has a good grasp of community feeling on adminship-related matters. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose This diff worries me. 1) I think it's bad for our image to have senior Wikipedians behaving like that, and 2) her replacing (or almost replacing) her page with fuck (also in the edit summary) and leaving in protest over something Jimbo Wales said, and then changing her mind and coming back suggests to me that she lacks the steadiness that I'd wish to see in a bureaucrat. Other examples quoted above seem to confirm this. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Merkinsmum. Str1977 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per the really bad idea of nominating Controversial Former Admin. --B (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - per Merkinsmum and FeloniousMonk. The Controversial Former Admin nomination was a serious lapse of judgment. <b style="font-family:Book Antiqua; color:black">DEVS EX MACINA</b> pray 10:29, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Has shown poor judgment in the past. KnightLago (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 10) Sorry, but I am not particularly impressed to see the candidate nominate Controversial Former Admin, possibly not knowing the full gravity and consequence of doing so.  - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * The full consequence was that Controversial Former Admin was (of course) not promoted. Dorftrottel (troll) 17:44, March 5, 2008
 * Exactly. These "oppose because she nominated Controversial Former Admin" !votes are hopefully going to be weighed a bit less when the promostion decision is made. Bellwether B  C  20:20, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: the judgment shown in nominating KM after an extremely troubling history is not what is needed in guiding the RFA process, I am sorry to say. Jonathunder (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose Notwithstanding my having strongly opposed Controversial Former Admin's RfA and my having thought the nomination to be plainly a bad, necessarily unconstructive idea, I don't see that single error as reflective of a broader deficiency in judgment (and, in any case, I'm disinclined to oppose candidates for adminship or bureaucratship because they have taken positions with which I fundamentally disagree, at least where they adhere to policy when it is inconsistent with their personal views&mdash;this is, of course, not quite the same as an issue in which an RfA candidate objects to certain notability guidelines, for instance, but the principle stands at least in part), and so I oppose in view neither of that nor of a few instances of curtness that some adduce; I generally oppose candidates who have a tendency to be dismissive of those whom they regard as troublesome, but I've never imagined RfBCandidate2 to be such an editor. I do, though, join a bit in the opposes of Xoloz and DGG, and, even as the answers to questions six, fifteen, and sixteen, inter al., are quite satisfying, the response to question eight leaves me not quite convinced that RfBCandidate2 embraces the idea that bureaucratship is essentially ministerial, and that whatever discretion bureaucrats may have relative to RfAs, RfBs, and BRfAs extends only to their determining for what action(s) a given discussion bears out a consensus.  A few of our current bureaucrats are pretty firmly in the !vote counting camp (as against that of nebulously weighing arguments, without exact reference to how the community views those arguments), and as someone who believes that RfA ought to be a vote, I am disinclined to support a candidate about whose presence in that camp I can't be sure, and so I oppose, a bit regretfully since my interactions with the candidate have almost uniformly been positive.  Joe 23:22, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Would you support de-'cratting all crats, and simply designing a bot that reads the support section and oppose section, checks for double votes, and determines the percentage? If >75% +sysop, if <75%, no promotion? If not, how does your oppose make any sense? If 'crats are to be simple bean counters, why not just do it by bot? Bellwether B  C  01:37, 6 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Good user, but I cannot support at this time per some of the opinions raised above. Andre (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2099 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Not just KM, but I'd expect a crat to be more impressive than she was on the issue of the bollywoodblog images. Sarvagnya 00:09, 6 March 2099 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I'm surprised to find myself not giving strong support, as everything I've observed from RfBCandidate2 has been positive. However, the Controversial Former Admin adminship nomination really gives me pause. I respect RfBCandidate2 too much to oppose, but can't in good conscience support either.  AniMate  06:17, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * RfBCandidate2 nominated Controversial Former Admin as, in her point of view, she viewed Controversial Former Admin as an asset to the project. It was her opinion of that matter in which she nominated her; I do not know why that should be put against her. if everyone nominated a person who they viewed as good; but the nomination failed, do we automatically disqualify them? She was not incivil in that RfA, nor did she do anything against policy. She was not disruptive, she didn't do anything wrong in my perspective. &mdash;Dark (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Her viewing Controversial Former Admin as an asset to the project is what is giving many people pause. Mike R (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Putting Controversial Former Admin up for adminship was a monstrously bad idea, and common sense should have stopped her as everyone could see that it had no chance of passing and every chance to create unnecessary divisiveness and drama. AniMate  16:15, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning towards support pending answers to my questions. My interactions with RfBCandidate2 have generally been positive, but I am slightly concerned by this. Uncivil admins should not become uncivil bureaucrats. I hope this is merely an isolated incident that RfBCandidate2 has learnt from, but would nevertheless appreciate an explanation from her. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest this was an isolated incident. This was merely a light-hearted comment, and similar "incidents" are very hard to locate on the 'pedia. Hope this helps. Rudget . 17:06, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * I agree, someone that isn't lock-step with Jimbo certainly doesn't deserve to be a bureaucrat. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:02, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * I was heavily pissed off. I'm generally not. In fact, I almost never am. That's all I can say, really. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 00:38, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Hildanknight has kindly changed to support, so I have indented this discussion. ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 11:14, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Per AniMate. It's not that RfBCandidate2 co-nominated Controversial Former Admin, it's that Controversial Former Admin admitted on her blog that the RFA was pure trolling. That means that RfBCandidate2 either knew about that before she co-nominated her (which I highly doubt), or she fell for the trolling. The latter isn't nearly as bad, but it still shows a lack of judgement, in my opinion. --Conti|? 14:46, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Moved to support. --Conti|? 17:45, 3 March 2099 (UTC)
 * Controversial Former Admin's blog looks like an attack site to me. I would think twice before posting links to it. L&#39;omo del batocio (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Can we cut the paranoia? How else are we supposed to reference something without providing the link? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:31, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Duh. An attack site has nothing to contribute to this discussion. L&#39;omo del batocio (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Clearly it does; the discussion would make no sense without the link. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 12:07, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Oh, certainly! Attack sites provide ample opportunities for discussion. For a certain kind of discussion, that is. L&#39;omo del batocio (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * You may find this of interest. Mike R (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Seems to be encourageable by drama (ie, making a community fuss about getting an otherwise okay editor of the encyclopedia an extra power they don't even think they deserve themselves, that is, Controversial Former Admin), which IMO is not going to help at the end of controversial RFA's. A neutral bureaucrat would need to avoid getting caught up in drama, or encouraging it in any way. Support as an admin and editor though. Don't really appreciate the refusal to answer questions either because it is "messy", RFA can be one of the most messy places on the encyclopedia so you can't be afraid of it. Ans e ll  20:34, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? I haven't answered questions because I have to sleep at some point. I'm answering them now. :s ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 23:36, 28 December 2099 (UTC)
 * I've answered them now. Ahh. My comment about "messiness" was genuinely about nasty threaded conversations weaving across the page which make very little sense later on. Not about the messiness of the process. :) ~ RfBCandidate2 ? 00:33, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad, I misread the talk page. With the Controversial Former Admin issue and your possibly rash edit in the middle of a piece of WikiDrama on my user page it doesn't seem that support is on from me, but I am still thinking about whether oppose or not kind of as that isn't a large amount of evidence. Sorry, great editor, just need to be very clear headed and rational with being able to give away the extra responsibilities to people based on merit and not just to support them as an editor, for which they definitely don't need sysop bits to do their part for the encyclopedia. Ans e ll  06:59, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, leaning towards support- I'm a bit unsure. I would have supported immediately, but some comments in Oppose, specifically Pedro's,and Felonious Monk's, have led towards pause significant enough to warrant serious thought. I'll wait this out for a few more days. Perfect Proposal  <sup style="color:orange;">Speak Out!  01:35, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Neutral but wanting to support. I just can't, though.  RfBCandidate2 has got a great sense of humor: from putting "Shiny disco balls" in her signature, to her alter ego User:Iana-ray Zasta-day, to the various colorful iterations of her userpage, she always brings a smiley face.  None of this has prevented her from doing heavy duty admin work, and it shouldn't prevent her from closing RFAs either.  Still, I need some time to think about whether RfBCandidate2 has the analytical skills to decide tough RFAs.  By the time I figure it out, it probably won't matter anyway. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:57, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * Changed to support. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:49, 29 December 2099 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, leaning towards support - Based on her responses to a few questions I asked on her talk page. I think she basically has a good "feel" for policy and process, but I'll echo Shalom's concerns about discernment above, though weakly. I personally am not sure that we should hang everything on a single questionable nomination. Unless further information comes along to convince me otherwise, this will likely be changed to support before the end. - jc37 02:33, 5 March 2099 (UTC)