Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/EVula 3

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

EVula

Final (122/1/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Ladies and Gentlemen, fellow Wikipedians, I wish to present EVula as a candidate for bureaucratship.

EVula has been an editor since December 2005 and an administrator since November 2006; in his time here, he has made over 25,000 edits and some 3,000 admin actions. His performance as an administrator has been exemplary and his overall attitude is positive, kind, and caring. He is evidently one of our best and most valuable administrators here.

Why would EVula make an excellent bureaucrat? Well, for starters, he is a frequent participator at

This is not EVula’s first request for bureaucratship: he first nominated himself in June of 2007, and nominated himself again in December later that year. There has been a nice amount of time and space between each RfB, and EVula has not been in a rush to become a bureaucrat.

EVula has all the qualities and knowledge that a bureaucrat should have, and it’s because of this that I am honored to nominate him for bureaucratship. I now leave him in your hands for evaluation. Acalamari 03:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored to have such a great nomination. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:51, 27 May 2008 (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. Not to be lazy, but I'm going to copy/paste my answer to this question from my second RfB; in the six months since my last attempt, I've had no experiences to suggest that the community has shifted away from what I stated last time. (though I am tweaking it a bit)
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 love numerical breakdowns, and the common amounts stated 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. As I've stated last time, I'm a fan of transparency: if it's a very tight RfA/B, I'd be more than happy to initiate a "'crat chat" to get the feel from my fellow bureaucrats. While I wouldn't jump into a contentious situation with guns blazing, I'd have no problem executing the consensus gauged; if there is any flak from my decisions, I'd be more than willing to discuss them with any and everyone that asked me on my talk page.

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 feel that I've got a well-earned reputation for being easily approached; even with people I disagree with, I never confuse a disagreement over a concept with a disagreement over a person themselves. I've been an administrator for over a year and a half, and in that time I've had very little evidence that my execution of Wikipedia's myriad policies and guidelines has been less than superb. I'm always quick to leave someone a message if there's a situation; an eagerness to talk is crucial in taking on any "trusted role" (which definitely includes being a bureaucrat, but is also paramount in an administrator).

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit

WP:CHU

on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Though I'm not quite the RfA gnome that I once was, I do currently pay attention to

our username policy

will help out, in addition to having an extra pair of hands.

Optional questions from Avi

5. Based on

WP:CHU? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A. My breakdown:

WP:RFA

- I routinely read active RfAs, patrolling for out-of-date tallies (not the most pressing thing in the world, but I enjoy it) and fixing broken formatting when I find it. I also participate in RfAs when I am able to properly guage the editor. I currently have 80 edits to the main RfA page itself.

WT:RFA

- I am very active in the RfA discussion page; it's my most active project talk page, with 417 edits.

WP:UAA

).

WP:UAA - I'm heavily involved here. I have UAA transcluded onto my admin page

, which is my personal jumping-off pad for a lot of my administrative actions. I routinely block blatant violations (both hard and soft blocks, depending on the severity of the violation), initiate or participate in discussions over non-blatant offenses, and remove false-positives on the bot report sub-page. My edit count between the two pages is 213 (though keep in mind that most of my edits in respect to the pages is to place a block notice).

WP:CHU

- I do not currently spend much time here. If my RfB is successful, I will of course place it higher on my priority list, as helping with the renaming backlogs is one of the reasons I'm running.

EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Once again, based on the same experience, it appears that the community, with rare exception such as Redux3, requires a minimum of six months between RfB requests. Can you please explain why you feel that it is appropriate for you to run now, being that it has been less than six months since your last RfB? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Well, part of it was the fact that Acalamari, who I highly respect in such matters, felt comfortable emailing me to offer his nomination. I was willing to ignore my own guideline of six month downtime (though it's only been five, which isn't too far off) partly because I was rather unsatisfied with my second RfB; I don't feel like I got very much constructive criticism from my opposers, which left me with nowhere I could focus my attentions on when it came to self-improvement. My own belief that I was up to the task, combined with a similar belief by an editor I respect (as well as the supportive opinions of some of my on-wiki friends) and the fact that there seems to be a very real need for more bureaucrats (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Temporary bureaucrats) led me to go ahead and bite the bullet on my third RfB, despite it being a bit "early" in comparison to my last one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Can you please explain what your current understanding is of the nature of the necessary consensus for an RfA vs. an RfB vs. an RfBAG? I understand it is somewhat difficult to discuss that while engaged in the process, but should you be successful, you will be making these decisions as well, and I believe it is important for us to understand your approach to these candidacies. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Broken out similar to my answer to question #6:

RFA - This is largely a matter of trust. "Do I trust -Candidate- to not abuse the tools? Will -Candidate- becoming an admin be a net-gain for Wikipedia? Will -Candidate- delete Main Page?" and the like. Evidence for and against their candidacy is presented, and everyone is welcome to voice their opinion. In some circumstances, some opinions are going to be weighed differently, when the community has made it clear that they don't consider it relevant (for example, the much-debated validity of opposition based of self-nomination). Additional detail on this I feel I answered in Question #1.

RFB - In this respect (and this respect only), RfB is rather similar to RfA. Trust is still the key element in a successful RfB. My answer for question #1 still stands for RfB as well, though the threshold for passing is higher (and the grilling is more intense). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfBAG - I have to admit, I'm totally ignorant of bots and their workings. However, in researching this question, it seems that it is in a fairly high state of flux;

Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership

was redirected to the talk page less than two weeks ago, and there are no current requests running. I'm honestly wary of answering this question until a more concrete process is in place. Sorry.

EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Useight

We all knew these questions were going to be asked, so we might as well get it early on.

8. Do you think that confirmation RFAs should be gauged with a different measuring stick than regular RFAs?

A. To a slight degree, yes, but only because the chance for abuse is so much higher. Admins, if they're active enough, are pretty much assured to step on some toes; some of those people get very, very upset (something I'm all too familiar with), and sometimes that anger can get vented improperly. With reconfirmations, bureaucrats need to be a bit more "hands on", in the sense that they need to figure out which oppositions are coming from editors with legitimate concerns, and which ones have axes to grind (though I'd trust the community at large to do a good job of policing them). Any reconfirmation RfA needs to keep that in mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. How would you have handled ^demon's RFA?

A. I... well, I don't think I would have passed it. If I were in that particular (and utterly unenviable) situation, I would have initiated a 'crat chat. However, in looking over User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 15#Your close of RfA on User:^demon, it also appears that there weren't any bureuacrats around to confer with... so, at the end of the day, I don't think I would have passed it, though I do feel that WjBscribe's explination goes a very, very good job explaining why he closed it the way he did, which goes a long way towards decreasing the drama factor. I do, however, agree on the point of reconfirmation RfAs being very different beasts, which is something I touched on in my answer to the above (#8) question. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Routine optional questions from seresin

10.Say an administrator voluntarily resigns his flag. A month later, he decides he wants it back. For whatever reason, he goes through a so-called "reconfirmation RfA", although it is agreed that as per the ArbCom ruling, he should be able to get them back by asking because he did not relinquish them "under a cloud". For whatever reason, during the course of the RfA, he withdraws it early. He then asks for his flag back on BN. Do you believe that he should be able to get it back if the RfA was clearly going to pass? If it might have passed? If there was very little chance he would pass? Also, after deciding to discuss with your fellow bureaucrats, you find that the collective bureaucracy is split on the issue. Who determines consensus among bureaucrats?

A. It depends on a variety of issues. If Candidate withdrew because of exterior forces (real life, etc), and their RfA ran for at least half the time and looked like it was going to pass, possibly. If Candidate withdrew because it looked like it was failing, absolutely not. If Candidate withdrew with a high percentage but immediately after some rather damning evidence was brought to light, absolutely not. If it was likely to pass but Candidate withdrew for some arbitrary reason, most likely not (the wiggle room there would be allow for such evidence as an overwhelming number of people declaring the reconfirmation a waste of time, as well as any potential situation that I can't imagine right now).

As for determining consensus among the bureaucrats, I would wager that whoever initiates the 'crat chat would be the one to, at the end of the day, make the call (after considering all the options). If it happened to be me, I'd use the outline provided above. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11.How much authority do bureaucrats, qua bureaucrats, have over the rename pages and procedures? Do you have an opinion on usurpation of accounts with edits (SUL usurpations)? Do you plan to actively get en.wp's policy in this area formalized; how do you plan to get the community involved after the several failed attempts? Who makes the decision if community input is minimal? What is your opinion on a bureaucrat violating a long-standing convention on renames?

A. The authority of bureaucrats extends only as far as the community allows it to. If a bureaucrat weighs in on a discussion, they are doing so as an editor; just as the position of administrator conveys no special authority, the same can be said of bureaucrats. If someone gives greater weight to a bureaucrat's argument, they should be doing so out of respect to the editor, not out of a misguided placement of faith in the "office".

My personal opinion on SUL? Well, as many may know, I'm extremely active across multiple projects (see m:User:EVula/matrix for an idea of my insanity activity). As a result, I have a "top-down" view of the English Wikipedia's relationship with the rest of the WMF sites. As such, I actually (personally) support the usurpation of accounts by whoever has the greatest number of edits (I don't put much stock in the idea that we should overly concern ourselves over someone that made four edits three years ago, versus a Spanish-speaking admin on another project with several thousand edits to their credit). However, my personal opinion will [always] take a back-seat to what the community wishes.

As for what role I intend in taking when it comes to hammering out a policy, I certainly plan on voicing my opinion, but I can't really say with any amount of certainty what I will or will not devote my energies to. As I said above, I don't consider my opinion to be significantly more valuable than any other editor when it comes to this. If community input is minimal, after multiple attempts to get a wider sense, we'd probably have to just push our way through it. When people yell about stuff, then that would serve as a pretty good (if extreme) guage for what people don't like. :) (in all seriousness, though, I'd prefer if a better sence could be gained; the hypothetical is a bit extreme) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12.What role do bureaucrats have in governing the RfA page? Specifically other nominations — viz. checkuser and BAG. Do bureaucrats have a duty/authority to remove/govern/etc. these?

A. Bureaucrats should do whatever the community has tasked for them to do. I, personally, don't think that either CU or BAG should be in the bureaucrat's hands, as the first is a Foundation issue (that I'm not entirely sure that the local community can override), and the second isn't a user right (compared with flipping a switch for a bot, sysop, or bureaucrat) but instead a position of moderate authority (for lack of a better term). However, if that's what the community wants, so be it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13. In light of recent discussions, (Riana's bureaucrat chat, the various discussions and polls, and the section about the RfB bar in the adminship poll page, Avraham 2) what do you believe the pass percentage is for an RfB?

A. Prior to Riana's RfB, the traditional numerical threshold was 90%. In the resultant discussion, while no clear number was given, the threshold seems to be 80-85% instead (though, again, numbers are only a rough guideline). I am aware that Avraham's second RfB was closed just a couple of weeks ago at 82%; again, the numbers are a guideline, not a fixed figure. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14. According to the page history tool, you have a total of 21 edits to CHU and CHU/U over the past ~14 months. Do you really understand what goes on there? Do you believe you will maintain activity there in the long term?

A. I have very little doubt that I'll be able to maintain activity there. As WjBscribe mentions below, CHU experience has not (traditionally) been a prerequisite for bureaucrat candidates (though anyone is certainly welcome to consider it one). To pull a different example from my own history, before I was an administrator, I had very little experience tagging articles for speedy deletion. Now, I'm active in handling speedy deletions not only on here, but also on Commons, Meta, and Wikispecies (the latter two where I'm also a bureaucrat). EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from xDanielx

15. In your last RfB, some concerns were raised regarding IRC influences. Do you still frequent the various Wikipedia-centered IRC channels? What do you think of discussing RfAs (or similar discussions) you plan on closing with other IRC users -- good idea, bad idea, or circumstantial?

A. In my answer to question #6, I mentioned that I was "rather unsatisfied" with how my second RfB turned out; I'll flat out admit that it was because of the IRC discussion, because I (to this day) have no idea what the basis was for that opposition. I hang out on IRC to relax and chit-chat with people I know, not to bypass on-wiki processes. I have no intention of discussing RfAs with people, and wouldn't allow IRC to color my judgement. (anyone that is a regular on IRC can probably testify to my relative infrequency on there) EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Friday

16. (Sorry to be piling in questions, but..) Let's say you promote someone, and then later realize this was a mistake when they begin misusing the tools. Will you make some attempt to correct the mistake yourself? Yes, I realize crats are not historically expected to consider the full results of their actions, but do you think maybe they should start? Do you see it as a problem that giving someone admin access is one of the very few actions on the wiki that are not reversible by the editor who did it?

A. Ah, another question that I can easily answer while still at work. :)
Yes, I do wish that there were some sort of way to more easily remove the sysop bit in problematic situations. I am a fan of admin recall, though wary towards abuse of the system (which is why my recall criteria are insanely complex). Going through the motions of ArbCom seems excessive, but that's all we have right now.
However, I do not feel that this is the promoting bureaucrat's responsibility, in as far as they are not the ones making the judgement call about the candidate; the community is, and the closing 'crat is merely the executor of the community's will. The only discretion bureaucrats are allowed to use is in the individual !votes themselves (see my answer to question #1), not the candidate. Yes, it would be nice for the promoting bureaucrat to take the lead in removing a sysop's bit if they go rogue, but I wouldn't consider it "expected behavior", for lack of a better term, as they are no more responsible than any of the rogue's RfA participators. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really optional questions from Vishnava

17. This is probably more for my education, but how will your thinking and attitude change, or not, by becoming a bureaucrat? How will it affect your basic administrative workload? There seems to be a great difference in the process of becoming an administrator and a bureaucrat, and people here seem to look at the two posts and the people who fill them very differently. I think administrators tend to be more forward and active, while bureaucrats seem more passive. How would you be different? Vishnava _talk 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. I can honestly say that I have no idea how being a bureaucrat will change my attitude. My experiences as an admin make me a different person now than I was before I was an administrator (at the very least, I'm a *lot* more committed to Wikipedia and the WMF's goals), and I don't feel like I could say how I will change in the future with anything even close to resembling accuracy.

I do feel that you are right about the activity/passivity between administrator and bureaucrat, however. It's something I'm not particularly crazy about (when I ran my first RfB, I felt that the majority of bureaucrats were fairly divorced from the community; our current crop is better on that front, I feel). While I can't predict the future (and if I could, I'd spend my time on the stock market rather than on this RfB), I can say with the utmost assurance that I have no intention of letting my bureaucrat-level contributions negatively impact my editing in other areas. For example, I currently have about 30% of my edits in the main namespace; I am very proud of this fact, as I consider myself as being an administrator second to being an editor. Similarly, while I plan on being plenty active as a bureaucrat, I don't foresee it becoming such a massive time sink that I'm unable to contribute on all the other projects where I am active, or here as an editor or administrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18. In what situations would you feel it wiser in your post to walk away from? Vishnava _talk 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. As I noted in my second RfB, any situation where one of my on-wiki friends was in an RfX, I would recuse myself from closing it, though that stems largely from the fact that I'd likely support their request, meaning I'd be recusing myself regardless. For situations where I would walk away entirely... can't think of any. If someone I dislike (or rather, someone I've had multiple negative interactions with) comes up for RfA, I'd likely end up recusing myself via participation (if I was strongly opposed to their candidacy, I'd definitely present evidence I felt was relevant). If I was being attacked somehow, I suppose I'd just walk away, but I've got an established reputation of not allowing personal attacks to get under my skin, and I can't really think up a situation where I'd be getting attacked... maybe to deny a rename request to "EVula sucks"? Dunno. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

19. I remember that during the

U.S. Senate hearing for the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, he declined to answer questions about abortion, which he said may come up as a case. Some questions above are asking you to discuss some prior cases. Do you feel comfortable answering those? Despite it being "optional," do you feel some obligation or need to answer them or risk more oppose votes? Vishnava _talk

A. Well, I can go ahead and say that "optional" is a hilariously inaccurate term. Even in my past RfBs, I've had people oppose (or go neutral) because I hadn't answered their questions (and I hadn't answered them because I'm only human and can only answer so many questions), and I've seen similar situations in numerous RfAs; "optional" is anything but. Even the initial three questions in an RfA are "optional", but there's only the slimmest of chances for someone passing without answering them. As for discussing past cases, I don't have much issue with discussing them, though there is only so much I can say without being tainted by the actual results, especially as I don't consider myself so narrow-minded that I can't be swayed by a sufficiently compelling argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Wizardman

20. (My support or oppose won't come down to this question at all) What is your track record at RfA? In other words, how many candidates have you nominated, and how did they do?

A. Sadly, none. Because I'm such a hardcore wikignome, a significant portion of my interaction comes from administrative areas (such as AN and ANI), most of whom are already admins. I do have a list of people I'd like to see become an admin, but some of them aren't quite ready yet (though one of them, ArielGold, has better nominators than myself lined up around the block). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from

StewieGriffin!

21 How fast would you get to requests at say the

Sign Here Please 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A. As quickly as I can. ;) In all seriousness, I'm on Wikipedia every day (something I shouldn't be so ready to admit to, and certainly nothing the girlfriend is happy about). I'd like to see the turnover time on

WP:CHU

be reduced to a few hours, rather than the couple of days that it can become, but that is largely dependent on the number of requests; if there's a spike, there's only so much a single bureaucrat can do.

As for

WP:BN, usually it's just discussions that are posted there, not actionable requests (aside from the occasional request for sysop restoration by former admins who have relinquished their bits). However, I'd like to jump on those as quickly as I can as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Optional question from

Al Tally

22. See

talk 22:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A. Note: I'll answer this question as soon as I have an opportunity to fully read the RfA. Just wanted to respond to acknowledge that I'd seen the question and wasn't ignoring it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I'm sorry, but it looks like I'm not going to have the time to answer this; I'm not going to be nearly as handy tonight as I thought I'd be (I'll be around, but won't have the time to read everything about the RfA), so by the time I'd be done, the RfB will likely be closed. Just wanted to note this so it didn't seem like I was totally ducking out of the question (well, I kinda am, but it's not entirely my fault).
Suffice it to say, however, if there is a 'crat chat (and a cursory glance suggests there will be), I will be participating in it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Mr.Z-man

23. How many of your sockpuppets do you intend to promote to admin? Do you intend to promote any to bureaucrat as well? Mr.Z-man 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. To be fair, not all of the sockpuppets I'll be promoting are mine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24. How many live puppies do you eat on an average day? Mr.Z-man 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Well, generally I only eat puppies on the weekends, so on average, I eat only 1.7 puppies per day. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

25. To be clear, you do realize you are requesting to be a bureaucrat, not a bearcat? Mr.Z-man 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. ...crap. Is it too late to withdraw? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional 2 part question from Keeper

26. EVula, if I block Mr Z-man for OMG disrupting a very srs forum called RFB with silliness, will you support me, and down the road when 'crats are giving the technical ability to sysop/desysop, will you desysop him? Thanks for answering correctly and promptly. I'll remove my support if this isn't answered within 48 seconds of my hitting save. The correct answers are yes, and yes.

A. Whatever will secure your !vote, I'll do it. Unless it will lose someone else's !vote, in which case I won't. So I can most definitely assure you that I will maybe do it, perhaps. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah dang. You had me at hello. Perfect answer, albeit rather late... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

• Links for EVula: EVula (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support

1. Keegan^talk 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, we need more crats and there's no reason to believe EVula will abuse or misuse cratship. --Rory096 04:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support MBisanz ^talk 04:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strongest possible support EVula would make a great bureaucrat. I cannot think of anyone more suited to be one than him. hmwithτ 04:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (ugh, edit conflict times 3... really? I thought I was going to be first)[reply]
5. Strongest possible support - Go you good thing !!! :DDDDD ......--Cometstyles 04:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support SFU for everyone today, so there's going to be a lot of renaming done, I suspect. EVula's perfect for the job. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'd trust him with the additional tools, and there is an apparent need for them. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong Support As last time. EVula will make a fine 'crat. :) GlassCobra 04:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Nakon 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. I think EVula has continued to improve as an editor, taking criticism (even when it's sometimes been unfair) in stride, and still learning from it. Not concerned about only waiting five months instead of six months between RFBs. I also think he understands the expectations of a 'crat and would perform well in the role. --JayHenry (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong Support Per "DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH". Jmlk17 04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per what I said last time. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - as before. EVula was a fine candidate back then and has only improved since. No problems at all here - Alison ^❤ 05:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Great candidate for the position. (are non admins allowed to vote? if not, strike my comment) Undeath (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - I've always thought EVula would make a great crat. His comments are always thoughtful and his participation at RfA and the discussion page has provided me with conclusive evidence that he will do a fine job. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - Agathoclea (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. EVula should make a fine 'crat, and should tackle the username backlogs effectively. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Heck yeah support. Has clue*infinity, knows what bureaucratship is about, will make for active and awesome 'crat. Also per Jmlk17, JayHenry, and hmwith. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 09:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support with no reservations. Great guy, great attitude, great candidate. Húsönd 10:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. No problem.
    talk) 12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. Support A fine candidate.
    talk) 12:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support. Trustworthy user. ·
    AndonicO ^Engage. 12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Support. Evula's history demonstrates a sufficient understanding of wiki rules and guidelines in the areas of bureaucratic concerns. Past history together with the answers to my questions leave me comfortable with his understanding of consensus; there may be no one correct answer, but his answers are acceptable and in the bounds of "wiki-normalcy" (oxymoron that it is). As per his presence or absence at CHU, I am more concerned about a potential bureaucrat's ability to learn quickly and correctly and apply his or herself to the job, and I believe that anything EVula does not know now, he will pick up soon. There really is no such thing as the "perfect" candidate, and flaws can, and will, be found in any one candidate. In my opinion. bureaucrats should not be promoted or denied based on need, but on ability, potential, and trust, and it is my opinion that EVUla demonstrates the potential and ability to be a successful bureaucrat, and should be extended the project's trust in this matter. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Fine with me. --Kbdank71 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Just looking at the number of RfAs EVula has closed at
    WP:RFAF is astounding. Work with usernames and bots looks fine and reasonable for a non-bureaucrat. I'd also like to take this particular opportunity to thank EVula for all his work at UAA. Rudget (Help?) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
27. Strongest possible support - Having had much interaction with EVula over the past few months, I have gotten to know him well. He is a strong editor who keeps the goals of the project in mind, all while retaining a healthy sense of humor. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions on various matters of the project, and everyone is free to voice them. To judge them based on differing opinions is, in my opinion :), in bad faith. I happen to agree with the view EVula holds that has been pointed out in Pedro's oppose (which I don't understand). I believe that I know EVula well enough to trust in his ability to act fairly in such matters and I fail to see a connection between this view and an ability to judge consensus and close an RFA appropriately. Based on what I've seen from EVula's contributions, and all of the many interactions I have had with him both on and off-wiki, I have full confidence in EVula's abilities.
    Love 15:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
28. Support- An Asset to the community. Besides, we need more 'crats :P. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, per nomination rationale, the opinions of others, and my general opinion that EVula will make a solid bureaucrat.
    Anthøny 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Support - Good attitude, definitely trustworthy, will be a great help as a 'crat (there are not enough active ones, leading to backlogs, but that's for another day).
    Ɣ ɸ
    16:40, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
31. Strong support - one of our best admins, sensible, responsible, and reasonable. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support per AGK. —
    paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
33. Support - Excellent admin who should make an excellent bureaucrat.--Dycedarg ж 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. support —DerHexer (Talk) 20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. I think the candidate would be a net positive as a bureaucrat, and have no reason whatsoever to question the candidate's competence, skill, or dedication to the project. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Extremely trustworthy? Check. Understands consensus? Check. Competent enough to figure out the tricks of the trade at
    barneca (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
37. Support. No concerns. henrik•talk 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support.
    inthegarden 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Support as I supported the previous two RFBs. EVula really understands how RFA works and is involved there, and has the temperament to judge consensus and to answer questions from the community. He also has more than a year of experience as an admin and many edits and log actions both here and on other wikis. He also wants to help with usernames. Oh, and his answer to Friday's question was squarely on the mark. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Absolutely, unequivocally yes. User has the dedication, user has the technical and meta- wherewithall. User is highly respected and trusted in several arenas, and yet still has managed to keep a sense of humor. In short, EVula is teh shit. (please don't heckle me, he'll know what I mean....) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support record is circumspect with solid work. He's got everything you want in a candidate for this job. Vishnava _talk 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support No problems here. --
    Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
43. Support, yes. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Three RfBs in the course of a year is a little worrying, but meh, EVula will do just fine as a 'crat. Monobi (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support AniMate 02:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - highly qualified. :)
    ✽ 02:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
47. Support. I'm impressed by both your work and your answers to the questions at this RFB. Useight (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Sure makes a lot of sense to me!
    _{1 != 2} 05:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
49. Support civility and diplomacy get a candidate a long way here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support, need more bureaucrats.
    talk) 11:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
51. talk 12:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
52. Crats lately have been a little too activist in promoting questionable candidates . EVula isn't promising the kind of radical crat overhaul I'd ideally like to see, but I believe he will help fix this one particular problem. Friday (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - All of my interactions with this editor indicate to me that they would make a great crat. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. I very strongly support this nomination, and for the reasons I gave in my nomination statement. Acalamari 17:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Absolutely. This user will be a very good bureaucrat. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Based on answers, support, I would have opposed this had it been say 3 months ago, due to the way I felt you handled some issues. But, that was yesterday's newspapers. I am happy with the way you have answered the questions and feel that you would make a great 'crat.
    ^{complain/compliment} 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
57. Strong Support GO FOR IT.
    Sign Here Please 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
58. Support as last time. Evula is an excellent user, who's always pleasent and willing to help. His work at RfA shows he's ready for the role. He understands the username policy and I'm sure he'll do a great job at CHU. All in all, one of the good guys. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. talk) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
62. miranda 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
63. Support - trustworthy, knowledgeable, and bureaucrats are a scarce resource. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. --Maxim_(talk) 23:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - We need more bureaucrats. I've no concerns about EVula. Bureaucrats don't have much more power than admins, so there is not much risk of messing up, and newly-elected bureaucrats tend to be more active than incumbents. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support one of the strongest, most trustworthy, and able administrators at Wikipedia, the additional responsibilities will go to good use here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. EVula's a proven commodity and definitely has common sense and my trust. east.718 at 06:04, May 29, 2008
69. Strong support - Fully trustworthy and civil - the definitive candidate for bureaucratship. Valtoras (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. One word. Trust.
    H₂O) 07:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
71. —Dark ^talk 12:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. kinda sorta wanted to oppose, but you're well qualified, so.. naerii - talk 12:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - Wanted to let this pan out a few days before !voting, seeing issues that opposers might bring up. Reading all of them, particulary Pedro's oppose before recusal, I think some intereting issues have been raised. Thinking more about it though, concerns look great as examples of what makes this candidate not 100% perfect, but they don't concern me to the point where they outweigh the overwhelming evidence of qualification in various areas. I'm glad to support here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support, yes, will be fine.
    龱 16:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
75. Support. EVula is well-qualified and well-mannered. I'm fairly satisfied with the answer regarding IRC... no red flags, anyway. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Great editor.
    Experiment 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
77. Support Solid community member and editor with a clear understanding of the role. Kuru ^talk 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support - Another one of the things I have to do before I go. Good luck Eric, do the community proud. Astral (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Strongest possible support - I know that he will be a great bureaucrat, --Chetblong (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Per Everyone Above me! LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 02:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Sufficiently insane. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support no reservations. KnightLago (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. Strong Support Reliable and more than qualified. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. I always thought he was already one. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. Sure SQL^{Query me!} 11:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 17:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support In my observances of EVula, I have long ago formed the opinion that he is very thoughtful and involved as an administator. The same opinion still holds for me and I see no drawbacks in having him serve as a bureaucrat.
    talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
88. No-brainer With a rep like his, it's a wonder he isn't ALREADY one. Better go look at the other ones to see what went wrong....
    ταλκ/01ҁ 18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
89. Correct crat person. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support – I trust his judgment. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91. Weak support, not a lot of raw experience where bureaucrats need to have it, but I trust you. Wizardman 23:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support I think we can safely say that EVula got his brain checked more than enough for us to trust him with the other tools. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support suited for the role. Spellcast (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support trustworthy, I can't see anything wrong. Good answers to questions. Hut 8.5 13:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support I would've liked to see more article building, but I think this user is trustworthy enough. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 15:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
97. Totally!-- Barkjon  17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support - I have great confidence EVula will make an excellent 'crat. Stardust8212 21:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
99. You again? I have some concerns that you haven't thought through the SUL engendered renaming/usurpation issues thoroughly enough, but third time's the charm, let us hope. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100. Why not. I don't really like how he answered my questions, but nothing in them particularly causes me enough problem to oppose, and you seem as if you'll be a good bureaucrat. Just do renames. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support a good candidate --Stephen 23:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
102. Very strong support - I appreciate your honesty, openess and fairness - usually a rare set of combined attributes.--VS ^talk 00:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support John told me to. And rightly so, because as of now, I can't think of any fair reason to oppose. Fair.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support A longtime trustworthy editor. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. Of course. bibliomaniac15 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support Excellent judgment--and a proper degree of independence-- as shown both in Wikipedia generally and in the answers above. DGG (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support - Well this is the third RfB I have participated in of EVula. The first time I went neutral, the second time I supported, and for his third attempt I am supporting again. I have watched EVula for a long time while on Wikipedia. On review, I think EVula will make an excellent bureaucrat who has good knowledge of the RfA process and Wikipedia in general; who I am confident is trustworthy and will do a good job.
     (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
108. Support - No reason not to. Nothing I have seen from Evula as an editor or an admin makes me think there would be issue with him as a Crat. Good luck. Trusilver 16:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support, without concerns Alex Muller 20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support - Very dedicated to project, dedicated to areas that are lacking. All around A+ :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 21:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. What I see is entirely convincing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. --jonny-mt 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support. I Have only seen good things from this user and I'm glad to support =) —Apis (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support No concerns raised for me by their actions or statements - my past observations and experiences of this user have been positive and I believe they would close RfAs in line with consensus and Wikipedia policies. Orderinchaos 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support EVula has my full trust and I'm sure he would do an exemplary job as a bureaucrat, despite the fact that he is clearly evil. ~ mazca ^talk 14:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support. After giving this more thought, I believe recusing myself from this discussion is the wrong choice. I wish only to offer my support for EVula's request.
     talk) 18:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
117. In case there's any doubt about whether or not my questions are serious Mr.Z-man 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support. Nick (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
119. Yes. DS (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support. Rather late to the party, but there's no doubt EVula is qualified to be a 'crat. - auburnpilot talk 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
121. Belated support: For some reason, I missed this. Don't know what could have distracted me from scrolling all the way to the bottom of
     WP:RfA recently... I supported him the last two times. Why stop now? Seriously, EVula does good work and possesses common sense and clue. He'll be a good 'crat. MastCell ^Talk 23:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
122. Support Evula has the reflection needed for a bureaucrat and is already experienced in the domain, he will make a fine addition to the group. Cenarium (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]