Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/WereSpielChequers

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

WereSpielChequers

Final (161/14/2); Closed as successful by Useight (talk) at 17:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Self Nomination

WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – I have been a Wikipedian for more than twelve years now, and an admin for over a decade. My main focus has been in the mainspace, fixing the sort of typos that a conventional spellchecker would not pick up. But I have also done a few thousand logged admin actions. I have been involved in the GLAM program, including two years as WMUK's GLAM Organiser (2013/15). I have reviewed articles at FAC and written for the Signpost, for example this article announced the end of the 2007-2014 decline in editing stats, and this article covered the death anomalies project (currently on hold until a new bot writer comes forward) .

Various other accounts are listed on my userpage, including ones such as my WMUK one that have now been inactive for several years.

While this is a self nomination, it was made with some encouragement on my talkpage Ϣere SpielChequers 17:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I have voted in many RFAs and watched many Crat Chats, even commenting sometimes on the talkpage. I'm familiar with the process, understand that the discretionary zone is now 65-75%, and am aware that it is a discussion rather than a vote.

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

A: Nowadays there seems to be a presumption in favour of crat chats for RFAs in the discretionary zone. I certainly won't be closing such contentious RFAs - my aim as a new Crat would be to take part in the crat chat, and it would be a long while before I closed a Crat chat. That wouldn't stop me closing an RFA that was clearly outside of the discretionary zone, but the nearest I would do to a bold Crat move would be to close as unsuccessful the RFA which was in freefall having gone from 96% support to 76% support over the last 24 hours since new evidence emerged and was conceded.....

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

A: I have been active, including at RFA for a very long time. I started Wikipedia:RFA_by_month many years ago when I was trying to prove that RFA was in a drought rather than a cyclical downturn. I could understand someone looking at me ten years ago, possibly only five years ago and thinking that I wouldn't be a fair person to be a crat as I clearly worried too much about declining RFA numbers and our declining numbers of admins. But my thinking has changed over the years, I have come to realise that many of the people who I have offered to nominate for RFA really are happy for others to have those buttons. More importantly the decline in new adminships that followed the unbundling of Rollback in 2008 has been mirrored by a huge increase in the number of Rollbackers - we now have far more Rollbackers than we have ever had admins. In short, whilst I still believe that there are many Wikipedians who would sail through RFA if we could tempt them to run, I believe I can be trusted to treat RFA candidates fairly as a crat (or of course vote in the RFA and recuse from any crat chat where I don't feel neutral about a candidate).

Additional question from Barkeep49

4. What do you make of the overlap in membership between Arbitrators and Bureaucrats? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: As far as I'm aware there isn't much overlap between those two, and I certainly don't plan to increase it myself. However I'm not too bothered if there is some overlap, provided the people who wear both hats don't get involved in the same case as both an arb and a crat.

~~;Additional question from King of Scorpions~~

~~5. What would your decision have been in the Money emoji bureaucrat chat? Ping me when you reply, King of Scorpions 18:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)~~ Changing question per candidate's request. King of Scorpions 18:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A:Hi King of Scorpions would you mind giving me a hypothetical example rather than such a close recent one? I would feel uncomfortable weighing in on someone who has been involved in such a close call - especially as they are only just out from spending a fortnight under the spotlight.

Additional question from Wugapodes

5. Do bureaucrats have the same or less latitude to act under WP:IAR than non-bureaucrats? In what situations, if any, should a bureaucrat take actions contrary to a policy?

A: I can't remember when I last relied on WP:IAR in making a decision. Crats should be more cautious than others in invoking IAR. Generally there will be two elements in play when a Crat should breach a policy - different policies conflicting with each other and either urgency or a consensus to act. That said I can think of one occasion where I did invoke IAR. Two editors were in a slowburn edit war as to what the subject should be of a particular page. Rather than hand out warnings for edit warring, or try to work out which was originally the subject of the article, I deleted the whole thing, restored all the edits about one subject and then moved that to a page on that subject. Restored the remaining edits and moved them to a page about the other subject, and then turned the battleground page into a disambiguation page for the two.

Additional question from King of Scorpions

6. A user runs through an RFA. The tally after one week is 65%. However, half of the opposes were pile-ons for an issue raised from 3 years ago that is no longer relevant. When this hypothetical RFA goes to the bureaucrat chat, what would your decision be? Ping me in reply, King of Scorpions 18:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: Hi King of Scorpions it isn't up to the Crats whether an incident from over three years ago is no longer relevant. If I think that it is and lots disagree then it would be best for me to vote in the RFA and recuse from the Crat chat. So lets assume that I am not convinced that the issue is no longer relevant, so I haven't !voted and I am participating in the crat chat. 65% is at the very bottom of the discretionary range, so in my view it needs a stronger case to go against the raw numbers than if it was at the top of the range. But lets add to your hypothetical - how do the "weak" votes break? Lots of opposes saying "weak because it was three years ago" could move me in one direction, equally it could push me in the other direction if lots of the supports are saying things like "weak, because of the incident from three years ago, but kudos for staying with the same username". Equally, though oppose reasons are generally considered cumulative, if lots of the opposes for other reasons are saying "Oppose per User X. But I'm not bothered about the editwarring block from three years ago. Seriously three years without editwarring means we can count that block as no longer relevant". Trend can also be important. If the three year old incident only emerged 30 hours from the end and the support level has been dropping 1% an hour then I'm much more minded to support closing as no consensus than if the RFA took a nose dive after the three year old incident emerged, but the support level has been rising steadily for the last 24 hours after people started to argue that it was no longer relevant, and that the recent supposedly overhasty deletion tag that made the three year old incident relevant was for tagging a page for deletion that consisted solely of the phrase "poop on wheels" and therefore the three year old incident is no longer relevant.

Single question from MJL

7. Should content creation be a deciding factor in evaulating the outcome of RFAs? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: Yes. Content creation has been one of the deciding factors at RFA for about twelve years now, ever since the unbundling or Rollback in early 2008. Before then people often passed RFA simply on the basis of being "good vandalfighters", but for about twelve years now there has been an expectation at RFA that a candidate needs to have helped build the pedia, not just defend it. How much content contributions are required is often the main issue of disagreement in RFAs. My view is that an admin needs to have added reliably sourced info to the pedia - I think I am in line with longstanding consensus on this. There are !voters out there who are stricter than me, expecting a new admin to have written a GA or an FA. Currently there would need to be other reasons for an RFA to fail if a candidate lacked a GA. Of course that consensus could change, but it is a very longstanding one. However there is a difference here between my past role as a nominator and the role I am currently applying for. As a nominator I would only nominate someone if I thought they met that longstanding consensus. If I become a crat I would be looking at the consensus in the discussion, including the possibility that it might shift or that the community might decide to make an exception.

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

8. Do you think this question "Have you edited under previous account" asked in several RFA as it appears by some editors as it appears to than that the candidate fails WP:DUCK is appropriate in the context of this Wikipedia:Clean start#Requests for adminship says candidates are not obliged to publicly disclose previous accounts.

A: There appears to be some policy tension there, but I don't know if there was something about the candidate that reminded the person who asked the question of some contentious departed editor. As a nominator I always discuss this with my nominees and I can't see myself nominating someone with a former account unless they were prepared to say something like "I have not edited under any other account in the last five years". As an editor I would support a change to the policy on this to introduce some sort of statute of limitations, instead of the current You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts; however, it is strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of a previous account or accounts prior to seeking adminship or similar functionary positions. Perhaps You must disclose in an RFA the identity of any account you have edited with in the last five years. Any account you have edited with in the last ten years you may disclose to ARBCOM instead of in the RFA. Though I doubt anyone would lose votes in an RFA if they said they had had an account over ten years ago that they weren't going to disclose. However as a Crat I would merely weigh the consensus that emerged in the RFA.

8A. Do you think Candidates should disclose whether they had a previous account in a RFA (without the naming the account).Particurly for those making there clean start after conflict rather than privacy reasons.

A: Yes, and I won't nominate someone unless they are willing to at least say "I haven't edited with any other accounts in the last five years". Note however that you said should not must. Sooner or later we will have another of those RFAs where it emerges during the RFA that the candidate had an undisclosed prior account, and as a crat I would seek to weigh the consensus that emerged from that revelation.

9. Do Crats have the right to use there discretion rather WP:IAR in there decision making or have to compulsory follow policy in each and very decision ?

A: Crats have a lot of discretion, including a whole zone of it at RFA. But that is balanced by us picking Crats who will use their discretion as a Crat on behalf of the community. There will be occasions where I know an RFA candidate from the London meetup or elsewhere and want to support or indeed oppose them regardless of the normal RFA standards; but the way to do that is for me to !vote in the RFA and then recuse in any Cratchat

Additional questions from QEDK

10. Are trendlines indicators of consensus in RfAs, do you consider them to be a viable method of gauging consensus (for example, in crat chats)?

A: There is an argument that RFA is a seven day process and if the last five days has a uniform gentle downwards trend one shouldn't extrapolate because everyone who took part in the RFA had plenty of time to reassess their position based on whatever started that trendline. Conversely if a trendline starts in the last day or so and people are shifting position in droves with the support percentage dropping at 1% an hour then of course Crats should pay attention to it. Somewhere in between the two will be the one that makes for a really interesting cratchat.

11. If you were a crat, how would you assess Money emoji's RfA?

A: As I said in my answer to Q5, Would you mind giving me a hypothetical example rather than such a close recent one? I would feel uncomfortable weighing in on someone who has been involved in such a close call - especially as they are only just out from spending a fortnight under the spotlight.

@WereSpielChequers: I do not intend to change my question, but if you choose to not answer, that's up to you. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Nihlus

12. How would you have determined consensus during the RexxS and Jbhunley bureaucrat discussions?

A: I !voted in both of those, and one of those editors is someone is on my recall list, so obviously I would have recused in their case. If I had been a crat at the time I might not have !voted in the other and instead taken part in the crat chat. But as with two previous questions, I'm a bit uncomfortable talking about a fellow Wikipedian in this way, especially as one of them has not been around for a few weeks. Would you mind giving me a hypothetical question instead?

Additional question from Bilorv

13. A bit of a rhetorical question: do you have a strong password? And have you ever used the password on a different website? (If your answers aren't "definitely and never", go change the password and then reply "definitely and never".)

A: definitely and never. I used to work in IT and for a couple of years around the time I became a Wikipedian I worked closely with my then employer's security team. So I have been using strong passwords for a long time.

Additional question from Tymon.r

14. The community has once decided to lower the discretionary range for RfA closures to 65-75% (of support). Do you believe it was a good decision? Should it be lowered even further (e.g. per WP:!VOTE) to let 'crats evaluate consensus and arguments in more cases?

A: Re your first question: I seem to remember supporting that change and subsequently defending it in various discussions at WT:RFA. Of course the role of crats is to apply policy not to make it, and one of the reasons why I am now going for RFB is that while I used to be someone who wanted to make quite a few changes at RFA I am now fairly comfortable with current policy re RFA. Re your second question: I'm not convinced that lowering the discretionary band further would actually result in more case where Crats had discretion. It wouldn't greatly increase the number of successful RFAs either. RFA results are almost the opposite of a bell shaped curve - most RFAs are very clear passes or very clear fails. So lowering the discretionary band from 65-75% to say 55-65% wouldn't necessarily increase the number of RFAs that ended in the discretionary band, it would of course increase the number of passes, but not by much, and though my own first RFA ended at about 60%, I'm not convinced that it would be a good idea to lower the discretionary band. Morestothe point, it isn't up to crats to decide on where the discretionary band should be, the role of crats is to work within the policies that the community has decided on.

15. Have you ever made a mistake while evaluating community consensus? If yes, what was it or what was the most serious one? Should a 'crat revert a blatantly wrong decision of another 'crat?

A: Re your first question, not that I can remember. Re the second one n/a, Re the third, that depends on whether it is a crat making a crat decision, or a crat making a non crat decision, and if so whether it is urgent. A crat making a non crat decision BRD applies it is entirely possible that I might revert a bold article edit by a fellow crat and then take things to the talkpage. If a Crat makes what I think is a wrong decision with the Crat tools then I would probably go to the Bureaucrats noticeboard or their talkpage unless it was very urgent or very blatant. That said if someone does manage to close an RFA and accidentally give the admin bits to the nominator and not the candidate, I would take the admin bits off the nominator as soon as they pointed out the problem to me..

Additional question from Trialpears

16. Crats have the ability to grant interface administrator rights and thus have all the same security risks as an interface administrator. All users with interface administrator access are required to use two-factor authentication (2FA) due to security risks involved with the permission. Would you be willing to enable 2FA to minimize said risks?

A: I've looked at 2FA and might well move to it. But not while I'm dithering between whether I upgrade my Windows box, revert to Lynux or shift to the Mac I recently used for a fortnight.

Additional question from Newslinger

17. Which one (or more) of your discussion closures best illustrates your approach to assessing consensus?

A: Though I have made several thousand logged admin actions, I'm not a big one for closing - hence my earlier commitment that my aim was to participate in Crat chats rather than close them. I would of course also be available for the uncontentious flipping of bits that takes place with retirements etc, and to close unambiguously successful RFAs. But to illustrate my approach to judging consensus at RFA, I understand that self declared "weak" !votes can be given less weight, whilst "strong votes" are a sometimes successful attempt to influence the discussion and not something to reduce or even increase the weight of that !vote when evaluating consensus. I think I have already covered trends, I would not take them into account unless very steep and late, so steep and late that it is clear that !voters are shifting their position as fast as they come back to the RFA. When it comes to !votes without rationales I assume they are in agreement with the argument above them, in the case of supporters that usually means the nomination, in the case of opposers it means earlier opposes. Which begs the question of how to tell the difference between a first oppose that is just someone with a grudge against the candidate and someone who spotted the valid oppose reasons that later opposes spelled out.

Additional question from InvalidOS

18. A BRfA is open for a bot that will automatically delete pages that are tagged for deletion under CSD U1. Would you accept or deny this bot?

A: I'm not intending to get involved at Bot requests in the immediate future, but I have been involved in past discussions re a U1 bot. As I remember it we got consensus for a bot that would delete U1 requests but couldn't find a volunteer to code, test and run such a bot. There were some obvious safeguards in place, as I remember it the page had to be in userspace, the U1 tag had to be added by the person whose userspace it was in and the page had to have never been moved. Otherwise the potential for vandals would have been ginormous. So some U1s would still have needed an admin to handle them, but most would be usefully automated.

Additional question from Amorymeltzer

19. You probably spent more time thinking about RfA a decade ago than anyone else since. Reading over your talkpage comments leading up to this request, I'm wondering how you feel that could or would inform your behavior as a bureaucrat? Is there a role at RfA for bureaucrats beyond closing? To be clear, I'm not asking or suggesting you'd close differently based on your views, but rather, to give some examples, whether bureaucrats have a role in improving the RfA process or tone, or whether that even needs to be done, and how your experience might inform answers to those kind of questions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: There is an important distinction between changing policy and applying policy, and one reason why I'm now willing to run for crat is that I broadly agree with RFA policy, sufficiently that I would work within current policy as a crat, and not be acting as crat when supporting a change in policy, that said RFA is still a pretty toxic place at times, and I think that those who want to make it less toxic, whether we are crats, nominators, candidates or !voters, have an opportunity to do so. One of my beefs is that we don't have an agreed criteria at RFA, and a common source of uncomfortable behaviour at RFA ia over where the defacto criteria should be. Experiencd nominators have an important role here, not just in guiding candidates to display the qualities that will pass RFA, but in the unsung and often very confidential emails that dissuade people from running until they meet certain criteria. I would like some of the anomalies to be settled by abstract discussion rather than endlessly partially rehashed by arguments in marginal or near marginal RFAs. For example there is precedent that longstanding members of the community are cut some extra slack by crats, I don't dispute the precedent, but im not convinced that that precedent has consensus. Back to the crats, some frank advice in closing statements, especially those that are unsuccessful might be helpful - in the past we have lost too many of our unsuccessful RFA candidates, even the ones where the opposers were clear as to what the candidate would have to do to pass next time. I don't know how many of the crats had an unsuccessful first RFA, but my first RFA was far more memorable to me than my more recent successful one, and I think that would give me an interesting, probably unusual perspective among crats. More broadly, there is a clerking role to take on, including sometimes explaining to !voters that the evidence they are using doesn't mean what they think it means.

Additional question from Leaky

20. Please describe 2 examples of conflicts of interest which would cause you not to participate in a 'crat. decision or discussion.

A: It is more than four years since I ceased to be a Wikimedia UK employee, so I'm not sure I have any conflicts of interest re people I know to be editors on Wikipedia. But there are two groups of people where I would of course recuse from a crat chat. Those where a reasonable person would assume I was not neutral - regulars at the London meetup, RFA candidates where I had voted in the RFA; and the second group would be people where I considered myself not to be neutral. Friends, people with whom I have had extensive off wiki conversations especially about their possible RFA. In most circumstances these are people whose RFAs I would participate in anyway, but it is entirely possible that I could take a week off and come back to find a crat chat had opened on such a person's RFA.

Additional question from Robert McClenon

21. What other functions besides Crat Chats on RFA candidates do bureaucrats have? Please explain as appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: Crats close successful RFAs and RFBs and set the admin and crat flags. They also handle retirements and returns of admins and crats in accordance with policy, and similarly the setting and unsetting of bot and interface administrator rights in accordance with the relevant policies. I have long experience of setting various user rights such as rollback and autopatroller in accordance with various policies - 439 of my admin actions have been the setting and unsetting of userrights so i consider myself qualified to help out there.

Additional question from Hawkeye7

22. Since you like hypotheticals, I will give you one. An admin interferes with a controversial software rollout and is summarily desysopped by WMF as an office action. The ex-admin then applies to be re-sysopped on the WP:BN. Which of out policies and guidelines apply in this case? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: We don't reverse office actions, even if we consider them wrong, not unless we are prepared to be desyopped. Nor do we resysop those who were desysopped "under a cloud". So even if I were intending to vote "strong support" as soon as the RFA went live, I wouldn't support resysopping via the bureaucrats noticeboard. At least not without the WMF conceding something along the lines of "sorry guys, yes the white font on white text display on all windows devices was something we should have fixed before the rollout, if you agree to unban all accounts ending (WMF) we agree to return to the status quo ante".

Additional question from Levivich

23. In fairness, you asked for hypotheticals multiple times, so now your eager colleagues will bury you in hypotheticals. Here's mine: ~~If a train traveling 200mph leaves New York at noon headed for Washington, and a second train leaves Philadelphia at 1:30pm~~ How would you close the following hypothetical RFA (not expecting a full closing statement, just a brief summary of how you'd approach weighing the various categories of !votes and whether you'd find consensus to promote):

200 !voters total
130 support !votes
1. 40 "per nom", "no concerns", "no big deal", or similar
2. 40 "strong support" with a detailed rationale and/or re-affirming support after reviewing opposes
3. 40 "weak support" agreeing with one or more oppose rationales
4. 9 "per others", evenly split amongst #1-3
5. 1 just a signature
70 oppose !votes
1. 20 citing lack of content creation
2. 20 citing a 3RR block from one year ago
3. 20 citing an interpretation of the candidate's username
4. 9 "per others", evenly split amongst #1-3
5. 1 vote from an account with 11 edits (not blocked)

Thanks in advance, Levivich (talk) 06:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: At first glance that looks to me as "No Consensus", though close as 65% support is at the base of the discretionary zone. So I would open a Crat chat saying that I'm inclined towards No Consensus because the support includes so many "weak" votes, but I'd like to hear from others. I might shift my position subsequently if someone else points out that I clearly hadn't noticed a more than balancing plethora of Weak opposes, or that it had gone from 55% support less than 24 hours earlier when the candidate had announced their intention to rename their account. I see "strong votes" as an attempt, sometimes successful, to influence fellow !voters, but not something to pay any extra heed to in closing, the reaffirming after reviewing opposes is different, especially if there had been a new revelation late in the RFA and some were reaffirming as well as some striking support. In this case with 20 citing a lack of content contributions I would be prepared to downweight that if the reaffirming supporters were pointing to the candidate's FA and the only response to that from the opposers were from people striking oppose or saying "yes, but can they make the username less anatomical or at least drop the rancid bit?". One year is kind of on the cusp for a 3RR block, and unless people had cited more recent diffs with the comment "and you were lucky not to get another £RR block two months ago for this one" I'd expect to see some statements such as "go another 6 months without edit warring and I'd be happy to reconsider" among the opposes per the block. If so I would highlight that in my crat chat comment. The just a signature and the newbie I would not discount, especially as it was only one newbie. The only time I would discount just a signature would be if it was the first oppose as you then have no way of knowing what their oppose argument is. I have seen it argued that the whole discretionary zone is an area where candidates have a presumption of passing unless there is a good reason, I think of it more as 70% being the pass mark, and that Crats have a lot of discretion to weigh consensus for candidates within 5% of that and in rare circumstances beyond that. In this case it is at the bottom of the discretionary zone and the plethora of weak supports take it further away from that. So a Cratchat, but with me in the no consensus camp

Additional questions from Barkeep49

I've done two questions already. If you decline to answer these two, as 2 is our standard at RfAs, I will not hold it against you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

24. Some crats have express discomfort with the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2) on procedural grounds. What are your thoughts about the community adding responsibilities to the scope of bureaucrats? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: I am OK with the idea of the community coming up with other things for only crats to do, with the obvious but probably superfluous caveat that as crats are volunteers, if you add a task that the current crats don't fancy you might need extra crats. As regards that RFC, here are some issues that I think might be interesting Before restoring the administrator flag a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. As far as the intends bit is concerned it is difficult to know what someone intends to do other than what they tell us. Currently a returnee has to at least come back, log in and request the return of the tools, I struggle to think of a likely scenario where we know someone intends to come back before they have. Returns to activity is also vague, especially on a site that counts five edits a month as "active", I expect the crats will wind up with some rule of thumb that equates to a few hours a month, but I can understand if crats baulk at the imprecision of the change. The most important thing in this age of account hacking is whether it is the user returning or someone else who has usurped that account.

Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of Admin permissions, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a Crat Chat. There seems to be no minimum level of doubt defined here. I'd hope that we'd get to an arrangement where anyone saying "well I doubt you are the same person" would have to at least convince a crat that there was some doubt, and then that crat would trigger a crat chat. Implicit in these two statements is that if an account has been inactive for years it may not be the same person in charge of that account, and if it is the same person they may have dementia or some other change that makes them unsuitable for returning to adminship (Unless they find a cure for dementia there is reason to believe that a substantial proportion of our admin cadre will experience a bout of dementia before this century is out). I believe there are tools that analyse people's word usage and similar ways to spot that someone is a rusty Wikipedian. I also expect that we will have instances where other Wikipedians can vouch for them - returning to a meetup for the first time in years or having been continually active in another WMF wiki for the intervening years.

25. Can you speak to the criteria/philosophy you would use when evaluating Before restoring the administrator flag a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: I think I have covered this somewhat in the previous question. As well as the clearcut criteria as to whether they left under a cloud and how long they were gone for, I'm conscious that there needs to be a sufficient involvement for someone to be aware of what is going on, maybe not the level of activity needed to pass an RFA, but I don't see myself re-sysopping someone who had spent several years editing for an hour every couple of months, and now after a break of a few years promised to return to that level of involvement. I'd be minded to ask what they had done to catch up on the changes to adminship since they had last been an active admin and whether they intended to stay abreast of such changes. However, if a consensus criteria emerges as to what commitment we seek from returning admins then i won't go against that criteria.

Discussion

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support

Of course, unreservedly! Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
H'mmm...still owes me a pint, I seem to remember :p (but also per my prematurity I guess!) ——SN 54129 18:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yay random splurge of uncontroversial RfBs! Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit of a newbie, but I'm willing to take a chance on them. Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YES I've been waiting for this for years. WSC didn't note this in their nomination statement, but they are also the person behind Wikipedia:RFA by month. WSC is also in the top 5 of contributors to WT:RFA, and as been deeply involved in the RFA process for many, many years. I unreservedly support this candidacy for bureaucrat. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support WSC is cool, level-headed, and mature. Perfect for a 'crat. I also support the self-nom when it comes to 'crats. I hope that some other wise and tenured admins take it upon themselves to self-nom for 'crat soon...we are dreadfully short. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I asked WSC to stand (numerous times I believe), and have no reservations supporting. More if necessary. –xeno^talk 18:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trusted and vastly experienced editor who will do the job well. Valenciano (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yay! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If there is such a thing as an "RfA expert", WSC would be a strong contender for the title, with his thoughtful analysis over the years of the process and results. A great fit for this role. 28bytes (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely, unequivocally. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know WereSpielCheckers from the pub meetups and his encyclopedic knowledge of RFA statistics, including trends over the years and knowledge of what the community has looked for in candidates over those years, make him probably the best-possible candidate for this role. Good luck to you! — Amakuru (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Widr (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please! Puddleglum ^2.0 19:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - glad to get this RFB redlink off my watchlist after years of waiting. There are others! Cabayi (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, always helpful and professional towards others. Flibirigit (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me.--MONGO (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though he has been an admin for only 12 years. Newby! --rogerd (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Competent and trusted admin, I see no red flags here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent editor, helpful and thoughtful. - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support will be a net-positive to the project. The idea that more users in a the 'crat role is a bad thing is silly. If anything, adding more takes away from the exclusivity of the user right, and thus its perceived importance. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Why not? Seriously, though, I think WSC would be a great crat. epicgenius (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per my comments to this user in 2019: "The no-need argument is rot. We don't need a lot of help pushing buttons. We do need a group of active Crats who will speak up with their (policy-informed) views in Cratchats (and to a lesser extent at BN etc), particularly the difficult ones. The history of Cratchats shows that a good argument can sway our opinions ... I think you'd make a fine addition to our ranks." The recent Cratchat proved that we're short of active Crats. Come on board. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 20:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very happy to back this candidate. Mccapra (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I've thought that SpielChequers should've been a 'cat for a while now. Highly competent. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have my support. Clovermoss (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the last time we had the opportunity to comment on two RfBs in one day; what excitement! Obvious support. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 20:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hell, yes! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support trustworthy admin. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I trust the candidate, and their answer to Q5 reassures me that my trust is well placed. Circumspect, but not shackled to bureaucracy. — Wug·a·po·des 21:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No qualms. Cbl62 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep--v/r - T P 22:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've met him. He's a good guy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
support KylieTastic (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support To quote TonyBallioni, "Not a jerk, has a clue." OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support due to some issues raised by opposers, but otherwise a good candidate. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thoughtful and experienced. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support An incredibly safe pair of hands. DBaK (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Generally seems suitable for the job. Brustopher (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if it’s only occasionally having extra reasonable voices for crat chats when they happen from a strong candidate is a good thing. PaleAqua (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have not interacted with this user before, so I wanted to give WereSpielChequers the toughest question I could think of at the time. The answer was well-thought out and balanced. @Dmehus: per your ref of my question. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the candidate's responses, and per @Serial Number 54129, Atsme, Ymblanter, Amakuru, and MJL:. The fact that the candidate is supported by five of the editors with whom I hold in high regard is good enough for me. So, I'm happy to support with the only caveat being that the candidate now owes Serial Number 54129 two pints. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 02:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support trustworthy, credible, capable. It's true that crats don't have much use for the userright anymore, but our requests for adminship aren't going to close themselves (unless we make them a straight vote). We seldom replenish our roster of crats with fresh blood; now is a good time to do so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has earned my respect in our interactions. Never any drama. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. It's about time! Royal broil 04:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, first because this administrator is an excellent candidate for the slightly shinier mop, and second because it is good for the project to inject fresh blood into positions such as these, even if we are perceived to have enough officeholders to perform the function. BD2412 T 04:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Not one, but two RfBs in a short time? My support is weak due to the fact that I seriously have never encountered this user on this site to see how they respond to various issues in real time (which may or may not be surprising), and the 3% of edits in Wikipedia space is a bit of a turn off for me. I would personally say that a bureaucrat is somebody that the community to look up, and while I do believe that this user makes quality edits and has been a successful admin, I would rather that the candidate have more of a presence in the Wikipedia namespace with other active editors. With all of that being said, I don't have any particular problems with this user's edits, and my slight grievances were not a reason to oppose this candidate. Regardless, I give my support. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Hammersoft (talk), xeno^talk, Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!, 28bytes (talk) and LEPRICAVARK (talk), in particular. If memory serves me correctly, as few as four crat chat votes have been enough to decide an RFA. A few more, especially in view of last year's net loss of three bureaucrats, would be helpful. WereSpielCheckers has been a fine administrator and has great familiarity with and participation in RFAs. Donner60 (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per my review. Lourdes 04:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Helpful and experienced. My interactions with them has always been positive. Reh man 05:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --I am One of Many (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have no reservations after seeing the above comments about this candidate. Thank you for running! You're a good choice. PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 07:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unreservedly. Extremely thoughtful and qualified candidate. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. Any more people willing to step up? SilkTork (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support WereSpielChequers has done more to document and analyse the RfA process than just about anyone else. If I had to trust one editor to close a contentious RfA, it would be him, and I have had numerous fruitful real-life conversations about what we can do about the RfA process. The opposes all sound like disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point and should be ignored by the closing 'crat as completely irrelevant to whether we trust WSC as an individual to carry out 'crat duties. A corpus of 'crats who have had the bits for over ten years could do with some diversity. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly level-headed and some great answers, thus far. Full confidence. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have known WSC for a number of years, first through London Wikipedia meetups and then at various admin forums on the English Wikipedia. I trust that he can be a calm and neutral arbiter on any dispute we throw at him while being a responsible specialist button-presser. In other words, he will be a good bureaucrat. Deryck C. 11:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vexations (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support precious native tongue as tool --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find no reasons to not support the candidate as he appears well suited for the job. Flalf (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, trustworthy and good. BEANS X3 (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fair, helpful and decent. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support don't really have much to add to what has been said above. Meets my RfA/RfB criteria (basically I trust that this user having 'crat rights will benefit the community). I agree with Ritchie333's comment, and consider this part of my reasons for supporting this candidate. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I rarely feel the need to emphasize how qualified I believe an editor to be but for WSC, I'm happy to make an exception. Regards So Why 15:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good editor and administrator. No objections. ThinkHat (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A reasonable and trustworthy editor. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support no problems, solid candidate. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good choice. - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support without question! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a good impression of WereSpielChequers within the context of RfA. I think he understands the system and the politics (for lack of better term) surrounding the system pretty well. Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Trusted, experienced, tons of experience specifically with RfA. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of whether it's necessary or prudent to appoint more bureaucrats, it's notable to me that the people who recently had to make a very difficult decision are telling us life would be easier with more hands on deck. With that in mind, I think WSC is as good a choice as any; they're deliberate and contemplative, gracious and professional, and not afraid to wade into the sorts of convoluted, nuanced discussions that most of us shy away from. Absolutely no concerns about trustworthiness or technical competence. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - having known WereSpielChequers for many years, I know he'll do an excellent job in this role. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - we need more bureaucrats.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: highly trustworthy and talented user with all the knowledge needed to evaluate consensus and not make technical mistakes. — Bilorv (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good candidate for bureaucrat. JohnThorne (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent candidate Pagliaccious (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hard to believe that "we don't need more bureaucrats" is the best argument that opposers can muster. The number of active bureaucrats has been declining over time, and RfBs are few and far between. The downside in having more than we need is far from apparent. More importantly in my mind, candidate has demonstrated the attributes that we look for in bureaucrats over a period of many years. Happy to lend my support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support. WereSpielChequers is probably one of the most qualified individuals to become a bureaucrat given their long interest and involvement at RFA. Mkdw ^talk 20:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no concerns. Giant Snowman 20:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly qualified and trustworthy. Thanks for considering using 2FA since the security risk is the main reason for us not to have more crats. 2FA really wasn't as annoying as I thought it would be, but it is definitely dependent on how you use Wikipedia. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dweller etc. Bureaucrat is an odd role in that we don't need that many of them day-to-day, but having a healthy, varied and active number of them is important for the overall health of the process. WereSpielChequers is a long-term and sensible admin who is very much a good choice for another one. ~ mazca ^talk 23:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Step hen 23:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good candidate, no concerns. We obviously need more active 'crats. Miniapolis 23:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Had always seen WSC as a strong positive contributor to the project and now, after reviewing his record of admin decisions, I am happy to support unreservedly. Loopy30 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unquestionably qualified with no persuasive arguments offered against. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No concerns and a great candidate. -- Dane ^talk 01:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No concerns and a great candidate. Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - About time. I am so pleased to see this. WSC was the first Wikipedian I ever met in real life and he went out of his way to travel a long way to meet me in the UK on one of my rare trips back to blighty many, many years ago. Over the years he has been extraordinarily helpful to new users and unwittlingly mentored many more. We have closely collaborated regularly on several projects both on and off-Wiki, including Wikimanias, meetups, reforms of RfA and NPP among others. In real life he is a mature and highly respected member of his community. Irrespective of any comments in the oppose section, recent activity has, IMO, clearly demonstrated that more active 'crats are needed, especially for closing RfAs. There is no one on Wikipedia who is not already a 'crat whom I could more highly recommend. If I were to prepend strong to my vote, which I never do, this is the most sincere RfA/RfB vote I have ever made. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – Long overdue. I've always thought that WereSpielChequers would make a great bureaucrat. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems thoughtful and well-versed in RfA issues. Station1 (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
20 Mule Team Support As others have said this is an overdue request. A long time asset to the project and a well versed and thoughtful Wikipedian. MarnetteD|Talk 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Don't see any problems here. Invalid^OS (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another great candidate. Yes absolutely. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support qualified candidate. The most recent crat chat proves this position is still needed. I don't want a bunch of mostly out-of-touch Wikipedians popping in to make judgement calls on close RFAs. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Excellent candidate for bureaucrat. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I actually opposed the RfA. Since then WSQ has been a great admin and will make a great bureaucrat. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. From what I have seen the candidate has an appropriate temperament for the work. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for the minor bit that a bureaucrat has over an admin, this is a trivial decision. The "oppose" arguments are ridiculous. Too many bureaucrats? Nonsense. Not enough content creation? Irrelevant. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good, and good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 21:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: calm and thoughtful, and knows as much about RfA as anybody on-wiki. His temperament and knowledge make him an ideal fit for 'cratship. --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to return to my !vote having seen the opposers' arguments and WSC's answers to further questions. I can confirm my strong support, and state categorically that I am unswayed by the arguments to the contrary. I find no merit in suggestions that there is no "need" for more 'crats, as a recent cratchat showed that a larger pool of crats would go some way to reducing the time an RfA candidate has to spend waiting, by allowing some crats to recuse or be inactive for a while. The cratchat on my own RfA last year lasted almost 3 days and it wasn't the most pleasant 70 hours of my life. Nor do I feel WSC should regret declining to answer questions asking him to re-examine a recent RfA cratchat. His sensitivity toward how the candidate may still be feeling about the experience is telling, in my opinion, of WSC's ability to see the bigger picture. My support stands. --RexxS (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Happy to support WSC. Have only had positive views of their work. Glennfcowan (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, mainly on the strength of the nominator who I have always found to be pleasant, level-headed, and a net positive to any discussion I have ever seen them in. Ifnord (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I particularly like the answer "turned the battleground page into a disambiguation page for the two". This was a good resolution of a slow-burn battle. Also the original encouragement by others on User talk:WereSpielChequers#Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/WereSpielChequers seems sincere and well-motivated. --Lent (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, GregJackP Boomer! 11:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Support. An excellent admin who has plenty of common sense (essential in a crat, even more than for an admin). --bonadea contributions talk 12:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, I'll support. No real reason for me (in my opinion) to oppose. Quahog (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No concerns; a long-term, sensible, reliable, and level-headed contributor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No hesitation here. With all due respect to the current crats, the body of users with extra tools needs to represent those with both experience and current activity in the core areas of the project. WSC fits that criterion very well. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support trusted user. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lepricavark: You've already !voted to support here, number 49. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must be losing my marbles. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to me. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Certainly a good candidate, but I'm not entirely convinced we need two more 'Crats. While some 'Crats thought so, the 'Cratchat they feared would drag on without resolution actually did not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not terribly convinced we need more crats (and not a huge fan of crat chats), but that's not a good argument against a good candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 10:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Davey2010 Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Richard Nevell (talk) 13:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support _ I can't say I know you well but I like your answers to the questions and I think you will make thoughtful contributions as a crat. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jianhui67^T★C 15:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same way as Cwmhiraeth: I can't say I know WSC well as an editor, but the answers to questions leave me with no concerns about their being a crat. I say that even though I actually disagree with the answer to my hypothetical (Q23), in the sense that if I were assessing the consensus, I would have weighed the various categories slightly differently than WSC, and would have ended up finding (marginal) consensus to promote. However, the question isn't whether WSC would close every discussion the same way that I would; rather, the question is whether they are capable of competently assessing RFA consensus, and I think their explanations are thoughtful, and they have demonstrated that competence. I find "we don't need any more" to be an unpersuasive argument against a specific candidacy. Even if one assumes for the sake of argument that we don't need more, it certainly wouldn't hurt any to have more. I was also glad to see the answer to Q22, as I'm strongly opposed to crats unilaterally overturning office actions (as opposed to, say, after an RFC). Levivich (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support been interacting with them for years and they have proven pretty darn sensible.©Geni (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thoughtful, experienced, no doubt will do well as a bcrat. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak: Wikipedia is all about random internet volunteers building an encyclopedia. For RfAs, it shouldn't be pure content creation. emoji's RfA was based around copyright. Content creation shouldn't be the pure basis for RfXs. There is a lot more. Community relations, clean up, dispute resolutions, article talk discussions, and many more. This nominee says content creation is the main basis. So for that reason, instead of a nuetral 50/50 vote, or a regular support, I have weak support. But, I do respect his opinion. Everything else, normal support. Can I Log In (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - thought they already were one. Anarchyte (talk | work) 08:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can certainly support this candidate. Regards, —GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 10:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The answers to the questions show that WereSpielChequers would competently handle a ~~wide~~ range of bureaucratic duties. I switched from "neutral" after reading answer #23. — Newslinger talk 11:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger:...what wide range of bureaucratic duties would that be then? :) ——SN 54129 11:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Questions #18 (on assigning the bot flag) and #22 (on restoring the sysop bit) show two different duties, and I thought the answers were reasonable. But, you're right, there aren't that many bureaucratic duties. — Newslinger talk 11:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - obvious - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent work as admin, and as copy-edits to my many typos! Support - Looks good to me. Not a "hat collection" thing - I'm appalled to learn that most of the bureaucrats have been in the post for over a decade, and that three haven't edited yet this year. Those are clear signs that fresh eyes are needed, as part of succession. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This user has the background experience as an admin to demonstrate that they are unlikely to abuse the bureaucrat rights. I am additionally persuaded by this user's in-person, off wiki reputation for participating in Wikipedia events and social gatherings. I also like that they write for The Signpost, because communication is key to the bureaucrat role. Having both experience and personal ties to various aspects of Wikimedia projects and people makes me comfortable with this nomination. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The oppose rationales presented so far don't persuade me. If currently active crats say that they would have a need for more crats, I'm inclined to take them at their word - the question of how frequently the need arises doesn't seem relevant, if it would be useful only occasionally when why refuse it? I can completely understand why WSC wouldn't want to comment on a recent specific case, I think it would be inappropriate of them to do so. Nosebagbear's oppose concerning relevant experience seems to me to hold most water; weighing that against my general impression of WSC as a level-headed, collaborative editor and admin however, I find myself unconvinced that they wouldn't be able to weight consensus competently and fairly, and so I am here. Thanks for standing. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes for sure. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - fully qualified. — Ched (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support no reason to think they'd misuse the extra tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no reason not to support. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I highly doubt WereSpielChequers will misuse the tools Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 09:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I personally think Q11 shows the sort of maturity that should be expected from a soon-to-be crat. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Thought he was one." Deb (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support without reservation. Nole (chat·edits) 17:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support without reservation. Thought he was one already. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 17:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am still not entirely sure what the function of the crats is other than sysopping administrators. Maybe that is it. If the crats think we need more crats, I will support qualified candidates unless there is a reason to oppose. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It would be a shame to turn away a qualified candidate on the grounds that "we have enough". If that is a rationale here for some then I suggest they get a proposal going to set a quota. Trying to manage that from within RfBs is like running a perpetual ad for open positions but then telling interviewees that you aren't hiring. He is helpful, thoughtful and qualified for the position and I believe that he will do well.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've interacted with WereSpielChequers many a time in the last decade (though it's been far too long) and, in all of those interactions, he was demonstrably thoughtful and deliberative (as he has been in answering questions here) but also prepared to take a viewpoint and back it--but in a way that exhibits the dexterity of a mind that is willing and able to entertain other viewpoints and even change his own mind. His prior involvement in the RFA reform efforts and the subsequent evolution of his views on the matter is an example; a more personal anecdote is the objective, helpful advice and feedback he provided me when considering an RFA myself way back in 2011--his understanding of the process then (as now) indicates to me a temperament of someone who can evaluate merits in a dispassionate way--an even-keeled voice in the room whom I support. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously qualified. ~Awilley (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trust their judgment, and specifically their A to Q11 is appreciated. --Bison X (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy support - One of the most common editors I see around and have strong impression of a long history of good work. I beleive judgement is good but even more importantly to me, I know the editor is commited to building a high quality encylopedia and would be mature enough to admit and rectify lapses in judgement. Good luck. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very pleased to see WereSpielChequers running. The candidate is one of the most prolific RfA nominators and I trust their wisdom will be quite useful in cratchats. I completely disagree with arguments that there are too bureaucrats; there are not enough active bureaucrats and the lengths of recent cratchats speaks to that. Obvious support. Altamel (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High quality candidate. Britishfinance (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No reason why not. Conlinp (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I'm the kind of person who supports unless I see a reason to oppose. I don't even mind that they didn't really answer my first question-if I was WereSpielChequers, I would have felt unconfortable assessing that RFA, too... King of Scorpions 16:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WereSpielChequers is one of our foremost experts on RfA, having been studying and participating in discussions about it for many years. Both on- and off-wiki I have also found him one of the most thoughtful and levelheaded Wikipedians I have ever met. He will be a wonderful addition to the bureaucrat team. the wub "?!" 17:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Per my own and unique interpretation of WP:NOTBURO. There is no obvious, compelling or persuasive need to create more people in a role that has extremely limited scope and has ample members to jump on an RfA within seconds of it expiring. Looks ever so slightly like a hat collecting opportunity, but hey, who am I to say. I've only been here 14 years. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Not intending to "badger" an opposer, comment for information only.) During the recent 'crat chat about a very close RfA, it was suggested that having some new bureaucrats might be helpful. I suspect that both of the current RfBs were motivated by these comments, rather than by any personal motive of the candidates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In which case let's remove some of the deadwood and refresh the panel. We don't need more functionaries and I feel quite sure that these candidates would know very well how to provide highly influential input without possessing tools which are not actually needed for a 'crat chat. Having said that, having refused to answer highly pertinent questions about the very subject you raise is a red flag for me anyway. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking in generalities, a user who only plans to use a specific right one to two times a year (the current frequency of crat chats) should not have it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose for the same reasons as in my oppose in SilkTork's RfB, that there is no demonstrated need for additional bureaucrats, despite the merits of the nominee as an editor. If bureaucrats considering a crat chat need more views to consider, they should read the talk pages..--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt: Not looking to sway your decision, but my principle desire for more bureaucrats is to implement the 2015 RFC requests, in particular, the clerking mandate. Additional voices at bureaucrat discussions would - imo - be nice, and perhaps help resolve them in less than 100 hours, but that would be a secondary reason. –xeno^talk 23:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it, but I do not discuss my !votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pppery. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I find it troubling that the candidate refuses to answer a question about the very thing they say they would partake in if they were to become a bureaucrat. Nihlus 23:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which question are you referring to, Nihlus? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
11 and 12 were not answered. Nihlus 01:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They were answered, and a follow-up question was asked in turn. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: The candidate stated they won't answer it (and I am not seeing a follow-up question). Am I missing something? --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putting text under a question does not mean he has answered it. Nihlus 21:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - partly because Wehwalt has a valid point. Nothing against you personally, but you've been with Wikipedia 13 years, since April 2007. And you only have 2 Good articles, and 88 page creations total, 28 of which are stubs, 16 are disambiguations and 1 dab. So, really, you only have 43 pages that are articles. And except for the GAs, your work doesn't seem to have gone through any review processes. Indeed, why do we need more bureaucrats. But more to the point, why do we need a bureaucrat with very little hands-on experience for what might come up. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With all due respect, you can't submit yourself to RFB after a contentious 'crat-chat closed RFA and punt on questions about it. Calidum 18:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Calidum:: I disagree - I feel it would be inappropriate for a (current) non-crat to second-guess the crats in this forum. He has already said he would be happy to answer a hypothetical question. --rogerd (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I am not aware of WSC's reasoning as to why they require a hypothetical question, but either way I cannot trust a crat to make a judgement in future crat chats if they cannot assess past crat chats. I also find their answer to Q10 on trendlines to be unsatisfactory and on the verge of a "non-answer". I hold WSC in the highest regard but the answers are too disappointing for me to support. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Long term contributor, I have seen them around, including correcting my mistakes & have no doubt about general competance, temperament etc. The reason I am in the oppose column is that the main purpose of bureaucrats is to weigh up consensus in contentious RfAs & I haven't seen any activity remotely like that, including in the self nom - if anyone can point me in that direction I would happily change this to a support. As I said re silktorq as existing crats have requested more, I am happy to go along with that request. --Find bruce (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - leaning oppose. I'm not against them not talking about ME's CRATCHAT, and they're a highly competent admin and editor. However, I'm concerned about the candidate's stated lack of prior closing (and thus controversial closing) experience. A CratChat isn't like, say, an AfD, where there is a major substantive difference between chat participants and the closers - where only the latter is concerned about assessing close-related aspects like consensus judging. In a cratchat, every bureaucrat is, in effect, closing (the RfA) and making their own independent close judgement, with the final 'crat summarising. Given the move away from bot-tasks for crats, I feel that a significant experience in closing is the most critical requirement for any candidate otherwise in good standing. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A number of the candidate’s answers concern me. Firstly I don’t think any bureaucrat should be closing as unsuccessful an RfA that finished above the discretionary range without even a crat chat, no matter how precipitously the support fell. Secondly I’m not impressed with their admission that they are not really one for closing, as I think it is essential that they have that experience. Finally I feel they should have taken one of the opportunities go say how they would have voted in a previous crat chat - these are valid, pertinent questions which cannot really be adequately replaced by hypotheticals. P-K3 (talk) 02:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Wehwalt. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Q11 was valid, and I would want to know how a would-be crat would handle such a situation. Being too uncomfortable to take a position doesn't bode well for the ability to wade into future contentious RfAs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Long-time user whose judgment and temperament I trust. However, the logic of a couple of the answers is a bit convoluted. Since the user doesn't seem to have a huge track-record of controversial closes, and isn't willing to opine in the answers on how they would have closed recent controversial RFAs, I can't judge if they'd be a net positive in such situations. Since I don't think we actually have a problem with not enough bureaucrats (a one-off knife-edge situation in which 10 bureaucrats don't quite agree in my mind doesn't scream "we need more bureaucrats"), I ultimately end up here. Martinp (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral As I don't know the editor, I have little to base my opinion on beyond raw edit statistics, the candidate's responses to questions, and editors' opinions following those responses. Four out of five editors whom I respect greatly (@Serial Number 54129, Atsme, Amakuru, and Ymblanter:) all speak very favourably of the candidate, but I'm waiting to hear (a) from MJL based on the candidate's response to MJL's question and (b) the candidate's responses to the remaining questions. No real concerns, but just looking to evaluate more opinions before deciding. Doug Mehus T·C 20:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that WSC doesn't want to discuss Money emoji's RFA 'crat chat. Weighing these sorts of line-ball decisions is what we are potentially empowering them to do, yet they do not wish to discuss how they see the most recent one? To me, the issue of "content creation opposes" is a key issue in the RFA process, as demonstrated by Money emoji's RFA and the 'crat chat that followed. I'd like to know where WSC stands on this before supporting or opposing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, such questions are not rare at RfA/RfB and people may not share my view, but I do not think it is appropriate at an election, RfA, RfB, Arbcom, etc, to require a candidate to state how they would have voted on a previous cut and dried RfA, RfB, Arbcom, election, noticeboard, XfD, or Arbcom case that has been closed by what we hope are competent individuals and can no longer be changed or redebated as the case may be. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I disagree. It demonstrates how they weigh evidence, and is a good predictor of future decision-making. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly possible to discuss "content creation opposes" or any other RFA criteria without discussing particular individuals without those individuals consent or even notification. If anything the result of that is more relevant to future Crat chats than a particular past one as a future crat chat that seems similar on some grounds may look different when other criteria are taken into account. I regard insufficient content contributions as a perfectly valid reason to oppose. It is also a relative thing, what would be insufficient to one editor might not be insufficient to another. Hence there have been RFAs which passed despite some opposes being for insufficient contributions and others that have failed on just this one issue. I think that the defacto minimum for a new admin in the current era is to demonstrate the ability to add reliably sourced content. But reasons for Opposing an RFA are usually cumulative, so an editor with many DYKs and even a GA might fail RFA if there were a bloc of opposes for their incivility and a few for their minimal content contributions in the modern era. Equally, RFA being a discussion, I would be happy to discount opposes for lack of content contributions as being refuted if they had been responded to with a dif and the comment "you do know they wrote an FA?". Unless of course that had been responded to with "yes, nice prose, but delisted a decade ago for lacking inline citation. The candidate's uncited content contributions in the early days of the pedia were valid in their day, but the expectation nowadays is that candidates should know how to cite." Ϣere SpielChequers 12:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: If you intend for this to be a "Neutral" vote, you need to unbullet this, if you wish to just comment, use the section below. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~. WereSpielChequers clearly has a strong positive reputation as an editor and administrator, as evidenced by the high number of supporters on this page. However, one of the main duties of bureaucrats is to assess consensus in contentious RfAs, and I think the answers to the questions lack concrete examples of how WereSpielChequers would handle this duty. Answers #11, #12, and #17 were missed opportunities to demonstrate WereSpielChequers's thought process in evaluating actual discussions. I understand that it is inconvenient to comment on specific editors, but I would have appreciated some practical example of how WereSpielChequers would close a real discussion. — Newslinger talk 11:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say inappropriate rather than inconvenient, especially as one of the three is someone who I have been trained by and have said I'd recuse from a cratchat about them and another has only just gone through RFA followed by a cratchat; and last I checked none were notified that someone wanted to publicly reexamine their RFAs. That said there are now three hypotheticals in and responded to. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer to question #23. (And thanks to Levivich for crafting this scenario.) I've switched to "support". — Newslinger talk 11:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wikipedia is all about random internet volunteers building an encyclopedia. For RfAs, it shouldn't be pure content creation. emoji's RfA was based around copyright. Content creation shouldn't be the pure basis for RfXs. There is a lot more. Community relations, clean up, dispute resolutions, article talk discussions, and many more. This nominee says content creation is the main basis. So for that reason, here is a 50/50 vote. I do respect his opinion though. Can I Log In (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Can I log in. The vast majority of my edits, and my main focus has as I said been in mainspace and improving content - mostly through typo fixing. But I have also made a few tens of thousands of edits that are dealing with vandalism, welcoming and helping newbies, taking part in the deletion process, reviewing articles at FAC, and indeed taking part in the RFA process. However, just because my main focus has been on improving content, doesn't mean I expect that of others, I have happily supported clueful candidates in RFAs whose main focus has been elsewhere, provided they have made some edits that are adding content cited to reliable sources - content contributions are one of my RFA criteria, as I understand them to be of a large proportion of RFA voters Ϣere SpielChequers 08:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Could those citing "no need for any more crats" explain how blatant vandalism sat on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cabayi unaddressed for five hours? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: the revdel didn't go far enough, it's still visible as of Amorymeltzer's latest edit. Well spotted. Why aren't RfA's protected if IPs can't vote? ——SN 54129 12:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. IPs can leave comments; we do have a couple of long-term editors who prefer not to have an account. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "General comments" section should be moved to the talk page. Cheers, ——SN 54129 12:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken any passing Admin. can remove vandalism anywhere. Am I wrong? If I'm correct then the proposition that we need more 'crats to handle vandalism in RFA seems misplaced. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor, registered or IP, is able to remove vandalism from any page they are able to edit. However, there is a convention that pages that have clerks assigned (e.g. RfArb, RfA, etc.) are only to be clerked by those clerks. Most folks simply wouldn't risk the hassle of being told "it's not your job to clerk this page" and the argument about whether it's actually vandalism or not. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above bureaucratship 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.

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits AfC stats BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes CSD log PROD log
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights