Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/EVula


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

EVula
Closed as no consensus by Cecropia 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) at (73,28,6); Scheduled end time 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

- I've been thinking about submitting an RfB for a while, and seeing as the CHU backlog is starting to grow (and that's somewhere that I'd like to spend time as a 'crat), I figured I'd go ahead and bite the bullet. :)

I've been an admin for about seven and a half months, and have been on Wikipedia for just shy of a year and a half. My activity in that time:
 * As an editor, I'm primarily a wikignome; I've got very few "core" articles (and my watchlist currently weighs in at 1600 items), but instead try to spread my attentions around as much as possible. I'm proud of the fact that I've got 6,600 edits in the mainspace (I was worried about shifting too far away from encyclopedia building once I got my mop). I'm still a very active user of Wikipedia, as it is my primary reference source for anything, which helps me to maintain my nice wide spread of mainspace activity.
 * As an administrator, I'm very active in combatting vandalism (either in mass reverts or in indef blocks of vandalism-only accounts). I try to be as communicative as possible, both to people who need my assistance and editors I've blocked. On User:EVula/admin, I've got a nice collection of references for myself (and can access from any page via a monobook.js shortcut), and also clearly posts my logs (I'm a big fan of transparent admins).
 * As a prospective bureaucrat, I'm already active in RfAs; here lately, I've just been lurking (and wikignoming the tallies when they get out of sync), watching everyone's arguments, though I'm still quite active on WT:RFA. I try to jump on premature RfAs (sub 500 edits) as quickly as possible, as to avoid any biting (twenty "oppose" !votes can negatively affect a newbie, regardless of how well-meaning or positively-phrased they may be), and I created a (fairly good, in my opinion) template for telling editors why I closed them; the template has been fairly well-received on WT:RFA, and I'm always looking for ways to improve it. Given my activity in both WP:UAA and WP:RFCN, I feel that I have an excellent grasp of our username policy, and expect to be spending a good amount of time at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U.
 * Finally (and most importantly, in some respects), as a member of the Wikipedia community, I try to maintain a very open, friendly, and high-spirited attitude. I'm a big fan of cracking jokes to help alleviate stressful situations (and have netted myself five good humor barnstars in the process). Nothing exemplifies my attitude more, though, than my semi-famous collection of insults (which was recently reported to Jimbo himself; note about that). I've gotten plenty of positive feedback on that list, and I'm glad that I can do something to make the community a bit more fun. :)

Similar to how I felt about my own RfA (and to completely rip-off semi-quote Husond), I feel like I'm at the point where I'm comfortable taking the next step forward in my involvement with Wikipedia. I welcome any and all feedback (though I'd prefer not to see any "we don't need more 'crats" oppositions, since I disagree with that... actually, I'd prefer not to see any opposition arguments, to be honest), and I'll be more than happy to work on anything that the community feels is a point of contention with this RfB.


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I guess. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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: All seriousness aside, I'm aware that the percentages listed at Guide to requests for adminship are 75%-80% for failure/pass, but those are just numbers (and bureaucrats are supposed to actually interpret consensus, not just do math). The criterion (as I understand them) are that successful admin candidates need to have a clean history of incivility (not to mention a clean block log, or at least an easily-explained one), show a strong grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and have a wide spread of activity (both in the mainspace and in projectspace). I'm not saying those are the criterion that a 'crat should use (that would be gauging and following community consensus, with a few possible exceptions), I'm saying those are the ones I've observed. If I've missed the mark a bit on what the question was asking, I'd be happy to expand upon it.
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
 * A. Whoever has the biggest edit count gets promoted, right?
 * This is an important question, because it goes to the heart of successful closings of RfAs and RfBs. What you have answered is really an analysis of considerations that many editors users use in expressing their opinions of support or opposition to an RfA. What we need to know here is how, as a bureaucrat, you would determine how to close a difficult RfA. How would you explain to the community why you made X decision instead of Y decision? Remembering that you should always know why you closed an RfA in a certain way before you close it is important because, pretty soon, someone or many someones may be asking that very question, How would you approach forming a decision that would stand the test of inquiry? -- Cecropia 03:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake. I would consider any and all Oppose arguments, and weigh them according to their merits: does the opposing editor actually cite a policy or guideline violation as their concern? Is the user citing an arbitrary edit count figure (ie: "user only has [low number] edits in the [usually not mainspace or project] namespace, they won't be a good admin")? Is the user citing evidence that was prior to the nominated editor's previous RfA, RfB, or Editor Review (and if they are, was that diff mentioned in the RfX? is such [whatever] still an issue, or have they addressed that concern since?)? Does the opposition argument stem from a previous disagreement (ie: bad-faith opposition)?The first example is a valid reason to oppose an administrator candidate. The second (edit count) is, as I said, highly arbitrary, and unless they can provide a solid reason for their concern (ie: a candidate who says they want to close XfDs but has zilch edits in the project namespace), can be discounted almost out of hand. The next (old diffs) should be addressed on a case-by-case basis; my logic for including them is that old issues that have long since been addressed shouldn't be a concern for the present RfA (after all, I think we all had some initial edits that aren't quite in-line with our current editing attitudes; I most certainly wouldn't push for a HHGttG quote on Earth now ); if the diff presented is sufficiently damning, though, and was missed in the previous RfX (which, apparently, still failed anywhere), that's a different matter, and would depend on what exactly the content was. The fourth is a bit harder to detect (as it'd be extremely time-consuming to check everywhere for any potential interaction between the nominee and every opposing editor); that's the sort of thing that I'd trust for the nominee to highlight (heh, hopefully a bit better than some of us...).Arguments that don't fall into my three "dismiss" criteria (and/or match my first or don't fall into any of them) can be readily considered; if that eliminates the vast majority of the opposition, then it's a fairly clear case (in my opinion) of consensus. I hope that sufficiently answers the question, but if it doesn't, I could probably get even more verbose. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. Well, the second part of the sentence is completely irrelevant; I honestly don't give a rat's ass about being criticized for a decision (after all, I'm always right). However, in RfAs that aren't crystal clear, I'd obviously weigh the opposition arguments first (out-and-out ignoring any SPAs, while paying careful consideration to editors who seem to have a bone to pick with the editor). I'd also take a look at the support !votes; I'd prefer if people actually left a comment about why they support a candidate (example), but I'm not going to hold it against a candidate just because their supports just say "Support". In much muddier situations (like Gracenotes', rare as those may be), I'd be 100% in favor of having a 'crat-chat.
 * You have a good and off-beat sense of humor, as do I (I have often been told), but I would like to see a straight answer to the second part of this question. Look through the history of RfAs and you will find extensive questioning of some decisions, and the confidence of the community in the entire process may hang on how fully and sensibly the bureaucrat(s) involved respond. When I ran to resume my 'crat duties, I found that many felt that the RfA process was "broken" with dissatisfaction on how some specific RfAs were closed, perhaps most notably Danny's. Would you only make decisions in which you were confident of the outcome, or in which the outcome is uncontroversial? Would you be willing to walk the community through your thinking when questioned as to why you closed an RfA in a certain way? -- Cecropia 03:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, dismissing that part for the wrong reason. :) I'd be more than willing to discuss my reasons with anyone who asks; if I had to pick a place, the RfA's talk page makes the most sense to me. Probably the most straightforward way would be to give a similar breakdown that I gave to you just now for Question 1; pick apart the opposition arguments by their merits, and show how they stack up. In presenting all the arguments to the community, I'd hope that would address any concerns they might have about a broken RfA process (though there would have to be a certain amount of "unhappy camper" latitude; some people will just never be happy if they don't get things to go exactly their way, and there's not much that can be done about them). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
 * A. As an administrator, I've already been exposed to high amounts of confrontation; I don't feel that I've "lost my cool" when engaging vandals (even when I'm having death threats lobbed at me), and very rarely will I ever get into heated debates with another editor without still respecting their opinions (example). I've got a very clear line of communication with people; I've got nearly 2,100 user talk edits (I always warn the users I block, and I always keep their talk pages on my watchlist, so that I can address any complaints they may have on the block). I feel like I've got a firm grasp on policy, but I don't have a diff or number to toss to you as an example... I'd be happy to answer any additional questions about policy, though. :)
 * 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. I addressed most of this in my initial nomination statement above. I'm already active at WP:RFA, and don't see that waning if I become a 'crat. I'm also expecting to be active on both the Change Username and Usurpation boards. The only place I don't expect to be active is on the bot page; bots are a completely foreign area of the project, and the last thing I want to do is jump in there and start ignorantly flagging bots. If there's a sudden need for more 'crats there, I'll be willing to do the necessary research to edit there without screwing stuff up, but until then, I'll just stick to my strengths. :)


 * 5. If you had been the closing bureaucrat on the Gracenotes RfA, what would you have decided and why? CLA 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Can we please not make this RfB about whether EVula supported Gracenotes, and everybody comments in relation to that. To sum up the point, I ask everyone to not make this a Gracenotes RfA referendum. Thanks! -- Evilclown93 (talk)  23:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My question isn't meant as a referendum on the Gracenotes RfA. I chose that one to see how EVula would have handled a difficult and controversial RfA and that was a recent one.  If you prefer, I'll make the question more hypothetical, "If you had been the closing bureaucrat for an RfA that closed with 73% support, but most of the oppose votes were based on a single objection concerning the candidate's views in a policy debate, how would you have handled it?" CLA 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is your question, I believe your citation of Gracenotes is either inappropriate or a misunderstanding of why the nomination was closed the way it was. -- Cecropia 02:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A. Well, I'm comfortable using Gracenotes rather than a generic "Editor X". As the page will show, I supported (and still support) Gracenotes as an admin candidate. The issue that brought down the RfA, while I personally disagreed with it, was still a valid reason in the eyes of many editors (and, until WP:EVULA becomes actual policy, I'd have to bow to consensus). I think that closing that particular RfA as a "no consensus, default to failure" is the only valid conclusion (sadly), though I sincerely hope that Gracenotes will have a successful RfA at some point in the (near) future.


 * 6. What are your opinions regarding userboxes being used as templates transcluded in userspace as well as categories of wikipedians which may violate WP:NOT and seem to vary between being divisive or not encyclopedic. --After Midnight 0001 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC) To clarify this question: how relevant do you believe that an admin candidates views on this subject should be to deciding their promotion in a case where consensus was not otherwise clear. --After Midnight 0001 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A. Userspace, in and of itself, is not encyclopedic; however, I don't feel that that is a bad thing. Everyone spends so much time talking about what Wikipedia is not, which is certainly important (don't get me wrong, it's a good idea to make sure someone doesn't make their userpage into a soapbox for how the Jews were behind 9/11, etc.), but completely ignore what Wikipedia is (or, more specifically, what else Wikipedia is). For better or worse, Wikipedia has an entire community around it, which is full of diverse editors; some are here just to write an encyclopedia (which is something we all should be involved in), while others get their kicks from the policy bits (completely understandable; it's quite fun to take down vandalism-only accounts). Things that help to foster that community are great, as long as they don't do so at the expense of others (ie: a box saying you like Cowboy Mouth is fine, a box saying that you think all Muslims should die is not). Almost anything can be "offensive" to someone (for example, someone who hated Cowboy Mouth, aside from being just plain wrong, would be "offended" by the previously mentioned box). If something is in userspace, just leave it the hell alone unless it's actively insulting a person, group, or concept; yes, it's unencyclopedic, but as I've said elsewhere, this wonderful "build a free encyclopedia" idea won't go anywhere if it doesn't have a community around it. If you don't like an unencyclopedic userbox, just friggin' ignore it.
 * To answer the rest of your question(s) (sorry, got on a bit of a rant there), I don't have a problem with various Wikipedian categories to a certain extent, though I agree that it should be pruned somewhat (though I don't have any examples handy). I don't think that an admin's outlook on this should matter one iota, unless they were actively trying to keep a userbox/category that was derogatory (like Category:Wikipedians who think women should stay in the kitchen); such an attitude would run contrary to the level of civility the community expects from their administrators.


 * 7. EVula, I've noticed (and you said so in your statement) that you update the "vote tally" quite often. Do you think having a tally on a discussion (something that is illogical) is really a good idea?  Majorly  (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A. If the tally were dropped, I'd be fine. It's the sort of thing that I don't have a real problem with, but it is instead indicative of a larger semi-/pseudo-problem, and that is the confusion about whether RfA is a vote or a discussion (wow, it's almost as if this answer segues into the next one...). I suppose I kind of like the tally, if for no other reason than sheer convenience (but even that is redundant to pages like Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report and User:Dragons flight/RFA summary); I don't let the tally tell me I should !vote for someone (though if it's sitting at 80/0/0, I'd be surprised if I could find anything problematic), though I understand that not everyone has the same attitude. It's just a quick "ballpark estimate" of what the consensus is, but like I said above, bureaucrats aren't chosen for their math skills; the tally shouldn't be used as a true gauge of consensus.

My opinion is mostly based on the whole concept of "being an admin shouldn't be a big deal", which is often chanted throughout RfAs and on WT:RFA. The rationale of "I don't think this person will screw up" is just as valid as an in-depth analysis of the persons contributions in the whatever namespace, or mentions of XfD activity where a grasp of policy is clearly shown; a simple declaration (indeed, the fact that they participated at all) is an indication that they support the candidate (though, again, I personally would prefer if people actually explained their support). However, the opposers need to cite valid reasons why they feel that the candidate would not be appropriate for the position (ie: a lack of working knowledge about our deletion policy is bad for someone wanting to tackle CAT:CSD backlogs, someone who is hot under the collar shouldn't be trusted with the ability to block users, etc). Ultimately, nothing that an admin can do (in regards to the MediaWiki system itself) is irreversible, and I'm a firm believer in the fact that the only reason we need a distinction between editor and admin is that the abilities admins enjoy would be dangerous to allow just anyone to have. So I guess my attitude is pretty much an extension of WP:AGF; any editor who feels it necessary to have administrative powers should be granted those powers, unless a sufficient argument against their promotion can be made. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8. We all know the theory, but in practice: is RfA a vote or a discussion? In particular would you say that people who Support~ (i.e. with no comments or some weak humour attempts) in a hotly-debated RfA have any credibility?--Konstable 12:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A. RfA is a discussion that many people who involve themselves with it treat as a vote. I think the burden of proof is on the opposers, rather than the supporters, but it would be really nice if people could write full reasons for their position, regardless of what it is. Unless there's an external reason not to, I'd say that yes, very short support !votes in a tight RfA should still be considered; they wouldn't have taken the time to participate in the discussion if they didn't have any opinion. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on why you feel "the burden of proof is on the opposers"? How would that affect your closing of an RfA? Would this answer also apply to an RfB? -- Cecropia 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Upfront declaration: yes, my answers also apply to an RfB, though I'll continue using "RfA" and "adminship" in my answer merely for the sake of grammatical simplicity and that RfAs are more common than RfBs. If you want me to restate my opinion with specific attention to RfBs, I'll be happy to do so.
 * How would that affect your decisions as a bureaucrat? Would you be inclined to determine no consensus on a nomination with 85% support if an opposer made an argument you agreed with? Would you be inclined to promote someone with 65% if you considered the opposers trivial or if they disagreed with your perspective?

So, to [finally] answer your question in a less verbose fashion, yes, I believe it was correct for Danny to be promoted. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9. Do you believe that, based on the fact that it closed at only 68% Support, it was correct for Danny's RfA to be closed as successful? I realise that I will be criticised for asking such a specific question, but I can only support a bureaucrat who promises that they would never choose to ignore the good-faith opinions of 32% of the voters on an RfA. (Yes, I said voters.) Waltontalk 16:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A. In reading over Danny's 'crat chat, Redux makes a pretty solid argument in regards to the actual motivation behind some of the opposition arguments. I concur with him that editors who have been dormant for some time and are suddenly active again only to oppose the candidate is most definitely not a "good-faith opinion", and such arguments were justifiably dismissed. Similarly, his note that people who opposed Danny's request for adminship based on his bureacratic actions were completely irrelevant for the discussion at hand, and similarly should not hold the same weight. Third of all, arguments based on Danny's WP:OFFICE arguments can be summed up as "I don't like that Danny was upholding official Wikimedia policy" (emphasis mine). Don't like the policy? Think it runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia? In both cases, that's largely irrelevant; we work with the policies we have, not the ones we want. Yeah, it kinda sucks, but reality is very rarely ever fun. :)
 * As you may (should?) be aware, I was reluctant to answer a similar question on my recent re-RfB? I was reluctant, inter alia because it was a decision already made in good faith. However when I saw how important the question was to the community, I read over the entire nom, as well as the 'crat chat, and offered my own analysis. Notwithstanding the quality of Redux's analysis, how do you feel about the propriety of Danny's promotion? If you hadn't seen the 'crat chat, what conclusion would you have reached? Do you think that the opposers on Danny's re-RfA were so off-base that he should have been promoted in such an off-policy fashion? -- Cecropia 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you missed this in responding to my query on Q.8. A response would be appreciated. Thanks, Cecropia 06:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10. I believe you are a regular at IRC. I have seen IRC have a terrible influence on Wikipedia functions in several cases where things are discussed without the transparency that processes like RfA and RfB require. One incident led to the resignation of a bureaucrat some time ago. Would you discuss RfAs at IRC? How would you respond if someone you knew and trusted asked you about an RfA? How would you insulate yourself from being influenced by discussions at RfA IRC concerning active RfAs and RfBs? -- Cecropia 16:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A. I'll go ahead and answer this right now (pfft, screw work) since it's a quick answer. I've gotten on IRC a handful of times. Anyone who's talked to me in the admin channel will readily say that I practically never talk about anything official or serious; if anything, I'm even more irreverent there than I ever am on here. I go to IRC to relax (or to ask commons-related questions, as I'm not as familiar with their stuff as I am with ours), not to sort out administrative stuff (I join the admin channel primarily because I enjoy the company of the people there). So the quick answer: no, I wouldn't use IRC for RfA stuff. The "knew and trusted" bit would probably depend on the question, but again, I don't plan on IRC playing a role in my bureaucratic career.


 * 11 Which is more important in "split hair" cases: the amount of votes or the strength of the argument? For example; an RFA stands at 77% - a majority of the consenus supports the candidate without much explanation or detail as to why, but those opposing bring up a well-formed argument, with references to back up their case. (please strike if anyone feels this is too similar to Konstable's question #8.) --Ozgod 02:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A I think that I've inadvertantly answered the question with the way I phrased my answer to Question #8. I can clarify further if that answer was not to your satisfaction, however. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


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



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Cool - I get to be the first to support --BigDT 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Don't see why not. A willingness and focus on spending time over at WP:CHU is commendable. Per Mastcell below, the concerns of the opposes strike me as... Very trivial. Grand  master  ka  19:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Sure. Sean William @ 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) (3x ec) Strong support cool head, good member of community. I trust this user to do things right and not abuse the tools. ^  demon [omg plz] 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, user is trustworthy and I see no reason why he would misuse the bureaucrat tools. Good member of the community. --Core desat 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I completely trust you. Greeves (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely! Good luck.  Majorly  (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, enthusiastically. EVula is sane and knows what he's doing. As someone who has spent many months helping out with the rename pages, I can say that we really could do with another crat or two to help out. Its not the most fun of work and spreading it out is a good idea to avoid burnout. At the moment 3 crats have done the vast majority of the last 1000 renames (with Secretlondon doing about half of those). I believe EVula has the necessary skills and experience to help out in this area and with the other bureaucrat functions. WjBscribe 20:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can say that we really could do with another crat or two to help out. ~   Wi ki  her mit  01:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. The current WP:CHU backlog shows how much we need more bureaucrats - it only takes a couple of active bureaucrats to go on holiday at the moment and things start grinding to a halt. I've always found EVula an excellent, level headed person and I think he would make an excellent addition to the 'crats. Will (aka  Wimt ) 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) (EC)Support - I have seen EVula all around wikipedia. His decision making, endless good humor, and great knowledge of policy all mark him as an excellent user/admin already. Let's see:
 * 3) *6600 Mainspace edits. Vandalfighting, deletes, article editing: All hallmarks of a good editor as well as a good admin
 * 4) *2360 Wikipedia space edits. Large numbers in RfC (user names), AN, AN/I, and AIV. Excellent conflict resolution and user blocking edits.
 * Overall, I think EVula is an excellent administrator who will make an excellent bureaucrat. -- tennis man  20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support (edit conflict) Even though there are around 20 'crats, the 'crat that does all the work right now is Cecropia. He is now even trying to learn CHU. There is a need for active 'crats.  Evilclown93 (talk)  20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - more staff all round can only be a good thing for Wikipedia. We're constantly growing and the only thing stubbornly staying static is the number of bureaucrats. Single user login will increase the workload at WP:CHU if/when it finally lands and we should be in a position as early as possible to have sufficent 'crats able to deal with the workload. Changing usernames should be an admin action rather than a 'crat action, but until that's rectified, we're always going to be short of 'crats. Nick 20:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I can definitely trust EVula with this. — An as  talk? 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Why not? He has shown himself to be a reliable admin so he will probably be a reliable bureaucrat.--†Sir James Paul† 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, definitely. I can see him being a good 'crat. Tim{speak} 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Trustworthy and funny: The best combination ever! (and the most difficult one) NikoSilver 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Duh. --Deskana (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. EVula is a good admin and understands what is required to be a 'crat. Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong support - EVula is the RfA gnome! He does great work already at RfA such as removing and closing snowballs and generally helping things run more smoothly. I fully trust the candidate to neutrally close RfA's per community consensus, let's give him the tools so he can add a bit more to the process.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'm a "he". I went ahead and fixed your statement. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Extra brownie points for correcting my mis-capitalisation of your username!  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm striving for "RfB gnome" as well. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) (edit conflict) Support I have had a number of interactions with this user, and have been consistently impressed by the knowledge of wiki-policy shown. I would trust this user with the bureaucrat tools.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) (ec) Support - excellent track record with the sysop bit. No issues here -  A l is o n  ☺ 20:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Would have preferred to see a good round year, but why the hell not. Can't imagine him rougely sysopping Willy on Wheels. Riana (talk)  20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...uh, yeah, I totally wasn't planning on doing that... crap! EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Foiled again! Riana (talk)  20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Dude,-I-know-this-guy support. --ST47 Talk 23:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support...On Wheels!!! EVula will certainly be able to handle being a 'crat. Best of luck, —  «  A NIMUM   »  23:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support, I seem to see him everywhere... which is a good thing, since he brings positive energy wherever he goes. I also have full confidence in his ability to remain neutral. hmwith  talk  23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support absolutely. WP:CHU really needs some more attention, and I've decided I do trust EVula with the key to the mop cupboard as well. I'm also echoing hmwith's statement about being positive, which is the kind of attitude we need in someone in such a position of trust. Best of luck, - Zeibura (Talk) 00:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Appears to be a fair, reasonable, and dedicated project member and therefore would be an excellent addition to the ranks of our overworked and underappreciated bureaucrats. CLA 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Very Strong Support I haven't interacted with EVula for several months unfortunately, but I know for sure that he is a decent administrator. He will be an excellent Bureaucrat. Acalamari 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oh good Lord Support He deserved it long ago ON WHEELS!. &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  03:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Nat Tang talk to me! 03:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, without the slightest hint of doubt. EV is helpful, extremely active and knowledgeable, and always has a kind word and a lighthearted joke to defuse the worse situations. Exactly the kind of 'crat I've always loved (now don't get jealous, Cecropia and Raul! ;) Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 06:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. If he can handle Ambrosia, he can handle us. Feezo (Talk) 07:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I've not been here super long, but I see EVula often; and it's always a positive and helpful contribution or comment. Good admin, will make a good 'crat. A lcemáe   T  •  C  08:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) KillerChihuahua?!? 09:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) -- Y not? 12:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. EVula is always right (I will work harder). Appreciate the humor, appreciate being willing to go with the consensus of the community rather than overriding. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Outright Support I'm proud of this user.-- Hús  ö  nd  14:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone should be, it's you; I doubt I'd be as good an admin as I have been if I hadn't gotten your sound advice on my Editor Review lo these many, many moons ago. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support seen your around on RFAs doing the tally thing. I don't think having you as a crat will do harm to the project.   Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 14:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--D-Boy 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: If we need more bureaucrats at WP:CHU, then let's do this. EVula is a prolific and very solid editor/admin possessed of an admirable degree of common sense, which is probably the most important prereq here. The diffs cited in the "Oppose" section strike me as more along the lines of spade identification or attempts to defuse a situation with humor, rather than the kind of incivility that corrodes the project. Based on this editor's on-wiki record (I've never been on IRC in my life), I think he'll make an excellent bureaucrat. MastCell Talk 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hell I was about to post the exact comment to reconfirm my support in view of the new evidence. I couldn't have put it better, and everything above applies to me too. NikoSilver 16:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support The candidate has the skills, experience, and trust necessary to carry out bureaucrat tasks. Agent 86 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Great admin, no reason to think that he'll be a bad crat'. ~ peaceful dreams  19:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I trust EVula. I've seen his work on AN and ANI, and elsewhere. He's always been civil and good-natured, and as far as I know, has never caused a massive, Wiki-shattering controversy. This is good. I don't believe he will explode the Wiki if we hand over 'crat access; in fact, I think he'll make it better. I'm all for it. &spades;P M C&spades; 19:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support From my experiences with EVula on Wikipedia and in the past, he's been a responsible guy who knows what's going on. Ravanacker | Talk 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support. I've dealt with you many times, so tis is a definate support. We need more crats. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Bureaucracy is no big deal.   Buck  ets  ofg  23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. User is an asset to the project as is, promotion will make even better KnightLago 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support- per PMC. E  ddie  01:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support this common white trash, moronic , incredibly gay , chronic masturbating , queer , who's only friends are gay's and Rednecks ? (It's quite obvious I could go on...) Sure why not! Nah but seriously, I've been working with EVula since before he became and admin, and having his talk page on my Watchlist has let me see for myself just how much work he gets done as a sysop, and I think he could handle 'crat work quite well. ≈  The Haunted Angel  01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 01:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Very helpful.  The reasons for opposing seem rather silly or otherwise unconvincing, and he definitely has my trust.  ShadowHalo 04:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support. Why not? Looks good and I'm sure he will put the extra privileges to good use. E  talk 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I've seen him a number of places; his experience as an user and admin would make him sound as a bureaucrat. Sr13 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support-Per interactions and contributions. The answers to the questions seem good, and to all the diffs on the oppose votes: Users/admins may get mad sometimes. They may show this through editing. Does EVula show incivility everyday? No. Everyone's bound to have a few bad days, especially admins who have to deal with users like the ones who call EVula all those nice things on his userpage. The opposers have 10 diffs of edits out of how many? -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support-- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 00:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per all above reasons. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Weak Support There are great civility concerns with this editor. However, there still appears to be cause for me to support. As I am not totally certain of my support, it is weak. Captain   panda  03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Outright Support - This user has the right attitude to become a crat.. Good Luck...-- Cometstyles 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Automatic support, someone needs to pass RfB, not desperately unsuitable. Moreschi Talk 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support I support him because his edits have been enough like to support him.--LucasBunchi 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support basically per Moreschi. Regardless of whether the number of bureaucrats is currently sufficient (for some people think so), I believe that bureaucrats need some fresh blood, and EVula will not make a bad addition to their team. He appears to have judgment on things that matter, and so far I am not convinced otherwise. Grace notes T § 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support after a lot of thought. Rationale: per my personal, and addmitedly brief, interaction. Nothing done cannot be undone and I trust this user. Simple as that. Pedro | Chat  21:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) [[Image:Symbol wtf vote.svg|20px]] Support Ahh WTF?? Why not... ~   Wi ki  her mit  00:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Unquestionably qualified for the position and I've seen nothing that would indicate this user will create a need for Category:Rouge bureaucrats. It's 'crat time for EVula. -  auburn pilot  talk  01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - i believe EVula deserves being a Senator. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  13:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - very good answers to questions, a dedicated admin as well.  Sala Skan  22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - EVula is well familiar with and more than capable of determining consensus in difficult cases. His thoughts are clear and understandable and acceptance of his explained decisions would be made quicker due to his good reputation as an admin and editor. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 22:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) CHU-CHU-CHU - Support ck lostsword•T•C 01:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support There is nothing I can say that has not already been covered by previous supporters, so I lend my voice in the consensus for supporting your RfB. --Ozgod 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Protest support I know I came too late to do anything about this - yet another RFB disaster - but I'll once again insist that we need more bureaucrats. I recently requested a usurpation (I was YechielMan) and it took more than a week after the standard one-week period for a bureaucrat to do it because Secretlondon was on vacation.  Now obviously spending one more week in this username versus that username is no big deal, but I'm complaining about the principle of the problem - why do bureaucrat functions need to be mired in so much bureaucracy?  Can't we trust a senior administrator like EVula, who's a leader in administrative discussions where mortals like me fear to tread, to change usernames correctly and in a reasonable time frame?  I repeat, as I wrote in that essay, that a seriously controversial RFA comes along maybe once every two weeks.  I'm more than willing to let EVula review a few unanimous RFAs to get the hang of the discussion until he takes on the Carnildos and Ryulongs and Krimpets.  I trust his judgment, plain and simple.  I ask all the opposers, as a collective, a simple question - what causes more harm to the project, a dearth of bureaucrats to create backlogs at CHU and BRFA (which really should never be backlogged by more than two days), or an excess of bureaucrats such that once in a blue moon, an editor who has been making difficult decisions for 18 months or more might blow an RFA decision within his discretionary range?  I don't rant about much on Wikipedia, but I rant about the insane RFB standards.  I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. Shalom Hello 10:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. CLA 12:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Shalom, in response to your inquiry. Yes, I sincerely believe that sarcastic remarks and assumptions of bad faith (see #2 in the oppose section) have the potential to damage the project a lot more, especially in an explosive RFA, than if somebody has to wait a couple of days -- even a week -- at WP:CHU.  If we need more bureaucrats, let's find 'em.  But please understand that our opposes are sincere and our concern genuine. --JayHenry 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * JayHenry, that's a fair point. My essay was in response to oppose votes in a previous RFB that said "We don't need more bureaucrats" or "At least a full year as an admin."  I don't see what's the point in making arbitrary restrictions.  Now I see that there are substantive issues to consider, but my basic approach is something like the following: if you've been an admin for a long time, and you could easily pass RFA again if you applied today, and you have some experience with any of the B'crat tasks, that's good enough for me.  I'm well aware that most of the users have more stringent expectations, and I agree to disagree.  I appreciate the constructive criticism. Shalom Hello 16:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Shalom, I have to disagree with at least part of your general perspective on the stringency of RfBs. As we have observed, even a single controversial call (Danny, outstandingly) by bureaucrats can create an uproar that not only creates problems and conflict for the closing bureaucrat(s), but for all active bureaucrats; but, much more importantly, they chip away at the confidence of the great body of Wikipedians in the entire process. The heart of the problem, as I see it, is that one big part of bureaucrat duties is fairly uncontroversial: username changes; the other major part, promotions, requires straightforward and active engagement with the community, often in the face of attacks that can rise to the level of personal attacks. We don't currently have the ability to make someone a namechange 'crat without making them a promotion 'crat. Is this a danger? Consider the instances in which crats who don't usually promote (or do any crat work, for that matter) sometimes surface to make a controversial "push of the button." To paraphase an old expression: "if we want new bureaucrats in the worst way, that is exactly how we will get them." The impression I get from those who say "we don't need more bureaucrats" is that many are really saying "we don't need more bureaucrats just for the sake of having more bureaucrats." If the former case were the real sentiment, then I suppose my own re-RfB would have encountered a lot more opposition. It is evident that as popular as some users are (and we can usually assume justly so) Wikipedians want to be comfortable and confident with new bureaucrats, which is different than that a person is smart, or nice, or funny, or popular. If the community can feel comfortable with any decision that any bureaucrat makes, without demanding logical justification and firm, straightforward engagement with the community, then I guess it doesn't matter what our bureaucrat standards are, does it? -- Cecropia 18:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per Hmwith. See him EVERYWHERE. Plus, he is funny, thats points there, and he is always right, thats like millions of points. On a serious note, he is trustworthy, and I would go to him with any problems I have. Cheers, --wpktsfs 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support solid user and about to be another unfortunate victim of the RfB jokefest. &mdash; Deckiller 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The unproductive edit that you cited was me being a smartass; I can't honestly say that I won't ever do that again, but I will try to reign it in a bit if it is a concern. However, I generally avoid being a smartass in conjunction with "official" activities (like blocks or deletions), so I don't see it being an issue if I become a 'crat. I agree that "!vote" is just a bypass around a general taboo, but sometimes it works (as far as grammar goes; I'm not about to have a poorly-written sentence just because of an anti-taboo taboo). I usually try to replace it with "arguments" (I'd like to point out that I used "!vote" twice and "argument" three times). As for the "bolded vote", that's just how I generally handle my comments in XfDs or on proposed changes; I don't really see any reason why I shouldn't post like that, especially given the fact that I really disagree with the proposed addition (would it have been any different if I'd not used a bullet and had instead said "I strongly oppose this blah blah..."?). I generally have set patterns for a lot of what I do (any warning on a user's talk page is titled "Note", any block notification is titled "Notice", etc.), and that's just another one of them. I'm not really sure what I can do to convince you that I won't votecount, aside from saying that I won't, as I haven't done much AfD closing recently... of the stuff I've closed recently, there's AfD/Star Destroyer and AfD: Pirates of the Caribbean: 4, but those don't really relate much to the concern (well, maybe the Star Destroyer one, as I considered the Delete arguments by merit of their content, which I found wanting). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Your initial volley into this RfB smacked of petty insults and axe grinding. If you'd posted the above (as strongly as I may have disagreed with you about the relevancy), I would have reacted very differently. I'd still prefer it if you could give me constructive criticism, but general statements like that are probably the next best thing. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 13:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC) As for the "bitching" comment, I'm willing to concede that, again, I could have chosen my words a bit more carefully. However, given the large amount of undue complaints being thrown at Beta's direction, I felt that it was a humorous statement... obviously, I was a bit off the mark there. I was just trying to be funny, though; that's all. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I still need convincing that EVula isn't going to simply weigh nominations like a vote. Someone who adds their bolded vote to a discussion page, followed by unproductive comments like  gives me cause for concern. (Also, in my experience, when people use the word "!vote" what they really is exactly "vote" but they are avoiding what seems to be a taboo word. What's so hard about saying "discussion" and "comment"?) Also,  this assumption of bad faith was not great, and those are the only two places I've seen you recently, unfortunately. Dmcdevit·t 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (working backwards) I feel extremely uncomfortable about assuming good faith on that MfD because the nominating editor's own userpage has numerous userboxes that violate the exact same reason that they're citing for deletion (see some of the others statements on that page; I'm not the only one that has smelled a certain amount of hypocrisy in the nom). I don't interpret WP:AGF to mean "assume good faith regardless of evidence"; given the evidence, the reason behind the MfD appears to be "I don't like it", which is why I've behaved the way I have in that MfD.
 * 1) Oppose. A number of "spontaneous" votes by IRC regulars always gives me pause. It's these votes that brought Wikipedia to its current sorry state.  I don't want a Bcrat who would promote to admins any kid who has chatted on IRC for ten days and amassed enough support there (it's how matters stand now, but who cares). His/her user page shows regrettable immaturity. Dmcdevit's diffs are an additional cause for concern. Last but not least, I recall that EVula enthusiastically took part in the successful campaign to drive Giano from Wikipedia. Who knows who will be the next victim. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm rather concerned by the first part of this comment. Once you're convinced that an IRC cabal exists, everything seems to fall into place as "evidence" that reinforces your beliefs. EVula did not "canvass", on IRC in any channel, although discussion began about it once it was noticed. (Discussion about how broken RfB is, etc.). Perhaps it would be best to avoid screaming "CABAL!" in a crowded Wiki. Similarly, the Administrative Cabal is not out to get Giano, and Giano is not a martyr. What's done is done. Now, let's avoid polluting EVula's RfB with IRC/Giano drama, shall we? If you have something to say to me, take it to my talk page. Sean William @ 12:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in Administrative Cabal and I've never called Giano a martyr. Please don't impute these statements to me. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you still pissed off that I called trolling trolling? (see archived talk thread) I have extreme doubts to the reason for "reporting" my userpage to Jimbo, especially since you interpreted Jimbo's "I don't think it's a big deal" as meaning "I completely agree with you Ghirla". If you oppose this RfB, that's perfectly fine with me; I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye, but as long as it doesn't affect the project, we don't have to. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 13:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional request: can you provide any diffs for the "EVula enthusiastically took part in the successful campaign to drive Giano from Wikipedia" statement? I just noticed that, and I'm honestly quite upset about such a baseless claim. As far as I can tell, the only thing I did was to slap resolved on a thread and called it trolling (several other editors were calling it trolling as well, if I recall correctly). Not quite "enthusiastic participation" in my opinion. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear EVula, you seem to have an unfailing ability to enflame rather unremarkable discussions. While I sometimes appreciate this trait in wikipedians, I don't see how it qualifies one for BCratship. I also wish our Bcrats were able to distinguish the few people who made Wikipedia into one of top ten sites on the web from troll squads and idle kids who treat the project as a chatroom or surrogate Friendster. We have a few of the former and a thousand too many of the latter. I know that only a starry-eyed visionary would demand anything like this from a prospective BCrat these days, but probably that's who I am. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So I'm noticing. :D
 * 1) This is one of those diffs which I find to be very problematic. EVula refers to others' comments as "bitching", which is very humiliating. Such downplaying can never keep you in my good books and creates concerns about how you would use the new tools once you have them. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the comment below seals the deal. Even if you don't like a contributor, you can perhaps engage in some civil talk? Now, I would be the last person on earth to give somebody a lecture about civility, but obviously bureaucrats are held to higher standards. I still believe that you are a strong sysop and an asset to the project. Best wishes, — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  15:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But.. wh... huh? I never said I don't like Giano; I'd never even interacted with him ever before than (and haven't again since). I completely agree that he was an utterly fantastic editor. But he was stepping way over the line there. Ranting about an IRC cabal and lobbing insults at everyone that disagrees ("No doubt even as I post this 'He who must be obeyed' is sounding the trumpet calling the drones away from their chatter to comment and pronounce further rubbish against me"... archived)... I'm sorry, but that's a textbook case of trolling in my opinion. Could I have used a different statement in attempting to nip that thread in the bud? Yes. Should I have used a different statement? I most certainly agree so now. :)
 * 1) Oppose Think what you will about Giano, thin skinned, excitable, quick on the trigger, he is (or was) one our most prolific editors. How you thought calling him a troll would help things is beyond me, especially while closing a still active discussion. Closing it with a different comment (maybe: Let's try and walk this back a little or Let's try and cool off for a bit) might have been fine. But the way it is, it was just a couple more splashes of fuel. Bureaucrat takes reasoned and calm judgment and I don't see it here, there are other examples in some of the opposes above. We've rejected a couple of great candidates here recently which is too bad, but that's no reason to turn this into a popularity contest.. RxS 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've largely responded to this in my comment to Nick. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Nick. Even more than admins, b'crats need to be calm at all times: "bitching", "trolling", even the "are you still pissed off...?" that candidate typed in response to an oppose above -- these are all signs of someone with an unfortunately quick temper and/or a habit of choosing words poorly.  One bad phrase from a b'crat, as he closes a controversial promotion, can causes weeks of discord around WP.  There exists too much evidence of an ill-suited temperament here. Xoloz 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * About the "are you still pissed off" comment (I'll reply to the other statements later; I'm at work, and my replies require more thought than I can do between timesheets), that's just how I respond to someone who I strongly suspect of acting in bad faith against me. I made a comment about someone else entirely, and I was suddenly being given a boilerplate NPA warning. Then my name and userpage is getting tossed around at Jimbo's talk page, with all the commentary about it from Ghirla being that is entirely inappropriate (and I'm a little irked about the fact that Ghirla never bothered to tell me that I was being discussed; it would have been a nice gesture that would have done wonders for thinking it was in good faith). Then I see Ghirla come here and oppose my RfB on the grounds that I'm a member of the IRC cabal and state that I'm immature (by mis-quoting Jimbo). I'm sorry, but no, I don't find that acceptable at all. Dmcdevit, Nick, RxS, yours, and Visviva's concerns are all perfectly valid in my opinion, which is why I have taken/will take the time to give them well thought-out responses. Someone who's got an axe to grind? Not so much. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I respect your right as an editor to defend yourself from what struck you as a bad-faith comment; but, being a b'crat is a bit like being a priest -- one should not respond intemperately, even if one is justified in doing so on a personal level. Being a b'crat calls for that extra bit of restraint and calm -- traits that your comments, and defenses, don't demonstrate.  You really do need these traits to be a b'crat; I guarantee you will find yourself exasperated incredibly within the job, otherwise. Xoloz 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Generally I don't oppose. I prefer to remain away. However, strong reactions to oppose made me uncomfortable. --Bhadani (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what exactly about my responses made you uncomfortable, and I'd be more than willing to assuage your discomfort if at all possible. (my response to Majorly below is also relevant to your concern, I believe) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Bhadani. Maybe I was a little too hasty to support...? I mean, I think EVula is a fantastic admin, and in the past I've said with time he'd make a good 'crat, but there's things brought up here that worry me. And, slap me if I sound like a hypocrite here, but your responses to opposes aren't what I'd consider to be very helpful. Yes, I encourage discussion on RfAs (since it is a discussion), but "Are you still pissed off" just sounds unneedlessly aggressive. Sorry.  Majorly  (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said to Xoloz, I consider it an appropriate attitude towards someone who is making a (in my opinion) bad-faith Oppose here. If someone is actually giving me constructive feedback (such as everyone else has), I'm more than happy to engage in a dialogue with them (heh, probably something that'd be more apparent if I had the time to respond to Nick, RxS, and Visviva). I think I'd be an asset to the project if I could help out with username changes and whatnot, but I'm not going to coddle axe-grinders. I fully realize that I might be shooting myself in the foot over this, but I feel strongly enough about it to accept a failed RfB over. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose In part for general civility, but in larger part due to stance regarding rather disparaging language with respect to another user. Even if they are acting in bad faith, you don't throw gasoline at a fire in the hopes of making it go away. To further defend that position...wow. I mean, *wow*. Feeling strongly about things is admirable. Feeling strongly enough about insulting someone to shoot your RfB to pieces? Don't be surprised at the result. --Durin 19:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't feel like I insulted Ghirla when I wrote that, and I still don't feel like I've insulted Ghirla now. It's not that I feel strongly enough about insulting someone to shoot myself in the foot; I feel strongly enough about not giving extremely bad-faithed arguments the same respect that I give good-faithed arguments. Everyone who has put their name under the Oppose or Neutral headings has given me constructive comments, except for Ghirla, who has instead opted to insult me and make baseless claims, which then mushroomed into other arguments (for example, I never knew that I didn't like Giano until someone pointed out that I apparently didn't). For stuff that is totally my fault? Oh yeah, I'm willing to own up to it. But I draw the line at stuff I didn't do. (I'm sorry if this post has also come across as overly-hostile; if I learn just one thing from this RfB, it's that I'm sloppier with my phrasing than I thought). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the diffs shown by Sir Nick and Rx Strangelove. Those type of comments are insensitive, and not really making the situation better. This user could spend a bit more time in choosing his words (and his language). I just have a weird feeling about this RfB because of edits like and . EVula undoubtedly has been planning this RfB for a while, and his overeagerness makes me a tad bit uncomfortable. Despite my oppose, I have the utmost respect for EVula and his work on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I make no illusions about having wanted to be a 'crat for a while. :) Aside from that comment on Majorly's talk page (that I'd forgotten about entirely, heh), I also asked Redux for some advice about being a bureaucrat (of course, just when the RfB looks like it's headed towards the crapper, I finally get the spelling right on the first try) ; you can see the archive of that at User talk:EVula/Apr-Jun 2007. I was initially planning on waiting a bit longer, but then I saw Secretlondon complaining about how everything goes to hell in a handbasket whenever a 'crat takes a break coupled with someone else who noted that the change username boards were in dire need of additional attention. With that in mind, I decided to jump my own gun and submit my RfB. I realize that doesn't address the concerns about my sloppier-than-preferred wording, but that's at least a glimpse at my rationale for submitting the RfB. EVula // talk //  &#9775;  // 22:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The overall impression I have, combined with the other opposition votes leads me to oppose. Also the trophy board of trolling on your user page leaves a bad taste. --MichaelLinnear 21:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Some RfAs are controversial and end up in long and hot debates with bureaucrats needing to justify why they picked a certain position to close on. Some of your comments above do not demonstrate your ability to do so. In particular, accusations of bad faith towards one of the most valuable contributors to the wiki are not helpful - even if they are true (which I find hard to believe in the case of Ghirla)--Konstable 11:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ghirla (whom I also personally value) was not accused of being a troll. A section in ANI (which Ghirla didn't even start) was closed by EVula as "Resolved. Trolling, just move along...", which is not even an ad hominem remark to begin with, nor is it directed to someone in particular. While I presume that EVula could have used better terminology there, (which could have arguably been less effective in stopping beating the dead horse) I'm not quite sure why this had to become a major issue. Probably the initial responses of EVula here have not helped in defusing the situation, and to tell you the truth I was about to shift to oppose. I found his last comment apologetic and in the right direction  and that's what is still keeping me in the support camp. NikoSilver 13:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact I was not even referring to the AN/I issue. I was referring to EVula's responses in regards to Ghirla on this very page. EVula is quite literally accusing Ghirla of bad faith (see response to Xoloz) and trolling (see response to Nearly Headless Nick). If EVula throws around accusations of bad faith and trolling on his/her own RfB I think it is a very clear sign. It is a big deal not because EVula committed a big crime but because it shows EVula's inability to be productive in contentious debates - which is what bureucrats are forced into now and then.--Konstable 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ANI vs RfB issue aside, your comment almost mirrors mine up to the penultimate sentence. It is our ultimate sentences that set us apart: You feel he didn't handle it well here at all; I feel he initially didn't handle it well here, but he saved the day with the last comment I linked. I understand your rationale, and I respect your higher standards (i.e. from what I understand that his last comment was too-little/too-late), but I respectfully disagree given the broader circumstances (for now). NikoSilver 11:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose You are a great admin, and due to your overall experience on Wikipedia, I think you would make a great b´crat. But, I´m a bit concerened about the civility issues raised above; civility is very important when interacting with other users, and with bureaucratic actions (closing RfA, RfB), more interaction with others would certainly come and uncivility could result quite offensive to other users. But, I must certainly say, that the template that you created, the one that you mentioned on your intro, is indeed quite good, along with your concerns towards eventual biting of newbie candidates, which make my oppose weak. ♠  TomasBat  12:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose per Xoloz and Durin. --John 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Based on the answers to questions and opposition reasons above, I don't believe it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to make this individual a 'crat. (There are better candidates to meet the need for more 'crats.)  The opposition reasons given by Xoloz, Nick, Ghirla, Majorly, and Konstable, plus my belief that the answers to questions 1 and 3 are deficient in important ways leads me to this conclusion.  GRBerry 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I would like to see more experience first, plus the nominee's handling on opposition comments leaves me uneasy about ther ability to correctly deal with disagreements and confrontation. TigerShark 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Per above-- Sef rin gle Talk 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strongly oppose: you must accept a set percentage for promoting or failing nominations. You must accept that the community should make the decision and the bureaucrat should not. All that really matters in this nom is where you stand on that question. Everyking 10:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, but I'm reserving judgment until he answers my optional question above - if he agrees not to ignore community consensus, will you change your vote? Waltontalk 12:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty lame argument, Everyking; and I am now going to reconsider my support vote for you on the Wikimedia Board elections . Just because a user does not agree with you on principle which is widely divided among the community is not really a good reason for opposing candidacy. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Dealing with miscreants and disagreeable elements – while showing tact – comes with the territory; it is paramount that anyone seeking such tools be aware of this. In other words, stoking flames by way of baiting or taunting rhetoric is simply unacceptable. --Folajimi (leave a note) 12:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - The comments that I have seen by this editor on this nom don't show the kind of maturity I would expect from a bureaucrat.--Danaman5 16:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - may go sideways in handing out mop. - Mailer Diablo 00:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose His reaction to criticism has been less than ideal for a b'crat during this nomination. GizzaDiscuss  &#169;</b> 02:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose because of this answer on Redux's analysis of Danny's RFA: Similarly, his note that people who opposed Danny's request for adminship based on his bureacratic actions were completely irrelevant for the discussion at hand, and similarly should not hold the same weight. I think this doesn't hold up. When we judge people for adminship we are almost always judging them based on how they have been doing some other job. If someone is doing a poor job as an editor we don't give her the mop. Similarly, thinking someone has done a poor job as a bureaucrat is a perfectly good reason to oppose their RFA. Haukur 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Xoloz, Nick, Durin and DMC make good points, but also the need to argue every oppose worries me.  I know it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation, but there's no call to accuse someone of being pissed off because they oppose you.  Sorry. Hiding Talk 20:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I can just imagine some of the situations that could ensue from ill-considered humor coming from a bureaucrat. I've seen enough just in this RFB in terms of too-hasty responses to cause me concern.  Per Xoloz in particular.  RFA/RFB is one of the more contentious areas of wikipedia.  We need bureaucrats who can respond calmly to completely outrageous criticisms, hard as it is to do that.  As a bureaucrat you'll have to deal with people who are acting in much much less good faith than Ghirla (who actually seems to me to have legitimate concerns) and responding as above could set off firestorms. --JayHenry 05:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak oppose. You're a great admin, and I don't like opposing RFBs, but bureaucrats have to have more civility then basically any other users. I'd trust you with other responsibilities, not this though. Wizardman  19:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, especially per Nick. As one of the editors who "bitched" about BetaCommand's misuse of the block button, I'm unimpressed to see that your dismissal of these concerns  was intended as humor. A better, more reflective, even introspective, response here—a hint of realization  of what a single unjust block can do to a good-faith user— would have gone a long way with me. Another point: presumably what you're showing us is your very best interpersonal skills, because that's generally what people break out for an RfA, and so surely, mutatis mutandis, for 'crathood. You insist here that Ghirlandajo is in bad faith—a serious accusation, a serious absence of respect for a user who is committed to Wikipedia, whatever else he may be, and who has donated massively to the project of his time and skills—I don't like to see it, and I have to wonder just what words you would choose in a different context, say from a more invulnerable position (like bureaucrat). No, I really don't like to see that. More imagination, that's what I want to see in a 'crat, because all the rest follows from it: the civility, the careful choice of words, the acknowledgement of valid points of view that are different from your own. I don't believe imagination is a once-and-for-all personal quality, I believe it can be cultivated, watered, and nourished, and that wiki is a good environment for it. Please don't be discouraged by the opposes, come back a little later and try again.  Bishonen | talk 23:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC).
 * 10) Firm oppose Inasmuch as I have generally thought EVula to be quite competent and probably well-suited for certain of the tasks of bureaucratship (the civility concerns raised here are not without merit, but they are not dispositive for me, and they do not lead me to conclude that she is altogether dispositionally unfit), I refrained from opposing straightaway in view of the fundamental tension between my understanding of RfA and what I perceived to be the candidate's understanding, hoping that further discussion might elucidate how the candidate might act qua bureaucrat or might allay my concerns; such discussion has made plain to me that the fashion in which EVula might close RfAs should be magisterial and might involve the substitution of her judgment for that of certain editors participating in a given discussion&mdash;such closes are contrary to my understanding of RfA as essentially a vote (and, in any event, as a discussion the closer of which acts only to interpret, viz., to determine for what position a consensus exists, irrespective of his/her personal senses of the rightness of that position). I would, as WJBscribe, supra, feel quite confident reposing in EVula my trust to partake of those tasks that bureaucrats perform pro forma (e.g., username changes), and I think that we would do well to approve many more editors for bureaucratship in order that backlogs at, inter al., RfCU might be averted and inasmuch as, in any case, there's nothing wrong with our conferring the tools of bureaucratship in any editor whom we think will make a good bureaucrat, but I would not feel comfortable with EVula as a closer of requests for adminship (or bureaucratship, I suppose).  Joe 04:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to his userboxes, EVula is male.--Chaser - T 07:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, as I was writing my oppose, I thought, "hmm, I recall having in the past referred to EVula as a male, and I ought to be sure to check his/her userpage (or, well, to observe what pronoun is used passim here) before pressing 'save'"; I obviously failed to do that. Apologies to EVula (not that there's anything wrong with being a woman; after all, we need someone to stay in the kitchen [see q.6]) and thanks to Chaser for correcting me.  Joe 07:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't take this the wrong way, Joe, but are you a lawyer? :-) &mdash; Deckiller 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose There is substantial disagreement about whether 'crats should simply count votes and have discretion in the 75-80% range or be more liberal in discounting opposition as invalid. While I'm comfortable with both types of 'crats generally, I'm not comfortable with EVula as the second type. In responding to Cecropia in Q1, EVula created a big opening for consideration of specific prior incidents. The other responses to questions left me with the impression of someone who draws extreme examples in black and white, like the imaginary category of misogynistic wikipedians. EVula may be more nuanced than that, but this RfB doesn't demonstrate it. I also agree with many points raised by other opposers above.--Chaser - T 07:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral I hadn't given much thought to either of those sections, to be perfectly honest. I'll look into them (at some later point; real life is quite suddenly flaring up). Thanks! EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I would not hesitate to support this user for adminship (if he were not already an admin) or for checkuser (which doesn't require being a crat).  However, Bureaucrat is a position of extraordinary community trust, and although the cases of unconstructive or (arguably) immature behavior raised above are not terribly serious, I'm afraid they are enough to dissuade me from supporting. Once again let me stress that I value the candidate's contributions enormously; however, I am not convinced that this is a good match.  -- Visviva 09:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Added: assuming this RfB is not successful, since becoming a bureaucrat is a personal goal for you, I would recommend work in dispute resolution (perhaps working in formal or informal mediation), to show that you have the ability to handle highly tense community situations effectively.  If you were able to show such experience, I (and many others, I expect) would be delighted to support.  Could be an interesting shift from the gnome-work anyway.  :-) -- Visviva 13:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aww, but I love my gnome-work! :P
 * 1) Neutral I love what you do as an admin, but I honestly don't see the need for crat tools, and have some reservations with the civility issues raised above in the oppose section. Jmlk  1  7  19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Personally, I would prefer at least a year of adminship. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 01:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm satisfied with the answer to my question, but I've not yet made up my mind concerning some of the other issues which have been raised. I'll try to get back to this in a couple days. --After Midnight 0001 14:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - I think you are a good admin and I like your humour abilities - but I cannot ignore the civility issues raised and the general responses here do not give me 100% confidence that you are ready for the bureaucrat tools. I might change my vote to support depending on how this RFB develops. Good luck! Camaron1 | Chris 19:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. This is an RfB, which presumably means tougher standards than RfA's need to be applied. That's tricky to do without opposing users just for existing; I'm going to be kind and let the candidate off on this issue – Gurch 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral . You can swear up and down that you're not ignoring those questions but until you actually answer them I don't have enough to go on to make up my mind :) Haukur 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah, I actually had forgotten that I still had those three open questions. I'll try to get to them tonight, provided I don't get home too late. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, now I can go ahead! :) (Opposing you, unfortunately, but, hey, you can't win 'em all.) Haukur 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.