Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:59, 20 December 2007

EVula

Voice your opinion (talk page) (48/12/4); Scheduled to end 06:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Hello again. :) I'm putting myself up on RfB for a second time (see also RfB/EVula 1.0), as I find I still wish to be a bureaucrat here, and feel that sufficient time has passed since my last one that I've (a) grown a little bit wiser, (b) met some of the time-based requirements that some editors cited, and most importantly, (c) I feel that I've matured enough as a Misplaced Pages contributor that I've addressed the concerns raised in my last RfB.

The reason I put myself up for 'crathood last time was that I felt comfortable taking the "next step" in on-wiki activity. When it didn't pass, I directed my energy to some of the other WMF projects. Currently, in addition to my adminship here, I'm an admin on Meta, Commons, and Wikispecies. In addition, I've become very active in correcting interwiki links between pages, and across multiple projects; my wiki-matrix serves as evidence of how widely I've traveled around the various projects. However, I still hang my wiki-hat here on en.wp (for example: I've got 23k edits here, and just 820+ on Wikispecies, my 2nd most active project). Once again, I feel myself comfortable stepping up to the plate and becoming even more deeply entrenched in the project.

Currently, I have been an administrator for a bit over a year and a month, and an active contributor just a month and a half shy of the 2 year mark. My edits as a Misplaced Pages editor have been, lately, primarily of the anti-vandalism type, though I still manage to get some content edits in here and there. I'm very active in discussions on WT:RFA, especially in regards to closures per WP:SNOW (which is definitely one of my areas of interest). I'm extremely active in RfAs, usually in monitoring them to fix little things left and right (primarily in updating tallies, but also correcting formatting for those that don't pay as close attention). I'm very active on WP:UAA, and, as I mentioned in my last RfA, I feel that my firm grasp of WP:U would serve me well in taking care of renaming editors (provided WJBscribe leaves some for everyone else). Also, as a dedicated Wikipedian, I do what I can to make editing pleasant for everyone, which most often takes the form of cracking jokes; I'm quite proud of my eight Barnstars of Good Humor. :)

I look forward to continuing to serve Misplaced Pages, either as a bureaucrat or continuing as an administrator, however the community sees fit. I look forward to any and all constructive feedback. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Ayup. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A. I'm well aware that there are two different camps when it comes to RfA closure; the "hands-off" approach, which is akin to a vote count, and a "hands-on" approach, where the closing bureaucrat is more involved in determining consensus. I'm also aware that, despite what people say to the contrary, people just loves them some numerical breakdowns, and the common amounts bandied about are 70%-80% being the traditional discretionary range, with anything lower failing, and anything higher passing (75% seems to be the magic sweet spot). However, RfA is a tricky beast, and I realize that there are times where numbers can say one thing, but the words another; at the end of the day, words trump numbers, and there will always be times where extenuating circumstances can change how an RfA should be closed (for example, particularly damning evidence coming to light particularly late in an RfA).

Also, anyone with "on wheels" at the end of their username gets instantly promoted, right? ;)

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

A. I'm a big fan of transparency in all aspects of Misplaced Pages's inner workings, and my potential 'crat decisions are no different. In the event of a truly down-to-the-wire RfA, I'd be open to the idea of a "'crat chat", but I'm very proud of my history for being bold and owning up to my actions; whether or not a promotion would cause a commotion wouldn't affect how I make that decision.

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 consider myself to have an excellent track record of being openly communicative, with almost 8,000 edits in the various talk namespaces. I think I've got an equal track record in being fair; I'm never vindictive, even when being called mildly unpleasant things. :) I feel that I usually interpret Misplaced Pages policy correctly, but that's also due to a lack of evidence that I'm not... I'm plenty willing to admit when I'm wrong, I just never am. :D

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. As I'm already extremely active on WP:RFA, I think I've got that covered in spades. :) I'm currently not very active on WP:CHU, but that would change immediately if granted the 'crat bit. Bot's aren't exactly an area of expertise for me, but if I need to flip a switch there, I'll do so whenever I am needed.

Optional questions from Nishkid64

5. Have you ever nominated anyone for adminship?

A Sadly, no. Because I'm a die-hard wikignome, I only have a handful of pages that I actively contribute content to; most of the editors I interact with consistently are on places like AN, ANI, or WT:RFA (or in the case of people like Lar or Riana, on other projects), and partly because of the nature of those locations, they're already admins. I do have a couple of people in mind, though; one has already promised her nom to another admin, and another needs a bit of time since his last RfA for dust to clear. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

6. I have a general idea of how you would conduct yourself as a bureaucrat in potentially controversial RfA closings. However, I would like some specifics. Could you cite some specific controversial RfA closings of the past, and explain what you would have done in those situations?

A. Well, I think Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Danny just barely qualifies as controversial (dunno why some people say that I'm sarcastic sometimes...), so I'll go ahead and address that one. :) Last time, I was on record as saying I would have promoted. However, my overall attitude has shifted since then, not the least of which because I was on the receiving end of someone saying (very bluntly) "your opinion shouldn't count" in regards to my opposition of Hdt83's 4th RfA. I really didn't like being dismissed so readily, and it definiely came as a slap in the face (both as personally insulting, and to show me that, hey, perhaps my attitude could use an adjustment). As a 'crat, I don't think I could do that as readily as I once may have; judging consensus is one thing, but my old attitude was based on dismissing choice arguments. If, somehow, Danny were to request to have his sysop bit removed and then ran another RfA and the results were the same, I would not promote (though I still think that Danny's RfA was a singularly unique event, and I don't think the project has directly been harmed by his promotion).

Danny's is the main one I think of when reading "controversial RfA"... plus, I figured I was going to get asked about that one directly sooner or later anyway, so I might as well nip that in the bud. :) If there's a specific RfA you'd like my feedback on, just list it and I'll give you my thoughts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question(s) from Redrocketboy

7. What is the difference between consensus on an RfA and an RfB? Do you agree that "consensus" should be two different percentages?

A. The process of determining consensus is the same, but the touted values are different; just as 75% seems to be the sweet spot for RfA, 90% seems to be the sweet spot for RfB (which, personally, I think is a bit high). I do think the two should be different; aside from the fact that a rogue 'crat would be more dangerous than a rogue admin (though still undoable from a technical angle, it'd be hell on the community), there's also the matter that gauging RfAs is decidedly more nuanced than, say, an AfD or knowing when to speedily delete an image per I1. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

8. What is your opinion of reconfirmation RfAs? Thanks.

A. Personally, I'm not a big fan of them, as I think they create unnecessary drama. However, if an admin legitimately feels that they may no longer be suited for adminship, I whole-heartedly agree that at least something should happen, as I don't consider adminship to be a post that, once achieved, can only be taken back by drastic measures, such as ArbCom (which also means I'm in favor of removing admin and 'crat bits from long dormant accounts; inactivity is a valid demotion reason on several other wikis, such as Commons, and I think it's a valid idea). For example, I supported Walton One's reconfirmation (based on the fact that I think he's a good admin).

As a bureaucrat, I would consider any reconfirmation requests to be just as binding as any other RfA, and if an admin came up and failed to gain consensus for their continued adminship, I'd close the RfA and post a request for desysopping on Meta. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Shalom

9. Here's the dreaded "Danny question," updated for the most recent controversial RFA. :) How would you have closed Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(Note from someone other than the candidate; feel free to move this to the talk page if needed.) I don't agree with the implication in the question that Elonka's RfA was equivalent to Danny's; the situations were wholly different, simply because Elonka's was at 74%, within the recognised discretionary range, whereas Danny's was at 68% and therefore should have been automatically closed as no consensus, as per the standard rules. The reason I've often asked the "dreaded Danny question" on previous RfBs is to test whether the candidate believes in extending bureaucrat discretion beyond the 70-80% range. Walton 16:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A. I actually don't consider that RfA to be controversial at all; the promotion was valid. The only discussion about it that I've seen was on WT:RFA, but the argument was largely stemming from a personal dislike of the candidate; sour grapes do not a controversy make, as it were. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up Q.: The "dreaded Danny question" was also on my reconfirmation RfB. I didn't want to respond to it essentially because I had not been active at RfA when it came up and I didn't want to be put in the position of second-guessing the good-faith decision of other bureaucrats. However, When I saw how extremely important it was to many other participants, I did answer that, inter alia, it did not fit any reasonable definition of consensus that I could understand but that it was valid, having been made in good faith by the aforementioned bureaucrats. (I urge you and everyone to read my reasoning in the original.) My consistent position on bureaucracy has been that trust in a 'crats judgment (and impartiality) is at the heart of the position. Please tell me by what definition of "controversial" you find the Danny RfA to be "not controversial at all," by what conception of "consensus" you feel the Danny nomination reached it, and finally, do you feel that dislike of a candidate (especially when widely expressed) is inconsequential in an RfA? -- Cecropia (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A. I think you misunderstood by what I meant when I said "I actually don't consider that RfA to be controversial at all"; I was talking about Elonka's RfA, not Danny's. I've clarified my statement above. However, your question about likes/dislikes is a good one.

For a 'crat, whether they like or dislike a candidate is (or should be) irrelevant; at most, a bureaucrat should recuse themselves from closing RfAs for editors with whom they have a strong association, positive or negative (I have to admit to not seeing much harm in a 'crat closing an RfA of a friend if it's at 100%, but recusing would still be nice); I would also think that, in such a case, they would have participated in the RfA, meaning that recusing themselves from closing the RfA is an absolute given. For an RfA participant, however, whether they like or dislike someone is largely tied to their opinion of the candidate as an administrator; of the several editors here that I'd go on record as saying I like (no good can come from going on record about who I don't), I would support their RfAs/RfBs (and have) not because I like them, but because of the qualities that make them appropriate for the positions, which is why I like them to begin with (similar argument for the opposite; I dislike vandals and editors who eschew encyclopedia editing for social chit-chat, and would oppose such editors if they come up for RfA). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Q (again): Thank you for clearing up the issue of Danny vs. Elonka. My question on "disliking a candidate" in an RfA does not pertain to a bureaucrat's closing of an RfA; of course a 'crat must NOT let like or dislike affect his/her closure decision; I take this as a given. My question ws directed rather to the concept of whether you, as a bureaucrat, would "weight" the quality of opinions, as in the question of the perception of "dislike" toward a candidate being (in the 'crats view) a "bad" reason for opposing and therefore to be less considered in the decision process.

     Secondly, I must return to the Danny RfA. I understand that in the instant question you were referring to Elonka, but in response to Q.6 you say: "Well, I think Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Danny just barely qualifies as controversial" . So we don't have "not controversial at all," but "just barely" controversial. In my view, The outrage over that decision created a breach in the process, a fire if you will, that I (as restored 'crat) and other 'crats have had to put out to reestablish trust in the process. Since your perception seems to clearly be at odd with that evaluation, I would really like to know again "by what definition of 'controversial' you find the Danny RfA to be ' controversial ,' and by what conception of 'consensus' you feel the Danny nomination reached it. TIA, Cecropia (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I realize that Danny's RfA was a major issue; I was just joking about it being only slightly controversial... unfortunately, the little smiley face that usually denotes my jokes ended up a little far from the joke itself. I'll see about rephrasing it... If you're wondering just how controversial I consider the RfA, I don't think it was large enough to bring the site to a halt (obviously, since it's still here), but it probably had a role (to some degree) in the promotion of a couple new 'crats this year (the logic being that getting some fresh blood might prevent such a promotion from happening again; I'm not saying that's how I feel, but I can easily imagine that being at the back of the mind of some people).

As for how I'd weight "I like/dislike" arguments, it depends on how it's phrased. As I can't keep track of everyone's friends and enemies list, I'd have to go off of their statements. If someone dislikes the candidate, but cites perfectly valid reasons to oppose (the difference between "he ran over my cat" and "he put an FA up on AfD" is pretty significant), I don't consider the editor's opinion of the candidate to be relevant to the oppose. As for Supports, I'm okay with seeing "# ~~~~"-type !votes in RfAs, though it's difficult to guage the meaning behind such arguments. I'd prefer to see reasoned arguments even from supporters, but as I mention at User:EVula/opining/RfA ramblings#Vote vs. Discussion, I consider the "vote" aspect of RfAs (as opposed to the "discussion" aspect) to be a simple yay/nay on whether the candidate is suitable for adminship. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Q. OK, two points: (1) we have two issues going on here, so I'll return to Danny a little later; (2) all should know I take RfA seriously, and RfB even more seriously, so I am looking for concrete answers without irony, winks or smilies. On the issue of valuing "oppose" "votes," you seem to be saying that the closing bureaucrat is entitled to weight or disregard opinions by his/her personal standards; i.e., you would feel empowered to consider the validity of an oppose, which implies that you are valuing the opposer's sincerity. Do I understand you correctly? -- Cecropia (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. As per my statements above, I'm not a particular fan of arbitrarily dismissing !votes based on personal opinion ("that's valid, this isn't", etc.), but I do think that obvious cases of an editor grinding an axe (and I consider the community's self-policing of such grinding to be fairly good) should be weighed differently than, say, an editor who cites instances where the candidate has edited contrary to Misplaced Pages policy and/or guidelines. I think a 'crat making that judgement call is well within the bounds of the position, but I'll readily admit that it's a very fine line. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Q.: Thanks for the prompt response. You aptly refer to the community's self-policing; I believe that it is the community's responsibility first and foremost to evaluate the expressions of support, opposition, and comment, and that the bureaucrat should inject his/her judgment only in evaluating the community's sentiment as to consensus. How do you feel about the possibility that, if the result of an RfA is in the doubtful zone, and that some opinions that could push the RfA one way or the other were "tainted" (for want of a better term) that a bureaucrat express this openly and make a standard extension of 24/48 hours to allow the community the opportunity to evaluate this themselves? -- Cecropia (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: As you say you're in the U.S., I know it's getting late, so take your time and we can pursue this again tomorrow. Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A. I think that allowing the community additional time, while a bit unusual, is an excellent path to take if it allows for a clearer consensus, especially since it's done by the community (which frees up the 'crat from having to do anything but "guage", for lack of a better phrase). If I were to do such an extension, I'd probably opt for 48 hours; though Misplaced Pages itself never sleeps, the varying schedules of involved participants could prevent a full evaluation from happening, so more time is better (though extending it for too much could possibly be counter-productive; if after such an extended time consensus can't be gauged, well then, consensus simply can't be gauged, and it's time to shut it down). Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to bed. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Dustihowe

10. What makes you feel that you deserve this position?

A. I consider myself to make well-reasoned decisons, as well as a rather active member of the Misplaced Pages community. Given that I spend so much of my time around RfAs already (doing general maintenance work, such as updating tallys and closing RfAs for candidates with very low edit counts), I feel that I'm rather qualified for the position. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

11. In the past Rfa's, there has been controversy over one user constantly attacking self-nom's using the same phrase. This user focused only on the self-nom's and rarely voted on the other current Rfa's. Some members of the community complained. What is your view on this problem?

A. I've talked to "that user" about his edits, actually (I wasn't able to convince him that he should augment his edits, but he did clarify his position a bit). However, I think that the responses to the edits are more disruptive than his edits in and of themselves. The community has made it pretty clear that they don't put much stock in his particular argument, so I don't see any benefit to the perpetual foaming at the mouth that happens nearly every time he !votes. All you have to do is read the !vote, acknowledge (to yourself) that you disagree with it, and keep on reading...

Also, I have seen "that user" participate in other RfAs, where he backed up his Support !vote with a reasoned assesment of the candidate's strengths. I definitely don't think he's grinding an axe or anything like that (I also wouldn't refer to his edits as "attacking"; doing so is emotionally charged and suggests both malice, of which there is none, and a personal vendetta against the candidate, which there isn't; by his own admission, it isn't personal); he's just expressing his personal opinion, which is what every RfA participant does (the way he goes about doing so is just a bit unfortunate is all). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Avruch

12. In the neutral section below, I commented that I am neutral on this RfB because of the presence of the Nazi swastika in a userbox on User:EVula/grammar. Whatever your opinion on the utility of the userbox, do you think it appropriate to self-identify using a symbol that represents a regime responsible for as many as 72 million deaths? Either way, do you think it is appropriate to view your decision regarding the userbox as a comment in your judgement in general? (See World War II casualties).

A. I think that negative concepts only hold as much power as you allow it to. I'm a big Mel Brooks fan, and one of his favorite things to do is tear down concepts (the Nazis, in Blazing Saddles and The Producers, or the Spanish Inquisition in History of the World, Part I) by ridiculing them. I personally subscribe to this line of thought, and feel that the term "nazi" has transcended its original definition to encompass more than just a hateful regime.
However, I'm also aware that I'm an American, and that some on the other side of the Atlantic might not agree with me... EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Nick mallory

13. Why have you got a Nazi swastika on one of your user pages? Do you still think objections to this kind of thing are '"pathetically ridiculous"' as you have done before? Is this a suitable box for someone who aspires to this important and high profile role on Misplaced Pages? Nick mallory (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A. I feel that I've answered this question a couple of different ways in the Neutral section; as it is, you're the first person to complain about it, and since my personal policy is (and always has been) to address complaints when they're brought to my attention, I've removed the userbox. I think you're using my "pathetically ridiculous" comment out of context, however; I also explained what the phrase was in reference to in the Neutral section. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for replying here and for removing the box. I note you didn't answer my questions as to why you had it in the first place, why discussions about this issue are ridiculous in your view or whether it is fitting for bureaucrats to have Nazi regalia on their user pages but it's your RfB and that's up to you. Your argument that you've removed it because someone complained about it, rather than because you realised it was a stupid thing to have in the first place, is clear enough and I've had my say on the matter. Good luck. Nick mallory (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Krator

14. What is the largest consensus building discussion you have participated in within Misplaced Pages? Were you happy with the eventual result, when viewing the process, not the outcome?

A

15. Do you think Wikipedians, in general, are too reluctant or not reluctant enough in changing their stance in a discussion when arguments have been brought against them? Do you think bureaucrats should (ever) change their closing decision of an RFA after a discussion, for example on WT:RFA?

A

16. As a bureaucrat, how would you deal with users whose opposing stance has been conclusively refuted, but not withdrawn. For example, "He has vandalised " with the response "That was another user ". What about less controversial examples than this one?

A. For very plainly false instances like that one, where there's absolutely nothing else that the opposing editor has cited as their rationale, then yes, I'd advocate not giving the comment much (if any) weight (the same would apply to anyone that cites just that one particular !vote for their opposition). If someone has cited multiple reasons and one or more of those turns out to be a mistake, the others still stand as viable reasons to oppose.

I can't over-emphasize the extremely narrow criteria that I'd summarily dismiss !votes; it would have to be the absolutely only thing being cited, and it would have to be refuted beyond the shadow of a doubt (like you said, if the diff is by a totally different editor, that's pretty much refuted). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

17. Three "standard" questions are currently asked every potential admin. What fourth question would you add?

A. None. I feel that the existing standard questions are quite sufficient, and additional questions should be tailored for each candidate, though I'm not opposed to some editors applying their own set of questions to candidates as they see fit, and I'm open-minded about adding a fourth question, depending on what it is. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

17.b I chose to participate in the discussion before following this up:

How much weight would you give to opposition in relation to an answer to a question, should it be optional and leads to tangential response/incident unrelated to a candidate's ability to serve? Keegan 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

• Some of the opposers ought to remember that vague rationales such as "editing pattern isn't really what I was looking for" or "not an area that I feel his skills are well suited for" are not especially helpful to the candidate, since they don't tell him how to improve. Any admin who is sufficiently experienced and trustworthy should be eligible to become a bureaucrat. If there are specific reasons why EVula should not be a bureaucrat, then it would be helpful to state exactly what they are, both for the benefit of other voters and to allow EVula to address those concerns. Walton 10:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree, and was going to leave a note to a similar effect here myself. I'm rather disappointed in the !voters who have chosen to oppose simply because they can be picky. It seems to me that more crats is always better than less crats; it makes the workload per crat lessen, making time for other helpful tasks. GlassCobra 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. First support I'll expand later. Lara❤Love 07:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC) EVula is a great admin; one of the very best I've encountered. He's always helpful, he already works in RfA, closing snows and such. His attitude always impresses me and makes me smile. I think he'd be a great asset to the bureaucratic team! Lara❤Love 07:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Just-beat-out-by-Lara Support A fantastic admin who will make an even better 'crat. EVula's been one of the guys to look up to for as long as I've been around. With a year of adminship under his belt, and a sense of humor that could slay a yak from two hundred yards away (with mind bullets!), it's time for EVula to take the next step. GlassCobra 07:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Support same rationale as last time. Gracenotes § 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Again, same rationale as last time, but now with more positive personal interaction. Trust. Pedro :  Chat  08:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. This is the first RfB I've supported in a long time (and I opposed his previous RfB, incidentally), but after some thought I am convinced that EVula deserves my support. Walton 09:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

   Further rationale (now that my own RfA is finally over and I can give proper thought to this question). EVula's answer to q1 is precisely correct, and shows the right balance between discretion and vote-counting. Furthermore, based on long experience I trust him to stand by his word, and not abuse the power (such as it is) which comes with bureaucratship. There is no good reason not to make EVula a bureaucrat, and as such I support. Walton 15:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

6. One of a small few who might actually do the role justice. Daniel 09:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. -- I like the reasoning expressed above for wanting the 'crat bits, and the answers to the questions. Cirt (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
8. Support — the guy has a great sense of humor; that's enough for me to trust him ;-) --Agüeybaná 14:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Support based on my long-held opinion that all established admins should be eligible to become bureaucrats. EVula's involvement in RFA, Misplaced Pages in general, and other Wikimedia projects makes him a respected leader. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Moderate support. I've always found EVula to be civil, but others are worried about civility problems, so I'm a bit worried about that. J-ſtan_Contribs 16:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Although I believe you are sometimes a little too quick to close RfA's per WP:SNOW, I still trust your ability to use the 'crat tools in an appropriate manner. Qst 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. Great involvement, and little drama make this a good Burocrat. Civilty and communication skills only further that. If the 'room is full' I'd rather have a full room with you in it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Consider this another "very strong support", just like the last time. Acalamari 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Same as last time. - Zeibura 17:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Same reason as last time. Sean William @ 18:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - established user, understands both our polices and our politics, and is friendly :). The latter is of course the most important part ;). Why not? Nihiltres 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Support - An excellent candidate for the `crat `bit! --Kralizec! (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong Support - This candidate is upfront and certainly reliable enough for the position. Far too many editors equate 'civility' with a non-existent right to feel unoffended at all times. His answers ain't bad, either. the_undertow 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Support as a hardworking admin and established Wikipedian. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Good user, nice generic pages ;). Mønobi 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Strong Support He already serves us well as an administrator, I believe he will do well as an Bureaucrat. Marlith /C 05:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. A wise and judicious administrator, who I know the community can trust with the position of 'crat. --krimpet✽ 06:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Support We obviously need more 'crats, and few are as qualified as EVula. Jmlk17 06:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Support, great editor, fantastic experience, will make an excellent 'crat. Dreadstar † 06:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - no issues from me here. Candidate shows good judgement overall & I feel many of the concerns have been addressed since the last RfB - Alison 06:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
26. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Walton and I are of the same mind with respect to the role of bureaucrats (just as the role of admins, namely, to determine for what actions—here, admin and bureaucrat promotions and bot flaggings—a consensus of the community exists and then to effect those actions), and I concur in his assessment of the candidate's answer to question one as properly representing what that role ought to be. I confess that I am a bit surprised to be the supporting Evula, having firmly opposed him five-and-one-half months ago in view of his being (or, rather, my thinking/finding him to be) insufficiently wedded to numbers or all too likely to discount certain !votes at RfA in view of his, or some small portion of the community's, finding them to be unmeritorious, but those concerns have been largely allayed; whether his views have changed or whether I (like, it would then seem, some others) did not well understand those views in June I don't know, but in either case I am able, I am happy to say, to support. Joe 09:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Looks good to me SQL 09:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
29. I've no concerns about this user. I am pleased to support. -JodyB _talk 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - does excellent gnomish work at RfA already, more than any other person (probably including the current crats). He obviously knows the username policy extremely well and I trust him to implement it at WP:CHU. More than anything, I think he's a pleasent guy and I trust him to judge consensus better than most. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Has my complete confidence, no concerns with trustworthiness whatsoever. The userbox may have been unwise, but it was dealt with correctly, and has little to do with competence or trust. --barneca (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Yes, he has been through some controversy, which he handled maturely. I completely and fully support EVula's abilities, and I truly trust him with this access level. нмŵוτнτ 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    (EC) Also, I will stress that the noun "nazi" has become slang for Generation X, and even moreso for Generation Y in the US for someone who is a "controlling" "perfectionist" or one who "disagrees" with another. Groups such as "feminists", the "police", and "RAs" are soemtimes called "nazis". It is not at all uncommon for someone to call him or herself a "grammar nazi". It is also referenced in the popular US television show Seinfeld, calling someone a "soup nazi". Note that I am not saying that it is politically correct or right, but that it is frequently used without referring to the Nazi Party. нмŵוτнτ 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    I couldn't care less about political correctness, I just think someone standing for a position of trust like this should know better than to adorn one of his user pages with Nazi regalia. He removed it after I objected to it, rather than because he acknowledged it was stupid, but it's been dealt with anyway. Nick mallory (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    Grow up Nick. You've opposed, you've had someone prove you wrong and give a long list of reasons why that's the case. Restating your case will do nothing for you - give us a real argument, withdraw your oppose, or leave us alone. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

33. Support from oppose. I think EVula is a great administator, and there is no reason not to trust him with the b'crat tools. Maser 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Participation in bureaucrat related positions already, with good standing? Yes. Rt. 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Support, Clear history of participation within the areas that are appropriate for a would-be bureaucrat. The use of the userbox was fixed rather quickly, so it's a non-issue to me. Justin 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
36. support—Random832 21:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
37. support --.snoopy.  22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
38. As per last time. I don't think he'll go astray with them, I don't understand Wikimedia's obsession with minimalism when it comes to higher positions - a trusted person wants a trusted position? Go for it. Also, he's in my top 10 favourite people on Misplaced Pages. Top 5, perhaps. Did I say that last part out loud? :x ~ Riana ⁂ 23:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
39. Supportqualifiedfor the position; changed from neutral on the basis of calm & appropriate handling of the userbox matter. DGG (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
40. My intent in raising the point in neutral was to seek an answer, and I regret not foreseeing that it might cause opposition that, to my mind, was premature for the circumstances. I also regret having clicked on the undertow's user page =0 EVula has my support and my apologies. --JayHenry (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
41. I accept Evula to properly close RfAs, Bot requests, and properly rename users. Keegan 06:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
42. Support Seems to have a good understanding of the idea of interpreting consensus and not imposing his will on decisions. Mbisanz (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Support - I went neutral last time, but I have now decided to support. I think you have improved your civility, learnt lessons, and now seem to have the right experience to use the Bureaucrat tools effectively. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
44. Support I disagree with EVula about the inoffensiveness of Nazi symbolism out of context, but I appreciate that the box was removed and I think the response sufficiently allays my concern regarding general judgement. Avruch 17:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Support one of the most active in RFA, won't abuse those tools. Secret 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Support someone whose opinions I respect, but not so much as their ability to put said opinions to one side and act according to the rules. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
47. Support - We can always do with more 'crats, and EVula is more than qualified. Keilana 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Support I think he'd be fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I guess there aren't many positions for BC around, so we can choose to be a bit picky. The things listed last time and your general editing pattern aren't really what I was looking for. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

   Hi, Blnguyen, may I ask what was it you were looking for, exactly? Also, last time it seems the main problem was civility - he's one of the nicest users around here now. Thanks. Redrocketboy 07:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

2. I've a long-standing notion that we can never have too many clerks in the checkout counter, so to speak. However, I do agree with Blnguyen that EVula isn't properly suited for this position. He's a terrific volunteer, and I was actually just about to contact him about his recent desire for an account on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, which has apparently stalled due to the lack of a Foundation user "vouching" for him (it's a seldom viewed requests page on Meta). I'd be happy to reccomend him for an account there, as his skills could surely be used over there. Here, though, determining RfA consensus and such, is not an area that I feel his skills are well-suited for, and as such, I'm a bit leery of endorsing this particular request. gaillimh 07:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

   Well personally, I don't mind having stacks of bureaucrats, but once the room starts being populated, people will complain and say that the room is full. Then they will oppose RfBs. Thus, I would rather save up my RfB supports...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

   Ah, ok, that makes sense. Apologies if I've misconstrued your comments. In fact, I'm just going to go ahead and tweak my own comments a bit. Cheers mate gaillimh 08:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

   Blnguyen, I wasn't aware that we had a limited number of RfB supports to use; I was under the impression that we gave the tools to whoever was qualified enough and showed enough dedication to the project. GlassCobra 15:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I was concerned about the way EVula challenged several of the opposers in his last RfB. I know it was a few months ago, but it was a little too confrontational. SlimVirgin 09:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

   I think that he's learnt from his mistakes there. Redrocketboy 09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

   RRB, please remember that everyone is entirely entitles to their opinion here, and the engaging in conversation of every oppositon is frankly not likely to do much good, especially when it is really a metter of your own perception. I won't try and stop you though. -- Anonymous Dissident 09:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose I'm sorry, because my opinion of the candidate as an admin is quite good, and has grown considerably since the first RfB. Still, I recall the quick temper shown there, and I fear it still might appear if the stress of a controversial RfA closure arose. Per Binguyen, since the standards for b'crats are (and of right, ought to be) quite high, I don't think this is the time. Xoloz (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose, I like EVula but I don't think he'd make a good bureaucrat - it's a post that often means the holder is subject to even more inane, childish bitchiness and rules-lawyering pedantry than being an admin, and I don't quite think EVula has the right temperament. Users need to be very civil and very polite to carry out the role. Neıl ☎ 15:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. EVula is a great volunteer, and this oppose vote should not be construed as challenging that fact. Still, for this position, I do not see suitability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose I agree with some of the above. Miranda 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose A recent RfA was blighted by the user's use of this Nazi box on his user page, something I objected to then and something I object to now even more so as having such a box calls into question the users judgment which just happens to be the key requirement of the post EVula is aspiring to here. It's obviously something a lot of people are going to see as (putting it nicely) crass, moronic, ignorant and divisive and, though ultimately trivial in itself, isn't a good sign of the user's maturity or sensitivity. I'm the last person to be politically correct but this goes over the line for me, though I'd object just as much if someone had some communist or islamist kitsch on their user page as well. If he'd removed it and apologised then I'd have accepted that, but arguing the toss as he does in the section below and defending it because it's hard to find just shows entirely the wrong attitude to me. People did not object to it in Haunted Angel's case just because it was 'front and centre', they specifically and explicitly objected to what it said about the person and how they initially dealt with the issue and the same applies here, more so as this is hardly an issue EVula was unfamiliar with. People won't care about the box if that person is not standing for a senior role, but when they are standing for such a role obviously it's going to be an issue and it's very strange if he can't see that. Evula might have thought "This whole brouhaha is, in my opinion, pathetically ridiculous" when this issue came up before with Haunted Angel but this role is about enforcing the community consensus, rather than his own opinions on others. Haunted Angel came a cropper here and if EVula can't learn by other people's mistakes he might just have to learn from his own. Nick mallory (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Regretful Oppose Allow me to explain my rationale for opposing this otherwise splendid candidate. In his opening summary, he states that "I'm very active in discussions on WT:RFA, especially in regards to closures per WP:SNOW (which is definitely one of my areas of interest)." This tells me that he may be less willing to close discussions with a difficult-to-see consensus, which IMO is unacceptable for a 'crat. Maser 09:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to support.

   What is a "difficult-to-see consensus"? Walton 09:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   To be fair, closure per WP:SNOW is the only time that a non-'crat can close an RfA. I can't do anything else with RfAs unless I'm a bureaucrat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose, per YellowMonkey. @pple complain 09:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   ...er, nobody by that name has participated in this RfB. For that matter, nobody with that name even exists; the only editor with a name close to that hasn't edited since August of 06... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   He means Blnguyen (talk · contribs) - he often goes by that nick on IRC and many call him that here too. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Ah! Okay, that makes much more sense... I was seriously confused about getting opposed per a non-existent person. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose While EVula is a great admin and a really nice guy, I simply do not agree with his answer to Question 7. The position of bureaucrat should not be so sacred in my view; in an ideal world every admin would be a b'crat too. And to be honest, I think most admins would make excellent bureaucrats since most of the time it is easier than being an admin. Hence why I don't understand why bureaucratship is 90%. EVula agrees it should be separate percentages, but that simply defeats the point of consensus. It simply cannot be two different percentages, otherwise that just means neither are really consensus at all, but just a vote. So, in summary, whilst I <3 EVula's work as an admin and a bureaucrat "clerk", I simply don't agree with his view, and how he seems to think bureaucrats are something overly special that require such a ridiculously high percentage to pass. Apologies, but those are my feelings. Good luck anyway. Redrocketboy 13:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    FWIW, I strongly agree that bureaucratship should not be some kind of special mystical status, and I would love to see bureaucrat powers given to all admins (indeed, I made that exact proposal once at WT:RFA). I also agree that there's no real reason why the RfB threshold should be 90%. However, EVula, in his q7 answer, is perfectly correct as to the current community rules and practices; it isn't really fair IMO to oppose him simply on the basis that he has pledged to enforce the rules as they currently stand. The proper place for discussing a change to the existing procedures is WT:RFA; if you want to make a proposal for the RfB required percentage to be lowered, I will strongly support it. Walton 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Fair enough. I'll move to neutral should this RFB be close to the arbitary borderline of 90%. I'll consider opening a discussion on the said page, but I feel it'll probably lead to nothing, especially as it's been done before. Redrocketboy 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

11. Regretfully opposes. While you're a great admin, there are a lot left to be desired to become a burecrat as indicated by editors opposing you. OhanaUnited 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
12. As BL Nguyen said we can afford to be picky...I think we can do better. The whole Nick Mallory/swastika conversation doesn't inspire confidence (it isn't a matter of listening to what people ask, it's a matter of "getting it" in the first place). Given what happened in the past RfB (per Slim, above), "I've matured" (in just a few months) makes me wonder if he "gets it". That said, kudos for the "on wheels!" comment - that's one of the best I've seen in an RfB. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose Switching to neutral. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Fine editor and admin, but Blnguyen said it nicely. Nothing personal to be sure. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    Er, Blnguyen said what nicely? His rationale was "The things listed last time and your general editing pattern aren't really what I was looking for." What is meant by "general editing pattern"? How can the candidate improve to meet your standards for a bureaucrat? (See my note in the Discussion section above.) I have no problem with people opposing on solid grounds (e.g. the Nazi userbox), but vague opposes like this are not helpful to the candidate. If you trust him as an experienced admin, why, precisely, don't you trust him as a bureaucrat? Walton 14:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    • I guess there aren't many positions for BC around, so we can choose to be a bit picky. The things listed last time and your general editing pattern aren't really what I was looking for. Yup, that's what he said nicely. I concur. Some users simply are unfit to be bureaucrats, is EVula one of them? I don't know, he may be an amazing 'crat I don't know to be sure. But at this point in time, I'm not convinced he would be. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    Mate, I believe that KnowledgeOfSelf's comment was easily understandable, and if you think it to be vague, perhaps re-read it a few times. Admin buttons are completely different than bureaucrat buttons, and it's rather obvious that many of us think EVula to be an excellent administrator, but do not feel as though he'd be such a great bureaucrat at the moment, as they're completely different volunteer positions. Also, these sort of snarky challenges to opposition in these processes could easily be done without. In any sort of Rf*, the opposition often goes to considerable lengths to explain their rationale, while those in the supporter category often just sign their names (see this particular RfB, for example). There's nothing wrong with participating as fully or as sparsely as one wants, of course, and we should give each other the proper respect with regards to this. We're all volunteers here, and calling your fellow volunteer's participation "vague", "not helpful", and pestering the fellow to explain himself "precisely" is bad form. gaillimh 17:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    Well, one could say it is bad form to describe Walton's comments as "silliness" (see edit summary). Discussion should be encouraged - I for one couldn't make sense of Blnguyen's oppose either. When one opposes, they should make it clear precisely why they are opposing, not "I just don't like his edit pattern". Redrocketboy 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    Nah, not really. You see, there's a difference between discussion and thinly-veiled snarkiness. I think right now, we're discussing, whereas Walton is basically pestering KnowledgeOfSelf. Discussion is crucial to an Rf*, as a request for buttons is a process that relies on discussion in order to be successful. However, when people call into question the good-faith and validity of our volunteers, this not only besmirches the discussion, but creates an air of hostility that is bound to derail these discussions, as you can plainly see here. There is a certain way to go about discussing others' opinions and it requires a certain amount of congeniality, tact, and social graces, all of which were severely lacking in WaltonOne's, well, silliness, hehe. Cheers mate gaillimh 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

This may be an odd reason for not supporting, but I think her other contributions to WP are so important and so necessary that i am dubious about her taking time from them to do this also. We need her more elsewhere.DGG (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC) changing to support of basis of his calm response to the userbox questions. DGG (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, EVula is a male, not a female. Nishkid64 (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to reconcile his answer to Question #6 in his first Request for Bureaucratship with the fact that even after the furor at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/The Haunted Angel 2, he continues to keep a userbox that some people find "actively insulting" at User:EVula/grammar. What's more, he dismissed concerns about the box as "pathetically ridiculous" which seems needlessly harsh given how painful and personal this issue is for some people. I don't think EVula means ill (though I'm very sensitive to the fact that other editors are bothered by it); the whole issue for me is that EVula appears to have said one thing in the previous RfB, but done quite the opposite. Unless this discrepancy between answer and action can be clarified I don't think I can support. --JayHenry (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC) I think this probably could have been foreseen and avoided, but the explanation about context seems honest and this was dealt with swiftly. --JayHenry (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the only reason it was an issue for THA was that it was front-and-center on his userpage. I noted on my talk page (User talk:EVula/Oct-Dec 2007#Grammar Nazi userbox) that I think the reason mine has been around for so long without garnering any comment whatsoever is because (a) it's buried in a sub-page (and as much time as I spent writing out everything so it'd be interesting to read, I'll readily admit that very few people probably care about my userboxes), and most importantly, (b) it's in a totally different context (chiefly: his had no context whatsoever, and mine does). The grammar nazi box is on a page titled User:EVula/grammar, can only be accessed by clicking a link titled "grammar", and is surrounded by grammar-related userboxes; there's very, very little room for misinterpretation about the box. The "pathetically ridiculous" was in reference to the general situation on the whole, where people were questioning both THA's initial reasoning for adding it, and then it the situation was compounded by people criticizing him when he addressed the concerns by removing the box; it became a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, which I didn't think was particularly fair.
As for my own usage of the box, I've yet to receive a single complaint about it, which is why I've never considered it to be an issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A Nazi swastika is fine and dandy because you think it's "in context" on your user page? OK, I'm complaining now, it's an issue for me, that's why I'm lodging an opposing vote here. Obviously I don't think you're a Nazi, but I think your use of the box and, even more so, your continuing defence of it here calls into question your knowledge, judgment and empathy for others. If you turned up for a job interview at my place with a discrete little hammer and sickle badge you wouldn't get too far either. Honestly, what are you thinking? Nick mallory (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A hammer and sickle? Wow. I'd gladly hire an employee with that badge because A) we can't discriminate based on political beliefs, and B) Communists have a kick-ass work ethic. The swastika and the hammer and sickle do not a good comparison make. the_undertow 01:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for a political discussion but you addressed me directly so may I say - you are kidding aren't you? Kick ass work ethic? Tell me, what do you drive? An Audi, Mercedes, Porsche, Volkswagon, BMW - or a Trabant? I can think of many million people in the Ukraine, the Baltic states, eastern Europe and Russia itself who might, having actually experienced your preferred system over the last century, have a different opinion of its merits than you. I'd direct you to ask them about it, but I can't because the communists starved them to death or shot them in the back of the head. Really, with your statement, you make my exact point for me. Now, as this is about EVula's RfB if you want to explain to me just how the Soviet Union triumphed in the cold war by outproducing the hoplessly workshy Americans and British take it to my talk page, if indeed you can find it.Nick mallory (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You really lose your cool quite easily. Why do you keep asking 'are you kidding' or 'what are you thinking'? It's starting to sound condescending, sort of like the quip about finding your talk page. You are correct, this is about EV's RfB, and I was defending him against a very poor analogy. Communism as political idea and socioeconomic ideology is not the same as the now-defunct Nazi Germany, which the swasktika has come to represent. There are no Nazi governments, but certainly communism exists as a governmental entity. The diatribe was entertaining at best, but you sort of lost me, because I do drive a pretty sweet Benz. the_undertow 03:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm entirely cool. I can also spell swastika. I'm afraid that the lessons of history compel me to entirely disagree with your assertion that communism is superior in either theory or practice to fascism. You have youthful ignorance on your side, alas I only have the body count on mine. Have you heard of 'The Great Leap Forward' by any chance? Chairman Mao managed to starve 50 million Chinese to death in pursuit of back yard iron furnaces which produced...well, nothing really. Another triumph. The fact that you cannot understand my simple economic example talks volumes I'm afraid. Your 'pretty sweet Benz' is the reason you are wrong. You asserted that communists have a 'kick ass' work ethic, I merely pointed out a real life example of the products of the motor industries of West and East Germany. One might also compare and contrast the relative economic performance of North Korea (gulags, mass famine, people eating grass) and South Korea (who built most of the consumer durables in your house). Communism doesn't work as an economic system because, among other reasons, there are no incentives. People don't work in a communist system for the same reason. As an old Soviet joke used to go 'we pretend to work, and you pretend to pay us'. I used to live in Moscow by the way and did my Economics degree at the London School of Economics, where did you do yours again? You didn't say. Pakah for now pal. 203.108.239.12 (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My policy is, and always has been, that unless I got a complaint about it, it would stay. As you're the first person to complain about it, I've removed it. I still feel that context is important, but that's largely irrelevant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. Why you thought it appropriate in the first place is still beyond me and I just don't understand the whole 'context' thing but anyone reading this should note you were as good as your word and removed it when someone complained, so fair enough. Nick mallory (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

#Neutral for the moment, based on the userbox. When did the Nazi swastika become appropriate for self-identification in any context? Personally, I think its unwise to identify anything or anyone as a Nazi unless he/she/it is in fact a Nazi, because of the implications. Tens of millions of people died as a result of what that symbol represents. I haven't completely decided, as yet, how much the presence of that userbox should influence me (i.e. is it enough for me to oppose?). I'll wait to see how this develops first. I should note, I was intending to support until I saw the above neutral. Avruch 20:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tens of millions of people, including quite a few members of my extended family. You may think its harmless, but it hits pretty close to home for many people even now. Avruch 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Temporary Neutral until she answers my question. Will be moved to oppose if no answer by close of RFB. --Dustihowe  Talk  17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Uh, EVula isn't a "she". :-) Walton 18:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   To be fair, Dustihowe, your questions do say that they're optional. If they're not, you should indicate as such. GlassCobra 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Bad timing, I'm afraid, EVula. We have plenty crats to tackle backlogs at the moment. -- Anonymous Dissident 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Not voting quite so early, but I note that may or may not change should Deskana be elected to ArbCom. --Charitwo 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   I was actually referring to WJBscribe (talk · contribs · rights · renames). -- Anonymous Dissident 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Ok, but, he is also a relatively new bureaucrat and is making a really active use of the tools. Not saying there is anything wrong that with that, my point being, Andrevan was also really active when he got promoted too, and so on, so forth, etc.. Continued below. --Charitwo 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   AD, there's no limit to the amount of bureaucrats. Do you think EVula will make a bad or good 'crat? Redrocketboy 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Just a note, but there is nothing wrong with a surplus. Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Ok, I'll expound. EVula is busy on several other projects; he has admin access on several others. I think we have enough b'crats on en-wiki, and I'm not sure whether EVula would prove at all active as a b-crat here, for the reasons listed above. This is my opinion. -- Anonymous Dissident 21:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Ah good reason. Redrocketboy 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, I agree that it is a good reason; however, despite my activity on other projects, my contributions here haven't suffered much. I'm confident that I can balance it all, but certainly understand if you're not; I'm rather biased, after all. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Actually I disagree that it's a good reason. What next? Can't be an admin - we have enough and you might be busy. Can't have a registered account - we have enough and you might be busy. Can't edit via an IP - we have enough and you might be busy. Sorry AD, by all means be neutral in your feelings, but the possibility EVula would not use crat tools (unlikely) does not mean there's no point him having them. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   I clarified what I thought was a good reason; I was talking more about being too busy to be here, though I do think I'd be an asset. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   I understand your point exactly, I just don't think we need more inactive bureaucrats here. That's not to say that EVula will be, but EVula himself admits what I'm saying in his statement: "provided WJBscribe leaves some for everyone else" -- Anonymous Dissident 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Per my above statement and moreso Pedro's most recent one, given the trend of new crats, EVula will not be inactive. And the comment about WJBscribe only backs this up. It's seems like a cycle to me. You may say something similar about the next, whenever that may be and providing this is successful, RfB candidate. "I was actually referring to {{bureaucrat|EVula}}." Perhaps a little too much foresight, but that's just how I feel about it. --Charitwo 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   That's true, but I feel that should WJBscribe become inactive, Deskana will be wiating, and even if Deskana goes inactive, there will be others such as Cecropia, Secretlondon, Warofdreams. We don't have a shortage. We seem to be bordering on a lineup. -- Anonymous Dissident 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   It's no biggie, and I respect that you're neutral rather than opposing over it.Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   That's exactly it. That's why this is a neutral, not an oppose - not a good enough reason for opposition, by any means. -- Anonymous Dissident 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Pending answer to questions. User:Krator (t c) 15:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Switched from oppose My comments in the oppose section still stand to a certain degree, but after pondering this nomination further, I can not in good conscience stand by my oppose. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)