Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Beeblebrox

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

Final (93/42/9): No consensus to promote. closed at 00:45 July 30 2012 by pakaran.

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – I have decided to put myself up for consideration as a bureaucrat. I had a long talk with a big group at Wikimania regarding why we promote so few crats these days. My contention was and is that for most admins it seems like a huge pain in the ass with very little payoff. You get a few extra buttons, which for the most part you can only use if there is already a consensus to use them in that particular case, the exception being rename requests which are governed more broadly by the username policy.

So, I hear you asking, why am I doing this? Because I know I could do the job and as of right now we have promoted only three new crats in the last year and a half. I intend to avoid the part of this process tha is a huge a pain in the ass thusly: If you post a multi-part monster of a question asking me to second guess ten or fifteen old RFA decisions, don't be surprised if I completely ignore the entire question. The fact is that in 95% of RFAs the crats have no choice and no discretion is needed to perform the close. In those rare cases where judgement is required, I refer you to my three years of experience as an administrator with an exceptionally low record of being overturned, my nearly two years as an oversighter during which time not a single one of my actions has been investigated by the audit subcommittee much less overturned, and my squeaky clean block log. I think those things show a record of good judgement far beyond any answers I might give to pander to the desire to see if I might dare to contradict a previous decision made by crats acting in good faith. Feel free to ask any other questions you like or to ask what I would do in specific hypothetical situations. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: Generally, if you are above 80% you pass, if you are below 70% you fail. The rare cases in between require careful analysis of the debate, appropriate weighing of arguments from all sides, and, if one still cannot see a clear consensus at that point, a general discussion between crats as to what the consensus is. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: One thing those who know me know already is that if I believe I see a consensus to do something I will go ahead and say so even if I know it is going to anger a segment of those who participated in the discussion. All admins who close any type of discussion here know they will get grief sometimes no matter how obvious the conclusion was. As I mentioned in my answer to Q1, if I was not sure about consensus I would initiate a crat chat to help resolve the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: The community has already placed a high degree of trust in me by making me an oversighter. It's mostly boring but very important work that takes place in almost complete secrecy. That position requires one to identify themselves to the Foundation and to commit to reading all these awful things just so we can remove them and never talk about them again. Frankly, I think a user who does that is already more trusted than someone who flips switches on bots and admins and handles rename requests.

As far as fairness, I have reviewed hundreds of unblock requests and take every one seriously no matter what the person did to get blocked in the first place. I've had users actually thank me for declining their requests a few times.

My policy knowledge is pretty thorough, espescially in the area of user names as I previously spent a lot of time at WP:UAA and was pretty much the only user dealing with the holding pen for most of last year. I have participated in a number of RFAs and discussions of how we might "fix" the process and was one of the people to put forward a community desysopping proposal during the (doomed) attempt to come up with one last year. I am maybe a bit weak on bot policy but making the actual decision is more or less up to WP:BAG anyway, the crats just need to be able to correctly read the consensus of their discussions.

I engage other users all the time, that is how this whole thing works after all. I've dealt with the entire spectrum from newbies to crusty out-of-touch old school admins to outright trolls who create sockpuppets specifically becasue they want to be caught again. I'm still here and haven't completely lost my mind yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Callanecc

4. I believe that one of the problems facing bureaucratship is that once appointed crats slacken off as they have reached a pinacle of the Wikipedia career (which I know, is somewhat of an exaggerated statement, however about half the appointed crats used their tools in the last 6 months).
So my question is this, how much time would be be willing to devote to doing bureaucrat tasks (for example, per week or month)?

A:I generally do not plan my Wikipedia activities at all. For example, I had no idea when I logged in this morning that by the end of the day I would file an RFB. I participated in some discussions, handled a few oversight requests, closed a bunch stale discussions listed at WP:ANRFC, and then wandered over here and starting thinking about the Wikimania discussion mentioned in my nom. That it pretty much how I roll. What I can tell you is that in addition to the reasons mentioned in my nom, I am also looking for something new to do. I find it keeps Wikipedia interesting and helps prevent burnout if you change your focus once in a while. So, I would anticipate using them pretty much every day I am online and can find a place where they are needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. What is your long-term time frame for continuing to contribute to Wikipedia (that is, are you only planning to edit for another 6 months)?

A:I don't have any plans to quit. I wouldn't waste the communities time with this nomination if I did. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from SilkTork

6. I understand your reluctance to answer tedious questions; however, it is not the 95% of easy RfAs that matter, it is those RfAs that require judgement. It would be useful for those members of the community who do not know your work, and haven't the time to work through your three years of contributions as an admin, to give some examples of how you would close the RfAs that require judgement. Would you pick three recent RfAs which closed within the 'crat discretionary area, and say how you would have closed them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, I'll meet you in the middle and give a more generalized response. The first thing I would do would be to carefully read every support and every oppose and see which, if any, contained baseless or illogical arguments that could be rejected entirely. Sometimes some of the most insightful comments are in the neutral section so those would be factored in as well, espescially if other uses were citing them in their own comments. If that did not sway things enough to make consensus clear, I believe a "crat chat" would be in order. While it is usually fine for one person to close a content RFC or XFD discussions, one user should never be the deciding factor as to who is and is not an administrator. The community has made it abundantly clear that crats are not to substitute their own judgement for that of the community. A careful analysis and discussion between crats is more likely to produce a result that properly reflects the community's will. I'm not afraid to make tough decisions but I am very aware that closing an RFA is not just any old decision and needs to be treated with the upmost care and caution. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Electriccatfish2

7. Bureaucrats often deal with renaming users, which requires your knowledge of the username policy. In the following cases, a user has requested to change his or her username. Please determine whether the following usernames are acceptable or not. (These usernames are all based on usernames that I have encountered).

• Ilovesex (talk · contribs)
• Analjuices (talk · contribs)
• Trollmaster9845 (talk · contribs)

A:None of them are a good idea as they will invariably lead to problems. As a matter of policy, only Analjuices would be completely disallowed. If I saw requests for the other two at CHU I would endeavor to explain to them that although their name was not a clear-cut violation of our username policy it was exactly the sort of name that will bring negative attention to their account. A lot of folks fail to realize that unlike most corners of the internet we actually care here what accounts are named. Where the line is on "offensiveness" is impossible to clearly define, something I find completely innofensive may be horrifying to other users. From my extensive work at UAA I have found that often simply explaining this to a user, without a template or the threat of a block, can be the most effective approach. A few users below have noted my lack of experience at CHU. If how many edits I have at that particular page is the sole measure of my experinece and knowledge with username issues, yea, it looks a bit thin. That's because there is actual work for admins at WP:UAA and WP:UAA/HP and WP:RFC/N. Check my edit numbers there and You will get another impression altogether. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from WJBscribe

8. In your closing statement at Talk:Ivory Coast#Requested Move: Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast, you say "at a glance if we went by straight numbers we would arrive at yet another "no consensus" result. That is, in my opinion, not acceptable." I found this rather a surprising comment. Why was "no consensus" not an acceptable outcome?
I'm aware that you have to some extent aswered this question before as part of the WP:MRV, but to be honest I'm not much clearer as to what you meant having read that, so would appreciate further clarification if you don't mind.

A:Like most portions of a sentence, that fragment is not meant to be taken in complete isolation from the rest of the paragraph. Here is the full text of my closing statement:

So, if you take that stement in context it is actually fairly innocuous. I was just trying to express that, unlike, say, an RFA, we don't close content discussions based solely on numbers. If we did, if I took the easy way out and just went by numbers, we would have had no consensus. As is implied by your next question, I clearly did not take that approach. I evaluated the arguments instead. The unnaceptable part is that this had been under discussion for six years, the page had been moved back and forth numerous times, and there were entrenched camps on both sides presenting contradictory information, making nasty or snide comments at the other side, all the unpleasentnes one finds in long drawn out disputes like this. During the move review all that exact same behavior continued, and I have no doubt these same parties will continue in the same manner until someone finds a way to put this on front of ArbCom. Most naming disputes end up there well before the six year mark. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9. In that closing statement, you state that "serving readers" (which you interpret to mean readers finding the article at the title they would expect) is the core issue. On what basis did you decide that this consideration, rather than say the application of policies such was WP:NPOV and WP:RS, was the "core" issue?

A:Well first off serving our readers should be the core issue in everything we do. Everything. If that doesn't concern you you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia articles. In this case it was also the core component of the arguments to move the article, I just put that argument in my own words when closing it. I found it very compelling, and it was backed by data present in the RM pertaining to what types of sources used which name. Things got so sprawled out duting the move review that one user collected all of my comment son the matter at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 July 10/Beeblebrox comments. If you really want more detail there it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from SarekOfVulcan

10. As a followup to, or as part of Q6, how would you have closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2? (Feel free to decline answering this without prejudice on my part.)

'A:Iif i've done my math right it ended squarely in the discretionary zone with about 73% support. It also seems like there was fairly strong support for the position that you failed to follow WP:INVOLVED. There is, however, a slightly thornier aspect to this as this was a re-confirmation RFA. This is such a rare occurence that I don't believe there is much consensus or other guidance on how they should be handled. I know there are some who feel standards should be a bit looser at a reconfirmation because even the most careful, good faith assuming admin is going to have made some enemies of they have been doing their job right, but there is no actual policy on wheher to weigh things differently in one of these. Many of your supporters acknowledged that the opposition had made good points but they did not see them as sufficient to oppose entirely, and many of your opposers still had nice things to say about you or qualified their opposition as "weak." And there are a few who opposed only because it was a reconfirmation RFA. There is certainly not an easy answer here, and either way it went a lot of people were going to feel it was the wrong decision. Additionally you were involved in a rather ugly dispute with TT during the RFA. If this were a "normal" RFA that almost certainly would have made it swing into a clear failure. I would say "crat chat" was in order but according to remarks in the "general comments" section there were only one or two around who would not be obligated to recuse themselves anyway. I don't want to second guess how Joe came to the decision to pass you but I can't say I would've come to that conclusion. The only way I can see it coming down on that side would be if we had some sort of consensus for judging re-confirmations differently than other RFAs. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Hipocrite

11. 'crats have the technical ability to remove administrator permissions. Imagine that an RFA candidate made a pledge to do something and said pledge was the only reason their RFA reached either the "judgement call" threshold - they would have failed without said pledge. Later on, they explicitly failed to do that thing, and renounced their earlier promise to ever do that thing. Removing their administrator permissions would not impact the encyclopedia either positively or negatively in the grand scheme of things, except for whatever precedent you create. Would you remove said administrator permissions? How does your answer square with WP:IAR? How does your answer square with WP:LIE? Thanks.

Interesting question. The problem here is that despite many efforts in that direction we have no community based desyssoping process. A crat cannot simply step in and substitute their own judgement in the absence of such a process. I don't like liars and I would say they deserve to lose their adminship but in the present environment this sounds like something ArbCom would need to handle as it is a behavioral issue and that is their remit. I am a believer in following IAR when appropriate but since you explicitly say it would not harm the encyclopedia IAR does not apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

• Stats posted on the talk page. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 05:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Since a few opposers have brought it up I will comment here about the recent Pending Changes RFC. Yes, I have an opinion about whether we should use PC. I have never before heard of any prohibition on someone having an opinion being the one to open an RFC on the subject. As to the structure, it was designed to force a result. Not my preferred result, just some sort of concrete result. A few users have expressed concerns that this type of very restricted discussion may become a template for future policy RFCs. I certainly hope it does not. Personally I believe such restrive measures should only be taken in a case like this one where years of discussions have been filibustered to the point where an actionable reslt is impossible and large portions of the community are no longer even willing to discuss the issue. We tried it the usual way and it did not work. I waited a year for someone else to try again and nobody did. So, I designed a processwith only three possible outcomes, and before the RFC went live I recruited previously uninvolved users to adminstrate the RFC and perform a close. I deliberately put my preferred outcome in the middle, generally considered the weakest position when multiple choices are offered. The outcome was in no way, shape, or form a foregone conclusion. It could just have easily ended with a decision to do away with PC altogether. I would have been fine with that because it would have been a decision. That, above all else, is what we needed. for those who are interested policy on how to use it once it is redeployed is under discussion at WP:PC2012. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the closers of the RfC, I also think it's worth noting that Beeblebrox had no participation in the closing. That was left to me and 3 other admins, and we didn't take who started the RfC into account at all, so the extent of his influence on the process was his comment left in support of his preferred outcome. If you're unhappy with the RfC outcome, the right people to blame are me and the other closers. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support Unconditionally. I supported Beeb for admin, and have been pleased by how he's done as admin, to the point that I urged him to run for ArbCom (he had better sense though). Proud to support him for crat.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support My interactions with this editor have been positive, and a review of their admin actions gives me no indication that they would abuse additional permissions. VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I've watched a number of instances where Beeb has acted as admin and seen that he's knowledgable, thorough and fair. Glad to see he threw his name in the ring. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 23:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Absolutely. Not just because I don't want to correct the delusions of a madman, but because I honestly believe he'll be darn good at it. Every interaction I've had with him, even when he indefinitely blocked me, has been civil and well thought through on his part. Everything I've seen him do makes sense. And he's competent as well. How could one not support? And that this is my third attempt to support, the rest being prevented by edit conflicts, says something too... Egg Centric 23:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support no reason to think this will be problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support, last week we both had much to do because of socking user who doesn't speak English... mabdul 23:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Kind of a no-brainer on this oneconsidering all the work he has done during his adminship. Baseball Watcher 00:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Deeply clueful. We need this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Sensible, active, reliable. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support No concerns. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - I certainly trust Beeblebrox with the extra buttons. —DoRD (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Support A clearly trusted user. While there may be not a huge need for another crat, there is no reason not to give the buttons to the ones satisfying the criteria of trust. It makes the system work, overall, better, if by a tiny bit. Pundit|utter 01:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12. Support Beeblebrox is more than qualified and trustworthy enough for the job. Excellent choice for a new 'crat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 01:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Reputation precedes the candidate. Happy to support; thanks for volunteering. Townlake (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Has served as an oversighter without complaint, no reason to suspect they'd break things with the 'crat buttons. 28bytes (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support obviously--Morning Sunshine (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support provided he doesn't give up his admin mop when he becomes a bureaucrat. We need admins like him. (Do we have any other admins with two heads?) --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Good admin will make a good crat.--v/r - TP 02:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Highly trusted long-term editor and admin. -- Dianna (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. You want the job? I'm happy to support. Now let's hope the dividends pay off ;) -- œ^™ 02:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. I have worked with this user, and have never seen anything but good. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see why not. Beeblebrox is a sensible administrator with plenty of experience at RfA. I trust that he'd be able to judge consensus pretty well. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indenting my support vote. Sorry, but Useight's oppose has highlighted some things that I find concerning (particularly the username block). Master&Expert (Talk) 05:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

22. Support Though my opinions often differ from his, Beeblebrox is a stalwart admin and an excellent judge of consensus. We need more 'crats - especially more 'crats with his good judgment and cool head. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support, do not expect any problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support as I find no problems with Beeblebrox as a 'crat. Opposing simply because of his/her view on an RfC that was fairly closed is unjustified.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. Mainly because of Beeble's comment on this RfA, but also for finding no reason to oppose. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. As Beeblebrox suggests in his nomination statement it's a nothing job anyway, so why not? Malleus Fatuorum 06:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support because we could use another couple bureaucrats and anyone who's good enough for oversight access has already gained an immense amount of trust. As to the PC RfC business below, if you don't like the result you can blame me and the three other closers; Beeblebrox had nothing to do with the outcome beyond one comment supporting the continued use of PC. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - Trusted member of the community, good admin, no issues of concern. Unconvinced by opposing argument. Jusdafax 06:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29. Stephen 06:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30. AGK [•] 06:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

31. Support. Trusted admin/oversighter with a track record of showing good judgment. And it really is no big deal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Absolutely. I can't think of enough words to express how much I support this, so this is enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Per Kudpung. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support without reservation. --j⚛e decker^talk 08:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Don't see any reasons why we shouldn't have another crat; don't see any reasons why Beeblebrox wouldn't be able to handle all the extra responsibility. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - They have lost their mind and it is enough for me to oppose. — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 08:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Moved to oppose — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 07:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

36. Support - long term administrator with an enviable record of balance, fairness and good work. QU ^TalkQu 08:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - It's always seemed odd to me that RfB has a higher threshold than RfA when the extra powers are so much fewer. I know Beeblebrox to be an excellent and diligent admin and can see every reason to add the buttons. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That's because everything that an admin can do can be quickly undone by another admin. When a 'crat promotes someone to an admin, there is no easy route to undo that. In fact, as far as I am aware, no admin promotion has been undone. Admins are desysopped on request by the admin, when they have done something wrong, or if they have been inactive, but not because a 'crat made a mistake. The assumption being that a 'crat's judgement is final and binding. When 'crats are carrying out obvious consensus, their role is no big deal, but when they are dealing with contentious RfAs, it's a very big deal indeed, and there have been some shocking decisions made. Which is why I am a little concerned that this candidate is telling us that he will refuse to answer the standard questions on how he would close contentious RfAs - how a candidate answers those questions gives the community some insight into the candidate's appropriateness for the role. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well no it gives us an idea on what they would say to become a crat, their history of making contentious decisions and making contentious closes is what gives us an idea on how they will act as a crat. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

38. Strong-Jack-Support ;>  Br'erRabbit  09:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Everything I've seen of Beeblebrox's admin-ship has been impressive, so I'm sure that they'll use the extra buttons sensibly. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
40. I had forgotten that you have been an admin for nearly three years! Shows how much time has flown. At any rate, I think you're a fine admin, I don't have a problem with you being a bureaucrat, and I like your answer to question 5. Acalamari 10:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Now all we need is for you to run :) Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

41. Support seems to be a very reliable and trustworthy admin, all of my dealings have been positive and productive. Answer to my questions were good (particularly Q5). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support I am confident that Beeblebrox will do a good job. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support I can't add anything new that others haven't already said.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - we do indeed need more 'crats and I can't think of many more suitable that Beeblebrox. GiantSnowman 11:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Why not? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Yay! More hell!—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Don't see anything wrong with this candidate. --J36miles (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Primarily per EggCentric. This administrator has a clear head and he'll make a good bureaucrat. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Moving to oppose Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Support After watching his contributions, there's no way i could say no. Also, we do need more crats right now, and he's one of those perfect fits for the job. Regards. —Hahc21 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

48. Support - Certainly a trusted user; has a good record as an admin and oversighter. Worm's is the only oppose that has any merit and, while I understand where he's coming from, I think Beeblebrox has more than demonstrated that he can be trusted as a bureaucrat. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Nice user and good edits so they should be a crat. We as a community need to be supporting not opposing as we certainly need more crats and admins. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
50. My initial oppose was erred. Beeblebrox and the community deserve better than that. A close look at contributions show Beeblebrox as exactly the kind of candidate I want to support. And therefor am. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
51. Keegan (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support per nom. --John (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. He has done very well for the community with the roles and tools that he already has so we should give him the chance to do more.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. As a Wikiquote 'crat, I am keenly aware that this is a much lower-drama function than people imagine. There are enough 'crats to check each other over contentious closes of things, and the bulk of the task is straightforward button-pushing for RFAs with clear outcomes, mundane name changes, and uncontroversial bot flag approvals. Distributing this work across an additional mop and bucket is always welcome, and I trust Beeblebrox to do it well. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support I see nothing that this user has done to make me think he shouldn't be a 'crat. --rogerd (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Yes, yes, and yes. I met you at Wikimania and I was very impressed at who you are as a person. This isn't to say I didn't think anything before, but I really think you'll be awesome with the few extra tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. I understand the concerns raised in the oppose section, including some by people I respect on issues that may be important. But for the actual duties of the 'crat, I haven't seen much reason to doubt his ability to fulfill the responsibilities associated with the job. I personally think the standard of "not being controversial" is great in theory, but rough in practice. How do I determine that? At a certain point, we just have to see how this editor engages with others. My own limited interactions have been positive, and nothing raised in the opposes changes that mindset of him. Therefore, I am happy to support. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Always seen him doing a great job for the community. Absolutely no concerns, he has my full confidence and trust. --IShadowed 22:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support...I have taken a few hours to evaluate this support for Beeblebrox. Some time ago, Beeblebrox stepped into the hell of the September 11 attacks article in an admin capacity. Anyone willing to go there to get bicking parties to cease and desist deserves a free psych evaluation afterwards. Anyway, indeed, Beeblebrox managed to get things calmed down and some progress was made towards article improvement. In another event more recently, Beeblebrox was patient in explaining why we use COMMONNAME in the Elk article...an argument which springs up from time to time...Beeblebrox was again patient in explaining the issues to concerned parties. This doesn't mean I agree with Beeblebrox on each and every encounter we have had and they are not perfect, perhaps overly involved in some of the AN/I junk and what not...but I see no reason to believe that a few extra tools and the added responsibility will be abused or misused by Beeblebrox.--MONGO 22:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Great admin will be good crat. B S 00:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. Beeblebrox is a fine administrator and I think they will do just as fine as a bureaucrat. I like their no-nonsense approach and for such a hardrocking man he's quite sensitive, on-wiki at least. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
62. Has a good head on his shoulders, always makes common sense decisions. Also, several of the opposes are just bizarre: the RM close was spot on, it ended something like eight years of "no consensus" and followed WP:AT, which is of paramount importance for RMs; while I respect the guys who put in a lot of uncontroversial work at CHU, many of our best 'crats are actually the outspoken ones who have strong opinions and, IMO, we need more like that; and, having looked over the RfC, I don't see that he did anything wrong, despite my personal view of PC being the opposite of his (though probably not as strongly). Jenks24 (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Shows good understanding of policies. Actions speak louder than words. His performance as Admin has been good till date. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
64. Qualified/cautious/conditional Support - I've read the opposes and they make valid points. I've thought about this for a while today as I found myself unable to commit either way initially, but ultimately I figured and extra experienced person to talk over marginal RfAs for 'crat chats, as well as an extra pair of hands at renames etc. is a solid enough benefit to make up for shortfalls elsewhere. However, I trust and hope that marginal and complex cases will see discussion, rumination and caution. Don't let me down.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. Of course! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support User has my support. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support I was talking to Gag Halfrunt about this just the other day, and he summed it up best: Vell look, Beeblebrox’s just zis admin, you know..?. Although I understand the oppose issues, I disagree with them - I feel they were either appropriate or within the discretionary area. I feel that Beeblebrox can be trusted with 'cratship. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Like All THHGTTG references appreciated. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    [[File:|18px|link=]] - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

68. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 18:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
69. -Support Beeblebrox has consistently shown that they are extremely careful when making closes. Not everyone will agree with their closes, but that's always true, and Beeblebrox always demonstrates that serious thought and methodical examination of the consensus goes into a close. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Keepscases (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Why, you ask? First, because we need more bureaucrats. Second, because I see no valid reason to oppose Beeblebrox. Third, because he shows a good grasp of the job. --Orlady (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Some opposes made me to think twice, but I still feel that he is a good candidate. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - Handled a recent RM and Review Move very well despite provocation from some unhappy editors, and based on many of the points above would likely be a very good bureaucrat. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support per Snowolf. Hipocrite (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Seems like a trustworthy, dedicated user, and I see no real reason to oppose bureaucratship in this case. Michael (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
76. There are backlogs that need crat attention, answers to questions above seem good, I don't see any reason not to support, and whats the worst that could happen!? Monty₈₄₅ 00:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support I would vote him for president, but sadly, he is not interested. What a world... --Lecen (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. Some of the concerns raised by the opposers are reasonable, and numerically the opposes are enough that this RfB is not going to pass, but I still think Beeblebrox is qualified for the bureaucrat role. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support - well-trusted and dedicated user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support definitely a dedicated user which should be good enough reason on its own. But, this candidate has many other pluses, some of which are demonstrated by the oppose !votes. Whether or not the Ivory Coast/Cote d'Ivoire closure was correct, it does show that he (I believe he's a he but apologies if not) prefers to wade through a controversial consensus discussion rather than to take the easy way out with a "no consensus" decision. That, I think, is the exact quality that we want in a bureaucrat. I also waded through some of the meta material and must say that it while it makes interesting reading it is definitely not a reason to oppose. Even a thick skinned editor would have been tempted to have a fit and retire completely from Wikipedia! Mongo's Sept. 11th example above is also convincing. Given the sheer number of admin actions that Beeblebrox has taken, it is not hard to find an idiotic decision to base an oppose !vote on (I found one), but, I believe, it is the willingness to make hard decisions that will make him a good bureaucrat. --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. NewYorkBrad and RegentsPark sum up my thoughts well. He's not perfect, no one is arguing that, but I do believe him to be trustworthy and up to the task. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
82. SupportI have seen this editor/admin working for years.I am wholly certain that he has only the best interests of wikipedia at heart, and has the skill to function to this interest as a competent bureacrat.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Beeblebrox is one of the best and most decent admins I had ever come across from previous experiences - and that is very rare! Bureaucratship for Beeblebrox would be a great advantage to Wikipedia. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support great editor, usually displays excellent judgement. Some of the opposes are troubling. The pending changes plebiscite was a misuse of the RFC process, both that and the Ivory Coast RM indicate a worrying tendency to look for a clearcut decision one way or another. The PC business indicates an unfortunate closing off of the possibility of seeking a more consensus based decision. However changing usernames and especially RFA are areas where compromise is rarely an option. If an RFA has run 7 days then we need crats who can call it one way or the other, and I think that Beeblebrox is well qualified to do that. ϢereSpielChequers 20:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support. Don't see any reason to oppose. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. First, my apologies for being so late to the party; but there were a few things I needed to think through. I've known [of] Beebs for a few years now, so he's not "new" to me. I think WormTT, WJBscribe, Coren, and to some extent SilkTork raise some valid concerns. As far as having a strong view of PC, I can't fault a person for that - it's good to have beliefs. My biggest concern however was the nature of Beeb's responses to questions and opposes here. While I think everyone should have the right to defend themselves, at times they seemed defensive, and almost confrontational. My experience leads me to think that /most/ current 'crats tend to be a bit more dispassionate and detached when commenting. I also don't fault anything said or done on "meta" or any other area of the wiki or web. Different areas have different standards and rules. In the end, I feel that 'crat tends to be a rather mundane and boring task, and I think Beebs would be good at dealing with that. I fully believe he's here to improve the project, that he's dedicated, passionate, and a good person and wikipedian. So if this is an area he wants to work in - then I personally would be willing to give him a shot at it. He didn't "break teh wiki" when he got the mop - so even though this particular request may be falling into the "red zone"; I personally would support him having those couple extra tab/buttons. Chedzilla (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support While I have no opinion concerning the merits of the Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast close, I see an administrator that applied his own judgment to a difficult situation. This is the most important skill that any admin can learn, and doubly so for a bureaucrat. Being the one to make difficult decisions and stand by them when other admins skulk about in the background is commendable and, in my opinion, embodies the best qualities of a Wikipedian. That alone shows me an individual that is worthy of community trust. Trusilver 23:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support I believe he is fully capable of being a good bureaucrat. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 00:26, July 27, 2012 (UTC)
89. First time Support Has many edits and has been here for 5 years already. Got any cake there? TruPepitoM (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support Seem's very trustworthy! -Webclient101 (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support I've only seen good things from this editor. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support A good candidate. Dedication is obvious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 21:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support I've always had a great respect for him as an admin, and I can't see him doing a bull in a china shop act as a crat. This RfB looks likely to go down the pan, so here's to next time... Peridon (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose, per the inglorious role in the recent Pending Changes RfC. If someone is unfamiliar with the background, look-up Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012. A quote by Seraphimblade from a recent RFAR request[1] sums up the problem with Beeblebrox's role in the RfC quite well: *The user who designed the RfC, Beeblebrox, also clearly supported PC: [2]. Given how rigid the structure of the RfC was, and that others were prohibited from adding new sections (especially the very popular "Improve first" position), it is quite inappropriate that someone with a strong view on the discussion decided on the rigid structure. If the RfC must be rigidly structured, it should have been drafted by someone neutral on the subject. This gave Beeblebrox an inappropriate opportunity to channel discussion on the matter, and whether intentional or not, it would be almost impossible for someone with a strong opinion to draft a completely neutral RfC. This one wasn't, and it excluded at least one critical and popular opinion, to improve before use. That's why we generally allow everyone to add opinion sections, and don't do rigid voting/ballot type structures. We certainly should not do such when a partisan in the matter is designing the structure.' Implementation was separated from activation. Rather than a full discussion deciding if we can come to a consensus on how to use PC, it was essentially stated that even if we cannot, it will be activated with a "draft" use policy, also drafted by Beeblebrox. This "activation even if we can't agree how" was not, to the best of my ability to find, noted as a consequence of "supporting" the RfC. After something like this I would not support even an RfA request, leastways an RfB. Nsk92 (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Not trying to badger, but no one is completely neutral on anything and it makes sense that someone supportive would create and structure the RFC. They have the most to gain from it and so they should do the work to get it. Kind of a ridiculous reason, but feel free to hold onto your opinion. To me, it's the equivalent of saying "User X wants Y so they should've never asked to have it and waited until someone who didn't want it came along." Really, please explain how that RFC should have gone because I am positive you are being completely unrealistic.--v/r - TP 02:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I would just note that ArbCom rejected the case request quoted here as without merit, and the tail end of the quote selected is a criticism of the close itself, which I had no part in. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   That ArbCom didn't think the matter warranted a case doesn't mean that they necessarily saw no basis in the complaint about how the RfC was set up. I for one would be interested to hear your views in response to the criticism of how the RfC was put together. Is it fair to say that the structure inherently made a "yes" result more likely, and do you think it generally helpful to establish "permitted responses" to a proposal in advance, rather than have a more organic discussion? WJBscribe (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   since this is essentially a question for me I have responded to it at the top of the discussion section so that it will be more easily visible to everyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose There's certainly a lot to like about Beeblebrox, but after seeing his "Ivory Coast" RM close, I'm not comfortable with him closing potentially contentious RfAs. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   What was wrong with that close? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Lots of people disagreed with it (including me, but for me it doesn't by itself constitute an oppose reason). —Kusma (t·c) 14:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   14 hours in and the talk page is still a red link. No thanks After a closer look at the instructions, I admit the reference to a malformed nomination does not appear to encompass actions to post stats and blue link the talk page. In light of the flack Beeblebrox is catching for the PC RfC, which conduct I commend, I am moving to support this nomination. - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   WTF? Seriously? You are opposing because this talk page has a red-link? I'll be sure to do that at your RfA.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Now it's blue. What's next? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 14:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   This will for sure be ignored by the closing crat' — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   You can oppose for any reason you like Strat, but this might not be the best vote I've seen coming from you, considering it is others that tend to fill in the paperwork here. I've always thought well of you, but this seems beneath you. I hope you reconsider your rationale, if not your vote here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 17:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose for now I think I'm going to land here for the moment, and watch how things progress. I like 'crats to be wholly uncontroversial, just keep their head down and do the job - in other words, more boring than me. Yet Beeblebrox doesn't fit in that category. He turns up at the more controversial boards, (842 edits to ANI, putting him in the top 100 contributors) and I believe he's been dragged to them a few times. I also notice that he hasn't worked at CHU, hasn't worked at USURP, (three edits to each), only has one edit to a BRfA (where he specifically says he doesn't know about BRfA) and has only voted in 5 RfAs in the past 12 months. Basically, I think he's a good admin, but I'm not convinced that he is the right person for the 'crat job. Worm^TT(talk) 14:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Worm That Turned!

   The candidate does turn up at ANI, and from my review of dozens of cases where my name appeared, he never did anything bad. The candidate seems to have been a steady and rapid hand on non-controversial cases, and has avoided rushing to judgment or spouting off. Please take a second look! Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I quite agree. From what I've seen, Beeblebrox is an excellent admin, who does a lot of good work at ANI. However, a 'crats job is very different from an admins, their entire role is to be the least controversial editors on the encyclopedia. Whether his edits are good or bad on ANI, there's far too many for my liking. A 'crat has to do an awful lot of weighing consensus, and considering the controversy over Beeblebrox at Pending Changes "manipulating consensus", I just don't believe he fits the profile of a 'crat. Worm^TT(talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   What worries me about that approach, is that it suggests that admins with ambition should avoid ANI, which will make it even more cliquey. I suppose you could argue that admins with ambition are the people we least want to be beuraucrats, but then again the people who want to be admins are the people we least want to be admins, really. Egg Centric 18:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Ambition? Ambition implies achievement, power and status - all things that I don't believe a bureaucrat should be looking for. Bureaucratship, in my opinion, should be given to an admin who is excellent at repetititive tasks, doesn't get involved in the "drama" of high profile areas, does significant work in bot requests, username work or adminship requests. We don't need many, for the most part they just rubber stamp decisions. That's the approach I'd rather take. Worm^TT(talk) 08:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Worm, you know I respect your opinion even when I do not agree with it, but your comments here seem to indicate that you are going mostly by edit counts.. A lot of my edits to ANI consist of nothing more than marking things as resolved. Many of them are me trying to communicate to the disputants that they are making a mountain out of a molehill and maybe a break from WP is a better idea than fighting. And of course I have been dragged there myself a few times. that's kind of par for the course for most active admins. No ANI thread contesting one of my actions has ever resulted in any sort of sanction. There's a lot more to it than number of edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Apologies if my comments do appear to be based on edit-countitis, I was attempting to quantify my view of your editing, not base my view upon those facts. I'm not intending to criticise your work at ANI, nor your work anywhere. You do an excellent job and although we don't always agree, I approve of that, it keeps me (and others) on their toes. If you were running for, say, Arbcom, you'd have my full support - but in my opinion, your temperment does not match the role of a bureaucrat. Worm^TT(talk) 08:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose per WormTT. ⇒TAP 14:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose because of concerns over Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012. The whole thing stunk to me of Beeblebrox insisting the RfC be run his way which was somewhat contradictory to how RfCs and other discussions at wikipedia usually work. While I agree that the end goal was commendable and this may have been the only way to have reached a meaningful conclusion I would have liked to have seen much more community discussion about the use of such an unusually run RfC. As such I cannot support this RfB. If there was more community discussion that I somehow missed I still could not support as I think Beeblebox showed poor judgement in not explaining the consensus for using such an unusual RfC in the introduction to it. Dpmuk (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   If you're familiar with all of the PC discussions, the discussions kept getting derailed, were completely unorganized, and highly charged. Beeblebrox was attempting to enforce order, not a specific outcome. There is a difference. If there was bias because of his preference, I doubt it was intentional and could only have been overcome by having a 2nd opposing party co-chair the discussion. That this didn't occur to Beeblebrox (or anyone else) at the time is not his fault.--v/r - TP 17:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not accusing Beeblebrox of bias, although given the oppose above it would have helped if I'd made that clear in my original !vote. I'm aware of the previous discussions and how they got derailed and think Beeblebrox's solution was a reasonable one. That said given the oddness of this RfC I think they should have done more to make sure the community was happy with the RfC preceding in this manner, i.e. got a community consensus that an RfC with a limited number of unchangeable options and that the community would be happy with the consensus so formed. The lack of discussion, as per a normal RfC, means, in my opinion at least, that this RfC lacks some legitimacy and it is because of Beeblebox's apparent inability to see this concern that I oppose. I don't want a bureaucrat that comes up with unusual solutions to big problems without first making sure that the community accepts the unusual solution. Dpmuk (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't agree, Dpmuk -- trying to make everyone happy is what kept this issue dragging on for so long. Someone at some point had to say "Ok, I don't care what the answer is, but we have to get one, and here's how we're going to do it." If they had tried to get total buyin on the method, it would have dragged on for another year. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose - Essentially WormTT said it best - BB gravitates towards areas of the Wiki that boast drama. I want my crats to fly under the radar, especially at ANI. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. This fellow is usually quite lovely, but the penchant for drama and his reactions to criticism of the pending changes RfC concern me. 'Crats need to deal with contentious stuff, and for that they will take criticism, but at that point their task is to diffuse the drama, not get defensive and deny it outright. The comment further down the page about taking the thing to arbcom also may have been somewhat WP:BEANSy, which may not have helped matters either, but then again... well, nevermind that; point is I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of Beeblebrox as a cratman, sorry. -— Isarra ༆ 17:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. As a bureaucrat, I don't comment as often on RFXs, so I can be available to close, but I'd like to use my "editor hat", if you will, at this time. First, we do indeed need more active bureaucrats, as many haven't used their tools much over the last six months (I'm looking at you, Useight!), but I'm not sure Beeblebrox is the person to do it. I have the following concerns:
   • Out of the gate, I agree with the others about some of the drama, but I also have some concerns of my own.
   • I prefer an RFB candidate be more reserved, more deliberate, more measured. I'm not sure what word I'm searching for here, but I feel like Beeblebrox is too hasty, and too quick on the draw. Bureaucrats need to take their time and gauge consensus, there's no rush (especially when looking at whether or not consensus exists at an RFX, as there is no "undo" button if you realize you overlooked something).

   • Amoung Beeblebrox's last 500 contributions, I found 16 in which he/she was fixing his/her own typos, blaming it on the spell checker or the keyboard on multiple occasions. There could be more in there, I didn't go through it with a fine-tooth comb. My point isn't that he/she makes typos. Everyone does that. But there just seemed to be so many in just the first page of contribs that it felt indicative of being too hasty. Not willing to double-check one's work because it's apparently more important to get that work out the door. With bureauractic work, the goal isn't to get everything done, it's to get everything done right. RFXs often sit past their scheduled closing time because it's not mission critical to close it right when the clock says so. Of course, this needs to be balanced with ensuring that backlogs don't start getting out of control, but I feel like Beeblebrox's pendulum is too far to one side on this issue.
   • The hastiness can also been seen in the answer to Q4 of this very RFB: "I had no idea when I logged in this morning that by the end of the day I would file an RFB." That's a more flippant thought process than I like to see in a bureaucrat candidate.
   • I'm sure I can find other examples, if needed, but the overall feel I get from Beeblebrox is go, go, go. Very gung-ho. These are good attributes to have, but I don't know if they mesh very well with the responsibilities of a bureaucrat.

   • Bureaucrat-related work. This all being said, Beeblebrox is a great admin. I looked through some of his/her admin-related work and didn't stumble onto anything alarming. The thing is, though, admin work and 'crat work are something of a different beast. And that is something that seems to escape Beeblebrox in the link here, "A few users below have noted my lack of experience in CHU...That's because there is actual work for "admins" at WP:UAA and WP:UAA/HP and WP:RFC/N." That's all fine and dandy for an admin to do admin work, in fact, that's why we have admins. But one should also be familiar with the areas that one is trying to jump into before one jumps into it. Certainly UAA and others are somewhat related, but I expect one to also have gotten their feet wet at WP:USURP, for example. Then again, I didn't really see much work at those other places either. Going back to the end of 2011, I only found 11 edits to WP:RFC/N. And I didn't see a single edit to WP:UAA in the last six months.
   • I did see that Beeblebrox blocked User:Ianmattoch in March for a username violation. While the user's userpage was indeed spam for their law firm, the username itself was simply a person's real name and, per WP:REALNAME, is allowed.
   • I thought this comment (including edit summary) from a couple weeks ago was definitely not the kind of demeanor I want in a bureaucrat.
   • And lastly, I feel like Beeblebrox is a little too aloof, with comments like this in which he/she insinuates that a bureauct must simply flip a switch. This is technically correct, but it came across as not comprehending the magnitude of that flip switching because it's very difficult to unflip that switch. This one, in conjuction with the hastiness noted above, definitely gives me pause.
   • Caveat: I've been away from Wikipedia for awhile, so I'm willing to reconsider if I see evidence that my interpretation of Beeblebrox is out-dated. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
   • Addendum: These three diffs 1, 2, 3, strengthen my oppose. Really not what I look for in an RFX candidate. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Anout the typo thing: I used to always use my laptop. The spellchecker on it works very well and always highlights any mistakes in red. Lately I have been using an iPad. The spellchecker on this seems to go on and off at random and I can't find any way in the preferences to adjust it. I should probably go to one of those web forums full of insufferable Apple worshippers and ask them what to do about it. About deciding to nominate myself: As I mentioned in my nom I discussed this with a grop at Wikimania. it not as though I have never thought about it before, it is just that yesterday I made the decision to just go for it and see what happened. I'm not in a hurry but I do try to be decisive. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I can vouch for this: Beeblebrox was with a "grop" at Wikimania, cussing away at his iPad and tugging his beard all the while. He certainly looked less comfortable with that contraption (not the beard) than my three-year old daughter. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose. I am concerned that in both the Côte d'Ivoire RM and Pending Changes RfC, Beeblebrox appears to place a very high premium on achieving a definite outcome, apparently frustrated at such outcomes otherwise not being achieved by the usual consensus-finding process. When I asked question 8, I wondered whether Beeblebrox was going to explain that "just counting heads" was what he meant to be the unacceptable result and that this statement had just been expressed unclearly. But whilst his answer explains that this part of what he meant, he goes on to say that it is the long running stalemate (and associated conduct issues) that he found unacceptable. A natural result of collaborative editing is that often there will be no consensus. As everyone is equal and there is no person or group empowered to make editorial or policy decisions when consensus is lacking, stalemate will sometimes result. I can't help but think all that Beeblebrox's close of that discussion achieved was to move the page from one name to the other, still without any real consensus being established in the process.
   In my opinion, there is no consensus on enwiki as to whether Côte d'Ivoire or Ivory Coast is the correct title for the article. That doesn't trouble me unduly. The role that Beeblebrox took in closing that discussion does not appear to me to be finding consensus, but to sit as judge over the arguments deployed. There being no agreement as to the name, Beeblebrox felt the need to make a decision. Whilst I have sympathy with the motivation in doing so, and gauging consensus is certainly about more than counting heads, this takes it too far.
   Another issue I have with the RM close is that Beeblebrox's prioritisation of serving the reader over the integrity of content (i.e. meeting core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS) colours his closing analysis: he explains he found this argument compelling and therefore chose it as the "core issue", it was not that the consensus of the discussion was that this should be the core issue. Those objecting to the move clearly did not agree and I do not think it could be said that there is a consensus in this regard. I am sorry, but I cannot support a candidate so apparently ready to substitute his own judgment where consensus is unclear for bureaucratship. The closing bureaucrat does not have a casting vote and I'm not sure Beeblebrox understands the difference between casting such a vote and gauging consensus. I am left with the strong impression that his views of what constitutes consensus are simply to far at odds with mine. WJBscribe (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Regretfully, I feel that I must oppose strongly in light of Wikipedia:Ignore Meta. Aside from the fact that the SUL implications of renames mean that I have always found a positive working relationship with meta helpful, this simply isn't the kind of response to conflict that I would expect from an admin candidate, let alone one for bureaucratship. WJBscribe (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose. Making an issue out of answering standard questions of how they would deal with challenging RfA closes makes it difficult to support the candidate. There's a tension set up immediately which places the candidate in opposition to the role they are applying for which is to serve the community and follow consensus. We want to trust the 'crat's judgement, not have different opinions about it. And when I read other people's concerns I feel that Beeblebrox may be just a bit too controversial for a 'crat. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong Oppose per SilkTork, per slightly confrontational stance on this page (including to SilkTork's question), and per concerns regarding username appropriateness, which does play a role in bureaucratship. --Rschen7754 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am curious as to what is unsatisfactory in my remarks about the usernames. I believe I have a fairly good grasp of the policy and I indicated i n mmy reply which name would be right out, and which would be discouraged even if they did not explicitly violate the policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bit concerned about your response to Ilovesex - what would you do if the user refused to change their username? I agree with the comments about Trollmaster needing more context. --Rschen7754 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, right, I remember you now. You are (or at least were) in favor of instant hardblocking of any name that could be interpreted as having any sort of sexual connotation no matter how mild and you don't feel it necessary to even drop them a block notice. I choose instead to follow consensus on this project as reflected by our username policy and the overriding principle of assuming good faith until there is evidence to the contrary. That is why "Ilovesex" would not be forced to change their username. It's stupid and likely to cause them not to be taken seriously but it does not unambiguously breach the policy. A long-departed admin did in fact block this username about a half an hour before their last-ever edit to WP and declined to leave any sort of explanation so I guess we are left to wonder what might have been if this name were to be registered today. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    While I do now agree that a hardblock was probably not the best option (as was most everything else I did that day), I see that we still differ in our interpretation of the username policy, and I cannot support, combined with SilkTork's concerns (the RFA questions are a well-accepted norm at RFB and show your insight into how you would perform your job at RFB, having been heavily involved in one of the RFAs that always pops up in one of those questions). --Rschen7754 22:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Upping to Strong Oppose per WP:IGNOREMETA. Even I have rather outspoken views on certain other WMF wikis, as my colleagues can confirm, but starting a campaign to destroy the working relationship between them for someone at the bureaucrat or advanced permission level is unacceptable; furthermore, per WJBscribe, is not conducive to the bureaucrat role. --Rschen7754 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose; with no small amount of regret. A few weeks ago, I would have almost certainly supported this RfB without reservation – and regretted sourly shortly thereafter.

    Beeblebrox recently closed a RM that had clearly no consensus – and which he acknowledges had no consensus – by substituting his own opinion on the merit of the arguments for the discussion. Indeed, he knew that the decision was contentious (note the edit summary). (As a disclaimer, I expressed my opinion in that RM, and it went opposite of what Beeblebrox eventually decided the decision should be).

    It's not the first time that I don't agree with someone's decision; not is it likely to be the last. I hold Beeblebrox absolutely no ill-will whatsoever because the decision didn't go "my" way. However – and that's the deal breaker – I cannot possibly support someone I have seen as explicitly ignoring the result of a contentious discussion to just declare a result by fiat: that's exactly the opposite of what we rely on bureaucrats for. — Coren ^(talk) 02:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You can oppose based on that RM if that's what you feel, but I never,ever, said that I believed there was no consensus. I said if I went by numbers alone there was no consensus and that fortunately that is not how content disputes work. Not the same thing, and frankly Coren I know you are smart enough to recognize the distinction. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem, Beeb, is that when the argument is about how policies apply, making a decision on how supported the arguments are by policy is simply taking position on the substance itself then deciding by fiat. My oppose isn't borne out of that close per se: as others have pointed out above, you occasionally try to cut Gordian knots with boldness. This may be good when editing articles, but in project space it's a recipe for disaster. I, for one, would not want to see a contentious RfA closed boldly; quite the opposite. — Coren ^(talk) 13:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose, WJBScribe said what I intended to say about the PC debacle probably more eloquently than I did. It is okay to have a decision left in limbo until, if ever, we come to a genuine consensus. The thing to do there is wait, be patient, and let it be hashed out. There is not a deadline. Trying to force an issue to resolution, before it's actually resolved, just leaves a lot of people bitter. Yes, sometimes that means discussion will seem interminable. That's alright too. If it just dies out, that means there wasn't sufficient support. If it ultimately pushes over the top and gains consensus, why then, there was. The fact that Beeblebrox not only felt that forcing the issue was the ideal course of action, but that he was the one to design the mechanism to do the forcing despite heavy involvement, does not leave me with any confidence in making future controversial decisions. The RM discussion, while I wasn't part of it, shows the same lack of judgment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose per WJBScribe and Seraphimblade, mostly. While Beeblebrox seems like a great admin most of the time, and one whom I generally quite admire (and with an excellent handle to boot), he has shown an unfortunate willingness to push his vision of what's "best" for Wikipedia against consensus. The RM decision was essentially a supervote, and the PC debate was a case of asking over and over until he got what he wanted, with a careful reframing of the structure of the debate in the final iteration. Again, nothing again his generally high quality contributions, but there are enough concerns about unilateral actions to preclude support for becoming a 'crat. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be this perception in some quarters that I have been the driving force behind every discussion ever related to PC. In fact I had nothing to do with it until the 2011 RFC. That failed so a year later I opened the more structured 2012 RFC. That's it. I had nothing to do with it until after the trial was over. I don't see how opening discussions relates to anything crats do either. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15. With Regrets. The candidate will probably make a fine 'crat one day; however, he needs more time to develop. Comments like this indicate that he's not quite ready. Majoreditor (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What is wrong with that comment? It seems pretty straightforward comment considering the circumstance. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    His comment strikes me as patronizing. I'm not a civility fanatic, but I expect 'crats to be more thoughtful in the way they express themselves. Majoreditor (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose. I'm concerned with this comment in MfD, which I see as personal attack. Things can get heated in deletion pages (and later in RfA/RfB if this request succeeds), but you should not loose your cool just because someone doesn't share the same view or position as you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The page for deletion that was being discussed was subsequently deleted as being a possible attack page, etc. Also the incident is from 2 years ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I commend Onaha for their due diligence--they dug through a year and a half's worth of Beeblebrox's edits to find it. Kudos. I'm concerned, on the other hand, about the spelling of "loose". And seriously, this is ridiculous. Running for this office is a serious thing and if one objects one should do so based on something real. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17. Oppose Candidate is seemingly unwilling to accept that sometimes the valid call is that the community is at no consensus, and seems to make some bad calls to avoid calling it as no consensus is unacceptable in a 'crat. The PC RFC, well, whatever... though that such a partisan of that debate set up a restricted RFC was a bad call, he should have found someone that opposed PC as much as he supports it to assist with drafting it. More significantly, however, is the Ivory Coast RM.. That was just a straight-up casting vote on a discussion that the only proper way to close was no consensus. Crats need to analyze discussions, not cast tie-breaking votes. Courcelles 20:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose Per Courcelles and WTT. I too am concerned about his attitude towards a no consensus close at Ivory Coast. I can imagine situations on RFA where such a mindset could be problematic. Sædon^talk 20:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thing is, I've repeatedly explained that considering it unacceptable is not the same thing as not considering it at all, and that closing a content discussion is not the same thing as closing an RFA. If the Ivory Coast move request was actually Requests for adminship/Ivory Coast It is extremely unlikely Ivory Coast would be an admin right now. If you guys don't want to believe me that is your prerogative, but to act like I would take the same approach to RFA as I would to a move request is, in my opinion, an "apples and oranges" argument. if you ask me it really didn't matter how I closed the RM, the same parties had already made it clear that they intend to continue arguing the point till the end of the earth. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the same parties may still have been arguing if you had closed it "no consensus", but many of the parties here may have felt more comfortable supporting this RfB. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19. Strong oppose. This user's handling of the Mbz matter on Meta showed that under pressure he will not act with the necessary calm temperament and will instead behave quite short of the high standard that is and should be expected of holders of advanced permissions. We should expect our admins to maintain a minimum of civility and decorum, not to make things worse thru impulsive and unhelpful gut-instinct reactions and swearing. Please see diffs such as [3], [4], [5]. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If that idiotic incident costs me this RFB, so be it. Before all that happened I was unaware that the Meta community, if you can even call it that, was so deeply dysfunctional that admins could actually troll users and the other admins would either defend them or look the other way.(espescially if the user being trolled was from en.wp.) As I made clear in the ignore meta essay, some really important stuff happens there such as steward elections, Wikimania planning, and fighting of cross-wiki vandals. That stuff is great. The rest of what happens there is endless bashing of anyone from this project, largely by people we have thrown out because they act like jerks. They don't act any differently there than they did here so ignoring them is our best option. I will never apologize for that, and I can say I did some good because the most abusive admin I have ever encountered on any WMF site lost his tools over it. It is a sign of how bad things are over there that he practically had to beg them to revoke his admin tools and actually resorted to threatening to go rogue and become a vandal before they would actually do it. I tried to help them and all I got for my trouble was trolling and insults. So I gave it right back to them. Turns out only the admins and people who have been banned from here are allowed to act like abusive asshats. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I would expect our bureaucrats to know better than insult people, no matter if they're in the right or in the wrong. Civil discourse is a value we should all strive for, and your response both here and there, while it could be understandable, to me it shows you lack the self control that I have come to expect in general from our 'crats. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Telling you this is unlikely to help my case, but for the record there was no loss of self control there at all. I sensed that this particular admin was looking for an excuse to just block somebody from en.wp (he is blocked here, petty revenge would appear to be his true motivation) so I gave him one to see if he would actually have poor enough judgement to block someone he was in a dispute with. He was actually even worse than I thought, he not only blocked me indefinitely but revoked my talk,page and email access. Once I was unblocked and he was desysopped I proposed that meta adapt an uninvolved admin policy since it was clear large portions of their admin corps were more than willing to violate this rather obvious principle. In the interest of not making it look like I was trying to force en.wp policy on them I sought tp have the proposal translated so that users from other projects could particpate in the discussion. I found their translation request system confusing and asked for help. The only response I got to that was another admin electing to outright troll my talk page for daring to have asked for help. When I brought this up at a noticeboard and asked if that sort of thing was acceptable, I was basically told by other admins to shut up and that I was only getting what I deserved. I'm sure most of the admins there probably agree that what was going on there w reprehensible, but they didn't speak up even when clear evidence of abuse was presented. So yea, fuck that. There's no point in trying to particpate in a community that works like that. I still habe an account there so I can particpate in steward elections and at some point I want to bring Wikimania to Alaska, but the rest of that site is a cesspool of trolls and other varieties of jerks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If there was no loss of self-control then, and if your comment about Meta is fully thought-through, self-controlled, and in your honest belief civilized, it unfortunately bodes badly on your crat-ing. Pundit|utter 23:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have read over this incident on meta and would like to point out that I feel the blocking admin there was TOTALLY in the wrong. This opinion is backed up by the fact that when WizardofOz later requested his bit back, he was opposed almost unanimously... largely because of how he handled his block of Beeblebrox. Did Beeblebrox react a little bit hotheaded because of the situation? Yes he did. but considering the fact he's a human being and not a robot, I don't think it's hard to see why he reacted the way he did. I would have probably reacted the same way. Trusilver 02:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely, all of us act hotheaded every now and then. It is the coldheaded reaction, the essay, and even the way Beeblebrox describes the situation now that concerns me. Pundit|utter 16:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20. Oppose Coren, WJBscribe and Courcelles have already articulated well my own thoughts. In an obviously no consensus result such as in the Ivory Coast move, it is a problem if an admin/bureaucrat thinks his own way of thinking should override the long running discussion. Sometimes it takes a really long time and lots of discussion to achieve a consensus and it is not a problem to leave things in limbo temporarily. Had that RM been closed as no consensus, it is almost certain that no review would have been filed. Beeblebrox is also somewhat confrontational when engaging people who disagree with him -- not a good quality for a bureaucrat. I expect bureaucrats to be people who are capable of rising above the fray and to be as uncontroversial as possible. --Polaron | Talk 02:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose - per Snowolf. — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 07:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose, not impressed by the Ivory Coast RM. The closing rationale was not a determination of consensus, it was a desperate push to make up a consensus using his personal opinion - not something I want transferred over to the RfA process, sorry. - filelakeshoe 10:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. I would Oppose only because the infamous "Ignore Meta" essay. But the candidate is also one of those users who aggressively push the U.S. language standard, even if it causes terminological clashes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please provide diffs that demonstrate this "aggrssive pushing" you refer to? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you certainly want a diff? Will Talk:Elk with tens of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT-styled comments be enough? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So you are opposing me because you don't agree with how that article is titled., I didn't know that WP:ENGVAR had anything to do with being a crat, thanks for clearing that up. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I oppose such a ’crat because of innuendo about "pointless feuding between the two projects", presenting his narrow perception as something like an established fact. Without any evidences, of course. And similar pattern of baseless rants in "Elk". In one of these instances, or in another, it likely could be an accident. But not in both. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose This doesn't inspire confidence in me, but frankly I find the actions at this RfB a bit too hot-headed for me to support. I've seen a number of edit summaries including WTF? and sarcasm as well as confrontational commenting. In the end, I'm left with concerns that Beeblerox can let emotions get in the way of clear thought, which doesn't work when dealing with RfAs. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    On second thought, I cannot support Beeblerox based on what I have seen; however, I feel uncomfortable opposing someone who clearly means the best for the project. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24. While I do not think sainthood is a prerequisite for bureaucratship, there is sufficient evidence of double hotheadedness that makes me think Beeblebrox should not become a bureaucrat at this time. —Kusma (t·c) 19:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose due to the non-trivial number of diffs and statements from the candidate indicating a kind of impulsiveness I'd prefer not to see in a 'crat, and also due to the fact that I don't see any existing 'crats supporting, and (as of my last count) at least 2 'crats casting rare RFX !votes to oppose. Zad68 20:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose. Switched from Neutral; please see my comments there. Rivertorch (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27. Exactly per the diffs given by Snowolf above. I was just about to bring this up here, but he already did. Especially the edit summaries in the diffs are exactly what a 'crat should not do. No matter what happens, people should not react like this. I expect more communication skills from crats, no matter on which wiki. A crat should always be civil, and looking back at this incident, I really have my doubts, especially since this isn't really long ago. -Barras ^talk 22:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28. Unexpected Oppose 3 weeks ago, this would have been an overwhelming support. Beebs is one of my favourite Wikipedians, and probably one of those well-balanced admins we rarely see. Although their name might get tarnished because of the crap they wade into, it's having the cojones to wade into that crap that's important. That said, the Ivory Coast RM was by far one of the worst ever closings in the history of this project. Note only did it go against consensus, but against policy. There's no humanly possible way to support an RFB for such a normally-deserving candidate while they can continue to defend that decision in any way, shape or form. dangerouspanda 23:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose due to the user's civility issues on the Meta wiki. Particularly, this diff really bugs me. Beeblebrox could take a look again at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. 89119 (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What does meta have to do with this application? Also, because the comment was wikilinked to an article about exactly the types of actions that the meta admin was doing, the comment was not an NPA in that case dangerouspanda 18:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm pretty sure calling someone an "abusive dick" constitutes a personal attack. And the user's incivil behavior on other Wikimedia projects might impact his behavior on the English Wikipedia, where he is right now a prospective bureaucrat. For the record, here's a diff on the English Wikipedia exemplifying his demeanor ("his poisonous, nasty, condescending attitude"), taken from oppose vote #16. 89119 (talk) 09:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30. Oppose - There are obvious civility issues and Useight and Coren's objections alone are more than enough for me to oppose. But I also feel that Beeblebrox gravitates towards a style that's not conducive for a crat. Shadowjams (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose. First and foremost, thanks for your contributions, oversighting, and other efforts. WP needs fearless admins. Swearing and the occasional put-down can be effective tools for difficult editors. Those who are willing to step into controversy can save others a lot of time. I'd like to support your nomination, but some examples above and the nomination statement are troubling. It doesn't say why you want to be a 'crat. It is not a polite request for promotion; it's a touch dictatorial. The nomination is long on competence but short on humility, deference and diplomacy. Brashness can be refreshing, but here it misses the mark. The audience is neither difficult nor unfriendly. Glrx (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose per civility concerns. Would be willing to re-consider in the future. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose The Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast move was a terrible close, and I no longer trust this editor to judge consensus. Since judging consensus is pretty much the sole purpose of a bureaucrat, I cannot support. The essay about meta and even his behavior here also lead me think that Beeblebrox doesn't have the right attitude or temperament for the role. AniMate 18:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose for many reasons discussed above, particularly per Coren and Snowolf. Mato (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose regretfully, switched, per WJScribe. Pundit|utter 23:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose apparent battleground mentality towards a sister project and its admin corps, which isn't a good sign, even if you were treated badly (I haven't looked into that). This quote in reply to Snowolf (currently #19) made me particularly concerned that Beeblebrox's temperament may not suit bureacratship: "I tried to help them and all I got for my trouble was trolling and insults. So I gave it right back to them." --99of9 (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose per WJBscribe and Courcelles. No consensus can be frustrating, but you cannot magically conjure up a consensus. Someone who is charged with closing RFA discussions need to be acutely aware of what the role requires. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
38. The stuff on meta (links by Snowolf above) showed a temperament that I wouldn't want to see in an admin, much less a bureaucrat. That, combined with recent examples of him closing controversial discussions in an inappropriate way makes this an oppose. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose per Snowolf and Coren. The recent examples of what appears to be a battleground mentality on Meta are not what I'd like to see in an administrator, let alone a bureaucrat. Nor am I pleased with the candidate's judgement of consensus at the Ivory Coast RM. WikiPuppies! (bark) 16:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose per some of the objections raised by Useight & Snowolf. KTC (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
41. I really like Beeblebrox personally, and I have a lot of respect for their work as an administrator, and for their commitment to Wikipedia. And I completely disagree with opposing over the pending changes RfC. But Useight did a good job of pointing to the reasons why I believe that the candidate just isn't a good match for what the community expects of a 'crat. I expect 'crats to explain themselves in a calm, even almost bland, manner. Beeblebrox is, by nature, simply too brusque to be a good 'crat. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I agree with Majoreditor (number 15) and Snowolf (number 19): insults^[6][7][8], needless swearing^[9] and biting^[10] do not constitute acceptable behaviour for an administrator, let alone a bureaucrat. Michael Anon (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I ignored the first time someone brought up that last one, but now you are calling it biting. See WP:PACT. That user was creating nonsense pages and posted a message to an IP's talk that said I HATE YOU. That is roughly the equivalent of running down a hallway with a crayon writing on the wall. Anyone over the age of six knows you are not supposed to do such things. There is nothing at all wrong with telling a vandal they are acting like an infant and they need to stop or they will be blocked. in fact thos is what we expect admins to do. I clearly am not going to be a crat today, but if you are going to pile-on oppose you could stick to reasons that actually have some merit. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, although I am in the opposing section for other reasons, I endorse Beeblebrox's handling of the situation with User:Take It To The Head. WP:BITE is to avoid biting newbies who make good faith mistakes, not to protect vandals. Indeed, that user was lucky to get off with a stern "yellow card", given the number of useless edits he made, a block would have been quite defensible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to apologise for my comment. There appears to have been a severe misunderstanding on my part (the reply to Take It To The Head was not a case of biting) and, having reconsidered my attitude to administratorship and bureaucratship, I am no longer comfortable with my !vote. I therefore withdraw my opposition and apologise for the disruption. Michael Anon (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - This bugger can't cut the mustard with the big boys. Yaplunpe(talk) 07:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User is a blocked sockpuppet. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Bureaucrats should not immerse themselves in contiversial areas. Furry tin cans (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    One more sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indented, CU-confirmed sock. Courcelles 00:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

42. The pending changes advocate wants more authority? I think I'll be opposing.—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for that, you're a real class act. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral. Beeblebrox is a good editor, with good contributions. He implies an intention to close RfAs but doesn't allude to any other bureaucrat activities. I find this statement hard to believe: "I had no idea when I logged in this morning that by the end of the day I would file an RFB." Beeblebrox really hadn't been considering this for a while? If true, this implies a degree of impulsiveness that could be counter-productive. I am not convinced that Beeblebrox will make any significant impact with bureaucrat tools. On the other hand, I am delighted to see Beeblebrox's declaration to deliberately ignore tedious questions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand and support what you are saying about impulsiveness being potentially harmful - however, thoughtful spontaneity is a positive. Given that Beeblebrox had been discussing the matter during Wikimania shows a degree of thought, consideration and awareness; that the actual decision to nominate himself only came today doesn't imply it was a careless act - simply that the moment was right, and he saw no reason to ponder it any longer. I put myself forward for the Arbitration Committee when I read a Signpost article saying there weren't enough nominations, and encouraging people to put themselves forward. I hadn't given it any thought prior to that, but that isn't to say that I then nomination myself thoughtlessly - I did think hard and deeply, but quickly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   FWIW, I "kicked around" the idea of being an admin, but didn't plan the day out. If anything, my Pre-RFA kind of forced my hand into it quicker than I wanted. Many admins likely kick around the idea of becoming a crat, most don't seek it, every now and then one say "let's see what happens". I can't imagine he never really thought about it until yesterday. I can believe that he had been loosely considering it, and something triggered him to just go for it, something pushed him off the fence. The day I proposed to my wife was the same. I had thought about it, and at dinner was just overcome with the idea, and did. 19 years later, it worked out pretty well, I think. Sometimes we just have to talk ourselves into these decisions. I don't think it is nearly as impulsive as it might look at first blush, even if RfB wasn't in his day planner for Sunday. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 12:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral. Per WormTT "...Beeblebrox doesn't fit in that category. He turns up at the more controversial boards..." and SilkTork "I like 'crats to be wholly uncontroversial...The assumption being that a 'crat's judgement is final and binding," just not enough to oppose. Mysterytrey talk 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral Although I believe that Beeblebrox is a great admin, I'm a bit concerned about the answers to the username question. Trollmaster and Analjuices are blatant violations of the username policy. I actually took these questions from SwisterTwister's RFA. Unfortunately, I'm not going to Support or Oppose you, but I wish you the best of luck regardless of the outcome of this. Electric Catfish 18:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   He did say that Analjuices was an obvious violation, and I think Trollmaster would need a bit of context. I imagine he'd treat a user named Trollmaster differently depending on whether the user was editing articles on Norwegian and Icelandic folklore versus going around posting inflammatory comments on Talk:George W. Bush; I think that's what he's getting at. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   The word "troll" is not in and of itself a blatant violation. As I mentioned I would nonetheless discourage a user from using it in their name because it is very much a loaded word on the interwebs and it would make it difficult for them to be taken seriously. If they insisted and they were not otherwise disruptive there is no grounds for disallowing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   ie: User:TrollQueen, User:Trollcollins, User:TrollHistorian, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 22:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't know if anyone still remembers, but a username starting "Troll" was the cause of what to my knowledge is the only ever highly controversial rename by an enwiki crat. In August 2005, former bureaucrat Ed Poor renamed the user Trollderella (talk · contribs) to EnduranceFan (talk · contribs) without seeking that user's consent on the basis that the former was an "offensive username". Trollderella was a good faith user who objected strongly. As I recall, Ed Poor's action was heavily criticised and he was forced to reverse it. I would therefore agree that the conduct of an account with a name including "troll" is relevant, however I think the combination of "troll" and "master" (which appears to be a play on "sockmaster", which would not be allowed) is such as to preclude a user being renamed to that name. WJBscribe (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   As I said before, these usernames are all based on usernames that I have encountered and/or reported here. Analjuices is based on Yummyanaljuices (blocked). Trollmaster is based on Trollmaster3000 (blocked) and Ilovesex is based on SwisterTwister's RFA. Also, usernames that portray the user as a troll are considered disruptive usernames. Again, I think that Beeblebrox is a great admin and the fact that he is part of a very small groups of editors trusted with the oversight permission says a lot about how he is trusted (in a good way). However, I have decided to be Neutral on this one. Electric Catfish 11:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral. Beeblebrox is a highly perceptive and capable editor. I trust him implicitly with the admin tools, and I think it's unlikely that strapping a few extra tools on his belt would pose any problems. But I'm not sure if "unlikely" quite cuts it. A bureaucrat's added duties require taking a cautious, patient approach in which the means are every bit as important as the end—and that's the rub. His design of the recent pending changes RfC worked like a charm from the standpoint of efficiency and results, removing many of the obstacles that plagued previous RfCs on the subject and allowing a definite decision to happen. Unfortunately, there was a downside, which included the relegation of all meaningful discussion to the background, as well as the funneling of a wealth of diverse views into three narrow choices whose wording, if not expressly written with a biased purpose in mind, certainly could be seen as promoting one choice over the other two. This might have helped Beeblebrox get the result he favored in the end or it might not have; we'll never know. What we can legitimately believe is that the process he set up, however well-intentioned, was far from optimal, and that concerns me. There were better ways to handle it. He alludes to having been impatient to get the RfC underway, and he was frequently impatient at an earlier phase of the process. For the life of me, I can't imagine why getting pending changes approved is a matter of such urgency. To his credit, though, he has remained involved in the process, making constructive comments as the planning proceeds. If this were an RfA, I'd support wholeheartedly. Since it's an RfB, I'm genuinely sorry to find I cannot support at all. Rivertorch (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Regretfully changing !vote to oppose per this comment from today. There's a difference between holding a steadfast opinion and resorting to namecalling. That someone would say this during an active RfB is indicative of poor judgment, poor self-control, or both. What a pity. This is my first-ever oppose !vote at a request for tools, and I hate that it's for an editor I actually like. Rivertorch (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. Meh - The idea that he wades into "drama" is no concern of mine...I really don't know where this idea came from that Crats needed to be the boringest .1% of Wikipedians. I mean, what real benefit exists there? "Drama" admins often wade into "drama" (scare quotes because I hate the suggestion that that word means that thing) because "drama" is involved in the tough decisions. Don't we want Crats who are willing to make the tough decisions. What is a concern, to me at least, is the relative lack of work in the Crat areas. Achowat (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral - Some 5 years ago, we had an RFA closure at 69% with a comment "... I believe, based on my interactions with him, that he would make a good sysop, and it would be a mistake not to promote him ...". Recently you have closed a move request with a comment "... I haven't actually counted but at a glance if we went by straight numbers we would arrive at yet another "no consensus" result. That is, in my opinion, not acceptable... ". I find a similarity in these two closures, in the sense that the closing admin/bureaucrat used his personal opinion over the community consensus.
   

   In the first case, the RFA result was later modified by an arbitration committee ruling, showing that it is very difficult to revert a bureaucrat closure. (Note: I've absolutely nothing against any of the editors related to these examples. They all are lovely Wikipedians. I'm just using an example).
   

   In essence, my point is that your closure of Ivory Coast move hints that we might run into more successful RFAs with less than 70% support. However, you have done a commendable job as an admin and I see no reason to oppose your candidacy. Good luck! EngineerFromVega^★ 13:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   RfC isn't purely a vote count. A 50:50 split doesn't mean no consensus: it depends on the strength of the arguments. So I don't see anything wrong with that appearing in the reasoning. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   The big mistake I made there in my opinion was to throw in that remark about a sixth no consensus close not being an acceptable result. It has been taken out of context again and again and used as "proof" that I never even considered the possibility of a no consensus close. The fact that I never said any such thing doesn't seem to bother any of those people. They are convinced they can read a hidden motivation in that remark and no matter how many times I attempt to clarify my meaning and explain the logic behind it they just say "you never considered a no consensus result" and point to a sentence fragment used in isolation as evidence. (they are basically calling me a liar but none of them have the nerve to come out and say it plainly. I don't lie. I am no good at and I always get caught so I don't bother). I have also tried to clarify that I am not an idiot and I understand the difference between closing a content RFC and closing an RFA but these same folks are basically saying that's not true either. Its stupid but in the end I don't really care. I only put myself forward for consideration because somebody needed to, crat work actually sounds pretty boring and apparently boring people are considered the best qualified. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6. Neutral I would support this user responding to the concerns of the opposition and re-applying for bureaucratship at another time. This user makes excellent contributions to Wikipedia and his services as a bureaucrat would be extremely valuable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral Opposes and evidence clearly shows another stake of this user. I know he does an incredible job as an admin and have been a great asset to this encyclopedia, but i think he's not ready yet to become a 'crat. I can't go and oppose, but i can't support either. —Hahc21 00:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral Can't decide for support or oppose. Here are the pros, advantage of being an admin is one. Here are the cons. Now seems hard for me to decide. Good luck. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 09:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral. I think Beeblebrox has rather a good point when he says that very little of what 'crats do day-to-day is contentious or judgment-based; most of the jobs 'crats do these days are governed by policy (username changes) or community ragevoting (99% of RfXs), and in neither of those cases is there a terrible amount of judgment (as opposed to application-of-established-standards) done by the 'crat, at least as far as those of us who aren't 'crats can tell. In that sense, I think Beeblebrox would be a fine 'crat, and it sort of bothers me that he should be opposed based on the 1% of possible 'crat actions which might sort of require judgment which he may or may not have, given that those cases are almost by definition not judged by a single 'crat , but by a 'crat chat. So, strictly speaking, you don't need to be Joe Perfect-Judgment to do most 'crat tasks. However, the will of the community is that the people it chooses to do these not-necessarily-always-judgey tasks should be uncontroversial, meticulous, and sort of bland. That's why we call them bureaucrats, after all, and not "Super Deathmatch Referees(tm) (bullwhip sold separately)!". I think Beeblebrox will happily agree with me when I say that "bland" is not really a word that describes him particularly well, which means that as much as I think he could do the job about as well as anyone else, I don't think he's suited to what the community feels people doing the job should be. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   you realize of courst that I will now have to put together Request for Super Deathmatch Referee/Beeblebrox. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.