Final (117/14/13); ended 05:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC) - There is a consensus among respondents that Maxim's activity level is not enough of a concern to prevent Maxim's candidacy from being successful, and there is also a consensus that Maxim should receive the English Wikipedia bureaucrat maintenance toolset. - Avi (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
A bit about myself: I've been an admin for almost four years now. I've done a variety of admin tasks during the time, not particularly specialising in any but doing a lot of them. During that time, I produced a very considerable amount of audited content; I've stopped keeping track of how much. I estimate that I've authored over 20 DYKs, around 10 FAs, maybe 15 or so FLs, and between 15 and 20 GAs. Some of my favorites—although I won't call them all my "best work"—are listed on my userpage. I was very inactive in 2009 and 2010; however, I feel that I have significantly more time now to commit and more importantly, I feel it would be grossly irresponsible for me to offer my services and vanish.
I have experience as a bureaucrat at WikiSpecies; while I haven't been active on that project for a while, I am familiar with the buttons. On Wikipedia, I was chosen as a BAG member some years ago when numerous users were !voted in, but I've never been active as a Member, and I would prefer the 'crat side of bot approval. I don't participate often at RfA, the talkpage, and related pages—chiefly because of the atmosphere. I regularly read those pages, however, and on occasion I do drop by with a comment, although it is mostly contained to the discussion section. The actual process of RfA hasn't changed much in my years on Wikipedia, but the politics have evolved. As a prospective closer of tough RfAs, I believe I'm well-suited to provide an impartial judgment on the outcome, because I do not get directly involved in the politicking that characterises the processes. As for changing usernames, it's fairly straightforward, like the bureaucrat's role at BRFA.
Last, but certainly not least, I would like to devote a few lines to discuss my previous RfB. It failed because I had made really bad judgment calls leading up to it; in today's politics at Wikipedia, my actions would be called wheel-warring. I have not repeated anyone of the nonsense that I had been guilty of before that RfB, and with regards to being cold and abrupt and lousy at communicating, I've made a commitment since that RfB to be, in brief, less of a jerk. I've made an effort to engage other users on article talk pages, and I believe I have succeeded with that; consequently, I also believe that it cab be easily carried over for the politics that do arise in contentious RfAs. Maxim(talk) 04:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A: The criterion for promotion, in short, is consensus. To discuss, having read the discussions, the community—who really makes the decision—has an expectation for bureaucrats to conform to certain percentages for promoting or failing. For admins, anything below 70% is almost surely a fail, and anything about above 80% is a definite pass, and in practice, above 75% is almost surely a pass. The tricky spot for bureaucrats is the 70–75% area, where it can go either way. In that case, the strength of the arguments will weight the decision. For RfBs, the current discretionary zone is about 80–90%; however, there is presently a discussion at WT:RFA regarding the percentages for a successful RfB.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A: I have to first keep in mind that the group of users whose !votes I went against won't be too happy; in other words, I know I can't please everyone but I will strive to interpret what agreement—however rough—was reached in a discusion. For contentious nominations, an explanation of the decision is an absolute must, and if closing such a nom, I will be diligent in explaining how I assessed the strength of the arguments. If the nomination is particularly contentious, it might benefit from many pairs of eyes, and I will suggest a crat chat at WP:BN.
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A: I'm not a metapedian, so when I comment on discussions outside of the articlespace, I make them count. In my opinion, the ability to communicate knowledgeably and well is better revealed outside the politicking that often occurs in meta-discussion; in other words, discussing and building content. I collaborate frequently on articles, which requires an ability to be fair with regards to the views of my fellow editors and to engage them to produce a high-quality final product. My actions will speak louder than any words I will type here, and thus I ask that my recent contributions speak for themselves.
4. What evidence--backlogs, etc--do you see that suggests we need more bureaucrats? Please provide specific numbers.
A: I wouldn't say that there exists an absolutely urgent needs for bureaucrats, but a few more could be useful. There have certainly been recent discussions about the issue, as I mentioned in my nomination statement. There are no backlogs for bureaucrat tasks, given their limited amount. I guess it's a matter of current bureaucrats getting tired of a repetitive task and trying something else, which leads to an occasional nomination for a fresh face to help out. I'm confused as to why you want numbers—I don't think that the amount of bureaucrats is an exact science.
5. How would you have closed this reconfirmation RfA?
A: I would have closed it as unsuccessful, because I feel the WP:UNINVOLVED issues brought up were very serious. The supporters did not address that issue that much, and based on the arguments provided by the opposers, I don't feel that the candidate had a good track record nor understanding with regards to WP:UNINVOLVED. When a non-admin comes up to the RfA, we have no exact way to see how they will use the tools; for a former admin, it is on the record. There was a clear discontent voiced as to how he used the block tool, and I think the best outcome would have been a break from that tool. I think that after a few months, there would be greater confidence in his ability to use it again. While I understand the closing bureaucrat's statement that the opposes are sort of a final warning, one must be very careful with the block tool, and that it's not easy to desysop an admin, so I would have erred on the side of caution. However, if probationary adminship would have been an option, I would have very carefully explored it.
6. Would you trust a bureaucrat who hasn't looked at an RfA in 4 years to close one?
A: How do we know that the bureaucrat in question has not been looking at RfA whatsoever? To address your question as is, these bureaucrats are long-standing members of the community, so they will have some clue, at least. For a contenious nomination, it wouldn't be politically feasible, as I don't think the close would be accepted. We do not have any precedent for a long-dormant bureaucrat to come out into the wikipolitics of a difficult RfA, and I would be highly surprised if one were to be set. To give a concrete answer: I wouldn't trust an individual who'd unleash that much drama, because it would mean they're not particular clueful. If they bring themselves up to speed without causing a political mess, than I would trust them.
9. One of of the crats elected in 2004 has yet to use any of the crat tools and others have used them very rarely. Do you think the crat position should have a minimum level of activity?
This question is similar to #6, and so my answer will be similar, too. It's a matter of clue: if a dormant bureaucrat rushes into something to contentious, it will cause a political mess and so in that case I wouldn't trust them. If they slowly bring themselves up to speed, then in general I'd expect them to be clueful. To give a direct answer to the question, I don't think it's wise to impose minimum levels, because the 'crats were previously chosen for, among many other things, their cluefulness, and it is once more unwise to assume they will do something seriously stupid.
I think the rationale Scribe posted is symptomatic of a recent trend among bureaucrats to be too dismissive of legitimate opposition, while weighing unexplained supports too heavily. Just one editor's opinion.
The closing bureaucrat replied:
It is hard to please all of the people all of the time. If it can be said with certainty that users with x% support will pass/fail RfA, users complain that RfA is a vote rather than a discussion and that this is bad. If bureaucrats analyse the discussions and determine consensus according (leading to different outcomes for those with the same % support), results are criticised for being inconsistent and that this is bad. I suspect bureaucrats tend to be resigned to someone telling us we are wrong whatever we do, but (for the record) I am loathe to "dismiss" any opposition, though I do think examples of misconduct are weightier concerns than general worries about inexperience.
10.HJ Mitchell (talk·contribs) wrote in the above discussion: "I think this demonstrates that bureaucrat discussions should be more of a common practice than they are currently, especially when an RfA is at the lower end of the discretionary area."
Nsk92 (talk·contribs) wrote: "HJ Mitchell make a good point that in cases where the outcome is likely to be a close call, having a crat chat would be useful ... Having crat chats in close cases like these is useful, both for more accurate determination of consensus and for greater consistency, particularly so that future RfA candidates better know what to expect."
Should bureaucrat discussions have been opened for the above two RfAs? When will you initiate a bureaucrat discussion instead of performing an independent closure?
I will answer the questions regarding the specific RfAs in question 13, as both of them are in that list. With regards to bureaucrat discussions, they have been used for particularly contentious nominations, or when the conclusion might be somewhat unexpected (e.g. Danny RfA) or unprecedented (e.g. Riana RfB). I would initiate discussions most likely when the perceived result strongly deviates from the "usual" numbers (ie passing well below 70%, or failing above 75%). Otherwise, a chat is useful for a nomination that is so contentious that multiple eyes may be of use. I would hate to be seen as evading the question, but imho it is really a case-by-case basis, and the two situations I've given would be the general cases that I'm looking for. With regards to the quotes, I would in fact counter them, because frequent crat chats might draw calls of supervoting, regardless of their intent, which is the same as when a lone bureaucrat does a close—to assess the consensus reached in an RfX discussion.
... I note that (as has been the case for a number of years) there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator ...
Last time I checked, the closing bureaucrats here have stated that "lack of content building" as an oppose rationale carries zero weight.
11. How much weight should be accorded to opposes based on lack of content creation? For example, if an RfA was in the discretionary zone, and many of the opposes referenced lack of content creation in their rationales, how much weight would you give such opposes? What weight would these opposes carry in relation to opposes based on (1) maturity, (2) inactivity, (3) lack of edit summaries, and (4) knowledge of policy?
When I first became active four years ago, content creation was not a hot-topic as it is now; in fact, all my content-creation was after my RfA. Nowadays, content creation is considered much more important, and an informal expectation of something decent has developed, e.g. a Good Article will boost a propsective candidate's chances at RfA, and a Featured Article will usually allay content creation concerns. The basis of the content opposes is that someone who has not written articles will not have an applied knowledge of core policies required, and I would say moreso in the past, a lack of demonstrated experience in collaborating with other users (the latter point was the idea for the old proposed 1FA requirement from 2006/2007.) The weighing of a content creation oppose depends on what other factors are present; for example, if the candidate is opposed for weak content as well as questionable communication skills, these two reasons complement each other and will be given heavy weighting. On the other hand, an oppose for content-creation coupled with, say, CSD concerns, would get less weight because it does not give as clear an indication as to why the candidate might not be a suitable admin.
With regards the other four listen possible concerns, it depends because every candidacy is unique, and like for the content-creation opposes, it depends what other issues are raised. Maturity is key in a prospective administrator by definition: a sysop must have good judgment and act as a reasonable adult. Demonstrated examples of immaturity are a strong reason to not promote a candidate. Activity is important, as admins are appointed to use their tools and fulfil their responsibilities. Inactivity—unless very obvious—is not a very strong reason per se, and I feel it is necessary to explain why the candidate would be a poor administrator because of perceived inactivity. Edit summaries are important tools of communication, but unless the case is particularly severe in terms of the lack of use (similarly to inactivity), more information is needed to explain why the candidate's communication skills are lacking before is becomes a strong argument. An administrator deficient in policy knowledge cannot be effective, given their role. Occasional mistakes before and after are certainly excusable, but the suitability of a prospective candidate is put into question when there are serious and/or recent demonstrated gaps in knowledge; the argument because stronger when dealing with a core policy (e.g. WP:V, WP:BLP.)
Vote striking causes more trouble than it any good that it accomplishes. If a !vote carries no weight, that can be mentioned in a closing statement if it had an influence on the RfX close (ie it was disregarded, and that led to a certain outcome.)
13. How would have closed the following RfAs? (successful, unsuccessful, bureaucrat discussion, or extension) If you intend to initiate a bureaucrat discussion, would your opinion be to promote or fail the candidate?
Successful—the tone of the discussion as a whole is that the candidate is clueful, and while there are numerous opposes, Titoxd's comment of "checklistism" tips it for me, because are numerous types of complaints but they don't mesh together to suggest strongly that the candidate would be a poor administrator.
Bureaucrat discussion, leaning successful—I note the candidate's experience as an administrator and checkuser on other projects as a clear positive shown, but I'm concerned by Tiptoety's comment, because it relates to an area the candidate participated both on other projects and en.wiki, and for which he intends to use admin tools on enwiki. I lean successful because a lot of oppose comments relate to collaboration, but as a checkuser, a lot of cross-wiki collaboration occurs between them, which would lead me to weigh such opposes a little bit less.
Unsuccessful—I get the feel from the discussion that the candidate's communication skills are lacking. The ability to communicate clearly as a sysop is key—it is an expectation of the community, and I know it from experience, and somewhat by the hard way (I'm referring to the comments I got at my first RfB). The support is not overwhelming, and I just can't see the consensus to promote.
Bureaucrat discussion, leaning unsuccessful—As I mentioned in question 10, unilaterally passing RfAs at such a percentage could be problematic. While it was a reconfirmation RfA and there were a fair bit of weak opposes, I don't see a consensus to promote, because the opposition was in terms of his temperament as a prospective admin, and we have the benefit of seeing how he acted previously as an admin. I offer a bit more insight on the general issue in sub-question h.
Unsuccesful—Despite the numbers being borderline, the tone of the discussion to me is much less so, as I find that the candidate has been demonstrated as lacking cluefulness, and consequently, I find the discussion leaning towards him being unsuitable as an admin, rather than a consensus to promote.
Successful—there were few specific examples and a pattern of poor judgment with regards to CSD was not displayed. Since the opposition was mostly regarding speedy deletion, their arguments were not very strong and so there was consensus to promote. However, I would like to note that I would not be closing such an RfA because I have a strong opinion on the matter of CSD; while I have tried to answer this question, I have doubts regarding my impartiality here.
Unsuccesful—strong arguments were presented regarding the candidate's knowledge of core policies, e.g. BLP. With the percentage in mind, I find that there truly is no consensus to promote based on the opposing commentary given.
Unsuccesful—there were serious questions regarding his effectiveness as an admin given the candidate's temperament. I feel that it would seriously be outside community expectations with regards to numbers to promote here, but if it was around 70%, I would consider it much more, because a candidate's involvement in disputes and drama—which is oftentimes unavoidable—shouldn't be as strongly held against them, like for example, lack of policy knowledge. Being in a dispute does not automatically preclude a user from adminship—the determining factor is how it was handled.
Unsuccesful—there were many justifications for oppositions, including some serious ones such as BLP and CSD. In closing an RfX, all factors must be considered, not only the discussion by itself. I am very concerned that Question 12 was not answered which provided an oppurtunity to address BLP concerns. There are simply too many question marks here to say that consesus has been reached for promotion.
Unsuccesful—The candidate has (again) not met expectations that were set out in previous RfAs. Acknowledging and working on constructive criticism is a very important characteristic of an admin (again, this is from my experience and from community norms) and it has demonstrated that candidate is lacking in that regard. Therefore, there is no consensus, at all IMHO, to promote here.
NB: I have tried to not go too overboard with these, so if further elaboration is required, please ask.
14. Please show several instances where you had to weigh multiple (more than three) valid opinions/arguements/sets of facts and deliver a binding judgment on the outcome. (Examples could include particularly messy XfDs, ANI threads, etc.) I know this is not a question, per se, but please answer it anyways.
A: This isn't going to be exactly answering the question, but the best I can do here is this explanation. I avoid the drama boards, because it's the easier route to burnout. I have never followed XfDs closely. But, I think that the intent of your quesiton is to see how good a judge of a consensus, or something along those lines. However, I don't think those other examples would be relevant, because RfA is a unique beast, and closing them doesn't compare to other discussions. For one thing, RfA relies a fair bit on the numbers. Question 13 has ten examples of how I would go about judging consensus. If you want me to expand on them, tell me.
15. Anyone who's been a user, let alone an admin, for a significant period of time is bound to have screwed up, quite possibly in a major way. What do you consider your biggest error in judgment in your history on Wikipedia? How did you fix it or attempt to fix it? What did you learn from it and how did it change you as an editor?
A: You can read objective commentary about it on my previous RfB. In short, I unblocked another user when I shouldn't have, didn't admit the mistake for a week, and was just a jerk through the entire process. There wasn't much fixing to be done given the circumstances; I did apologize to the admin whose block I overturned. The important part here for me is what I took away from it, and I've mentioned this in my nomination statement. Since that incident, I have strived to be better at communicating my actions as an editor and admin, and really to be a more pleasant person.
With regards to the deletion of the Main Page, the story is on WP:STOCKS and there are useful links there. I consider it less as a screwup and more as two seconds of pure stupidity.
16. If it were proposed, would you support a motion that said that all RfAs with a support percentage below 75% had to go to a crat-chat before being promoted? Would you support it if that number were 80% or 70% instead? Please explain your reasoning.
A: I've addressed this in a way in question 10, but I think it's best to keep the amount of crat-chats to a minimum to avoid the appearance of super-voting, so I'm not in favour of such a motion. I'm assuming that there would a lower bound to this hypothetical proposal. I've offered more commentary on crat-chats in general in Q10.
16½. Previous question was a clusterfuck, rewording to clarify intent. You've already addressed a few rationales in regards to how persuasive you see them as being. Suppose a user has a history of making bad decisions or has a block log. If that user manages to stay clean for a significant period of time (at least six months), would you find oppose votes on the grounds of that history to be convincing? Since not all infractions are equal, if you want to take that into account in your answer, feel free to do so.
A: It really depends, because such cases vary individually. It depends on the nature of the transgression. A strategy here in assesing the strength of the argument would be to assess the discussions on how severe the transgressions were. It depends on the other oppose reasons, and how they relate. What it boils down to is the question of whether the candidate has been, overall, forgiven, and from there the strength of the argument can be assessed within the context of the candidacy. This oppose reason is very subjective, and from experience, generally it is either a non-issue in an RfA or the big issue in the RfA. In a nutshell, the more subjective an oppose reason is, the more difficult it is to do so justice to a hypothetical analysis. So to give you a direct answer to your question, it's "perhaps".
NB: Questions 17 and 18 were originally posted at my talkpage. --Maxim.
17. Of the first 10 opposes in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1, #1–7 referenced the candidate's lack of "evidence of collaboration or interaction with other users, especially in building an encyclopedia", "limited interaction with noobs, vandals, or other users", "the candidate's apparent lack of collaborative editing experience", "the editor's limited content development and lack of interaction with other users make me uncomfortable with assigning delete and protect buttons", etc.
Furthermore, of the first 10 opposes, several participants characterized the candidate's answers to the questions as weak. Specifically, "The answers in this RfA are also quite underwhelming for someone without much demonstrative experience of policy in the areas they intend to specialise in", "very weak answers to subsequent questions", "I came back today to register that support and read through the RFA one last time. After that the answers to the questions pushed me here", etc.
Many of the remaining opposes were also based on the candidate's communication skills, weak answers to the questions, and lack of content contributions.
In your answer to Q11, you wrote, "The weighing of a content creation oppose depends on what other factors are present; for example, if the candidate is opposed for weak content as well as questionable communication skills, these two reasons complement each other and will be given heavy weighting." Would you expand upon this in relation to your intended closure of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1 (Q13b)?
A: Weighing RfX discussions and the relative strengths of various arguments are not black-and-white matters. There is always bound to be some variation with every individual, contentious candidacy. In this specific case, the reason that I'm not putting as much weight to the communication concerns as I have in other cases is primarily because the candidate is a checkuser on another project. To expand, a lot of checkuser work is cross-wiki, and in the case of the Simple English Wikipedia, a significant amount of checkuser matters are related to other wikis. Cross-wiki coordination involves dealing with users from projects with different expectations, at the very least, so I see it as evidence of communication skills. Another problem in RfA is that most of the time, there is guesswork involved because the candidate does not have a track record with extra tools; here, we can look at the candidate's administrative record at simple.wiki and meta. This is not to say that the concerns raised are not serious, so for this reason, and because I find that the candidacy deviates somewhat from an expected outcome, I would have suggest a bureaucrat discussion, leaning to promote as per the reasons I have elaborated upon.
18. In cases when bureaucrats can reasonably reach different conclusions (Q13 c, d, f), should bureaucrats exercise their discretion to close unilaterally the RfAs, or should they open bureaucrat discussions? Should consistent decisions be sacrificed to avoid "calls of supervoting" (Q10) when bureaucrat discussions are opened?
A: The short answer here is that there must be a balance: too much 'crat chats give rise to claims of supervoting, but too little will give rise to claims of arbitrary closes. With regards to the three questions where I deviated, Slon02's candidacy (f) was one that I would definitely not close because I would have been recused, so perhaps there would be truly different conclusions on two out of nine questions, instead of three out of ten. The two most recent bureaucrat discussions (there's a list here) have been unanimous; the Nihonjoe chat took over three days, and the Kww discussion ended up in a poll where it was five-five split. The two last discussions that I mention goes to show that even a bureaucrat chat can't guarantee a perfectly consistent decision. The bottom line is that RfA is a very subjective process, especially so in contentious nominations. Bureaucrats are picked, in part, for their ability to objectively evaluate a discussion, but due to the nature of these discussions, perfect consistency is not possible. For example, in the Kww discussion, what if different bureaucrats participated? It could have well been a different outcome. Consistency and avoiding the appearance of supervoting are two factors that must be in balance, but unless RfA becomes a straightup vote without the subjective weighing of arguments, inconsistency in closes is regrettably going to continue to be inherently part of the system. Of course, that is not to say that it is a reason not to try to aim for consistency.
Note that there's a discussion (and poll if you would like to vote) at WT:RFA#Discussion on lowering the RfB discretionary range from 80%-90% to 75%-80%. What's different about this one is that the discussion was invited by a crat after talking with other crats, there's very strong support for those numbers, and judging from how it's going so far, it looks like it would pass easily as an RFC. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Umm, I disagree there's "very strong support" for those numbers (and I did suggest them after all!) but I do agree that this concurrent discussion has similarity to the RFB's of Riana, and just prior Ryan Poselthwaite - and much extended discussion because of the coincidence of timing back then as well. Pedro : Chat 20:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to use this section to address the concerns that have been brought up in the oppose and neutral sections. The comments are, for the most part, about my inactivity as a whole, and at RfA. With regards to general inactivity, I've responded to this a fair bit already, but I'll drop in a few thoughts here. My inactivity, roughly from mid-2009 to the start of this year, was necessitated by real-life busyness. Now that it is calmed, I feel very comfortable that I have sufficient time to devote to an extra responsibility; otherwise, I wouldn't have nominated myself. With regards to RfA inactivity—which has generally been the subject of the more recent opposes—I would say that as a prospective bureaucrat, I find that there exists a definite advantage to this activity pattern. At an RfA (or an RfB), a bureaucrat must be impartial and able to provide a dispassionate assessment of the result of a given discussion. I deeply respect the opinions that have been provided in my candidacy, and I understand that my views on this topic are not universally shared, as a considerable amount of users have suggested that a prospective bureaucrat should show more engagement with the process. Such an opinion is perfectly reasonable; however, I believe that during the course of this candidacy I have demonstrated that I would be a capable closer of candidacies. To back up this assertion, I draw attention to more recent comments as of this post, which have in particular mentioned the answers to the numerous questions I have been posed, namely the support !votes by Malleus Fatuorum, Steven Zhang, and Carcharoth, as well as the neutral !vote by Sven Manguard. I believe that these comments show that I am very well informed with regards to RfA and RfB. In these processes, bureaucrats should have less of participant role, but more that of an observer. A 'crat should be well-informed, impartial, and patient; I feel fairly strongly that I have demonstrated these qualities. I do not mean to put pressure with this statement on anyone presently neutral, opposing, or perhaps, reading my comments, unsure as to what their decision. Instead, I merely wish to express my feeling that I would an effective bureaucrat; while some have brought up perfectly reasonable points as to why I might not make a good bureaucrat—which I respect—I feel that these mentioned qualities would instead be advantageous to me as a prospective bureaucrat. Thank you for your patience and for taking the time to read these comments. Maxim(talk) 04:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - Since I haven't had any issues with you as an admin, and I don't believe the step-up between adminship and bureaucrat is a huge one, I'm happy to support. Deb (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. No reason to believe he'd fuck up the stuff 'crats are forced to do. Best of luck. 狐 Déan rolla bairille! 07:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support—I don't understand the reasoning that if someone's not very active the moment (and I disagree with the view that over 250 edits in the last month counts as inactive anyway) they shouldn't get the 'crat-flag. The question is whether or not they have the temperament to be a responsible 'crat. And Maxim does. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 11:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support How this going currently is a perfect example of what is wrong with RFB. Maxim has been an admin for a very long time and hasn't been a disaster at it. B-crat powers are just a few extra admin abilities with little actual impact on the project as a whole, I see no reason to believe he would be a disaster as a crat. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - we need more 'crats. I haven't yet seen any reason to think that Maxim would show poor judgement in this role; the opposes so far all focus on his lack of recent activity, which is an issue, but not good grounds to oppose in my view. Even if he only checks RFA and the other areas where 'crats are needed every few weeks, we'd still be better off with him as a 'crat than without him. Robofish (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support per my general philosophy that any generally competent admin that's done the job a while who wants the wrench should have it. Courcelles 16:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support per the various comments above, particularly TreasuryTag's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support per his well-thought-out response to SPhilbrick's oppose.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support I don't think we crossed paths much before - your break covers most of my time as an admin. But what I've checked looks good, clueful and nicely diverse, the many RFAs you've taken part in and the experience in Wikispecies give me confidence that you would make a good crat. I would have preferred a little more detail about your other account - an assurance either that it was Arbcom declared or that it had not been active whilst you've been an admin would be welcome. 250 edits a month does not sound to me like a good reason to oppose, nor the fact that you've recently had a break - I'm happy to see you've got back up to speed and don't see that anything needs adding to your statement about taking a break and returning. ϢereSpielChequers 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It's declared to ArbCom. Maxim(talk) 17:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and good luck. ϢereSpielChequers 19:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - We need more crats. Maxim's reasoning in this RfB are very persuasive. The inactivity doesn't concern me. -- Atama頭 18:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - I see no reason to oppose, the inactivity does not concern me. GB fan (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Even the opposition thinks the candidate is good. I don't think the activity level is a cause for concern. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - Seems like a long term trustworthy editor. And I don't understand the 'do we need more crats' argument. An additional crat uses no extra resources (unless they've been secretly getting paid!) so extra crats are a costless gain. --rgpk (comment) 19:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - Candidate is a veteran sysop with a clean record. That's good enough for me. Opposer's rationales unconvincing.--Hokeman (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - no reason not to, opposers' rationale does not convince me. mauchoeagle(c) 19:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Considering how previous RfBs have gone, this one is surprising me. But that's fine with me; if standards have eased a bit, I'm all in favor. Support. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. AD's oppose made me laugh (that's not a judgement of AD's oppose by the way - it's a fair stance) because I'm very much minded to remember the candidate. Considering how many inactive 'crats we have the thought occurs that someone with a couple of extra buttons is likely to use them regularly - certainly whilst they're new and shiny. Note that I've been here a fair few years so my perspective may be different from other editors who joined more recently when it comes to "activity" and "RFA participation". I certainly trust Maxim's ability to use those tools, and that's what it comes down to. Pedro : Chat 20:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I was leaning neutral until I saw Maxim's responses to Fastily and Dank. Per those two comments, and Maxim's overall levelheadedness throughout this RfB, support. Nolelover It's almost football season! 20:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support -- 'cratship strikes me as less of a big deal than adminship. The opposes are not terribly persuasive. This candidate seems competent, low key and trustworthy. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support – I think you have what it takes. Airplaneman ✈ 22:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - My dealings with the candidate in the past have been positive overall and Maxim seems more than qualified for the task he's applying for. As noted below, his edit count shows a renewed commitment to the project. I don't think editors should be suspect, just because they let real life get in the way of editing. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib) 22:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - Finally we have one of these! Baseball Watcher 22:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support, I don't see why not. --Σ☭★ 23:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Moving to Oppose 23:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. Not the most active admin, yes, but this user is quite competent from my experience with him and crats don't need to be manning Wikipedia every hour of the day. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Support I cannot see how real-life issues having intruded into available WikiTime in the past can be considered relevant in the light of the reassurance that those real-life issues are no longer in the way; if he has time, he has time! In no way can a previous lack-of-time affect his current judgment or abilities. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Support; I think the candidate is competent and trustworthy. bobrayner (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Support I'm not bothered by occasional breaks, the fact that he has stuck with the project long term makes me think he'll be around in the future. I wasn't terribly familiar with him before this, but I don't see anything that would cause me to doubt his judgment. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Support The notion that he should be denied bureaucratship because he might not be there is petty. CatfishJim (ex-soapdish) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Support, largely on the basis of the sensible answer to Q6 and the fact that bureaucrat is about as much a non-job as could be imagined, so some degree of inactivity would not be an impediment. MalleusFatuorum 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. Wikipedia would benefit from more bureaucrats and RfBs. SuperMarioMan 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd be more worried about inactivity if I didn't trust Maxim's judgment. But I do, so it doesn't worry me as much. NW(Talk) 23:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Support ... because holidays are good. -- Marek.69 talk 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to see a real reason to oppose --Guerillero | My Talk 01:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
After careful consideration of both the supports and the opposes, I'm going to leave my comments in this section. While many of the opposers raise concerns about inactivity on the Wiki, Maxim's response to Sphilbrick is excellent and alleviates any concerns I may have about wiki-inactivity. We all have reasons for inactivity, temporary loss of interest in editing or a change in real life circumstances, something I can relate to (as I have also been inactive for some time due to a temp loss of interest and having had a daughter now). There are also times that you just need a break. Throughout this RFB, Maxim has demonstrated the ability, partly through his answers to questions 13, to judge consensus, and through his answering of other questions on the RFB as well as responses to some of the comments here, has shown he has a level head and reasonable judgment. His past history demonstrates an excellent quality of editing on Wikipedia, and has recently been more active. A combination of all these factors leads me to trust that a) Maxim is of a suitable temperament to be a bureaucrat and b) He will be at least somewhat more active than the majority of bureaucrats that we currently have, which I note is the reason Maxim is running in the first place. History has shown that brand new admins/crats are more active than those that have been in the positions for an extended period of time. Best of luck Maxim, I hope this goes well. Steven ZhangThe clock is ticking.... 01:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - impressed with some of the answers and the maturity displayed. Return to activity after inactivity doesn't worry me, and some of that time appears to have been spent on other WMF wikis anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - Breaking my wikibreak to offer my unconditional support to Maxim, one of our most qualified admins for this position. (X! · talk) · @142 · 02:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support — Opposes are not convincing, in my opinion. —GFOLEYFOUR— 03:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Not convinced by the opposes. T. Canens (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Good on Maxim for deciding to run again: I'll admit I was very surprised to see an RfB from him, but I'm sure he'll do fine as a bureaucrat. With activity, while this is a concern, his answers to the questions are great, and have put to rest any doubts as far as I am concerned. I also like that he has mentioned the concerns raised in his last RfB (which, in all fairness, were made three years ago, way more than enough time for them to be disregarded), especially where he mentions behavior: I do remember the problems he has said about in his statement, but as I said they were ages ago, and I can honestly say that he has improved tremendously. Maxim has done a fine job as an admin for the last four (nearly) years, and if this RfB is successful, I'm sure he'll be just as good as a bureaucrat. Acalamari 09:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support I have been around long enough to see Maxim around RfA and feel he'd be a good bureaucrat. - filelakeshoe 09:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Generally I get the impression Maxim will do fine. Even if he is not hugely active as long as what activity there is is positive I don't see a problem. Peter 10:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
My view that Maxim is a suitable candidate has only strengthened as this RfB has progressed. I find his answers to opposing comments very well balanced. I fail to see any argument presented as to why granting Maxim the extra tool or two has any significant risk of causing harm and I think there is a good chance he will use them well. Peter 21:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Courcelles and Fox sum up what I have to say. In short, he's qualified and he's done a good job in his four years as admin, I have no reason to believe he'll misuse the wrench. If he breaks the wiki, I'll eat my hat ;) —James(Talk • Contribs) • 9:26pm • 11:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Recent activity concerns are unwarranted, in my opinion, due to the long-term dedication to the project shown by over 4 years of significant contributions. No concerns about judgement Jebus989✰ 11:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. The solid, thoughtful answers to questions 10–16 and overall demeanor in this RfB suggest a candidate who will handle the job well, despite the recent disengagement from the RfA process. 28bytes (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support per the views expressed above about this experienced editor's ability and judgment, and per the explanations about why "lack of activity" really isn't the issue that others perceive it to be, all of which put it far better than I could. BencherliteTalk 15:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Based largely on answers to questions, particularly 13 (thoughtful), and 15 (clue about what "screwing up" really means). --joe deckertalk to me 16:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Given Maxim's good record, I don't believe inactivity is a significant enough reason to oppose his RfB. Captainpanda 18:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. OK, now let me get this straight. The WikiWisdom is that adminship (which of course the candidate already has, and reportedly hasn't destroyed the project yet) is no big deal. Just stuff like blocking users and deleting content that someone had worked on. Yeah, that stuff sure doesn't matter. But, when someone is doing that, apparently without problems, letting them make subjective calls in RfAs that land between 70%–75%, approve bots, and approve name changes, now we're in "big deal" territory? Something tells me that RfA regulars get a little too worried about whether a 72% RfA might get decided opposite to how they, personally, !voted. Reading the answers to questions, even I found one where the candidate disagreed with me! But I find those answers to be clueful, and as far as I'm concerned, this really is no big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. Good record as an administrator, and clearly has the clue to be a bureaucrat. AGK [•] 21:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Well, I don't subscribe to the idea that "bureaucratship is no big deal"; I think it should be reserved for highly trusted admins with good records of ability to judge consensus and a strong understanding of the way things work at RfA and BRFA. From that standpoint, I think Maxim would do a fine job as a bureaucrat. Concerns have been raised below about periods of inactivity in his past and particularly about his lack of RfA votes in the last couple of years. Maxim writes that his lack of direct participation is not indicative of a lack of observation or understanding of the RfA process and its politics. We can't actually verify such observation in the same way we can verify contributions. However, Maxim's very well-thought-out, clearly expressed answers to the questions in the RfB come close enough to verifying observation for me. Combined with his other comments in this discussion (everyone should read his comments about his experience bots at the bottom of the neutral section) and his respected tenure as an admin, I think there's a very strong case for making Maxim a bureaucrat. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I support. What is the issue with recent inactivity? Maxim has been an admin for years and his activity has been up and down fairly predictably. So the logical thing to expect is that it will continue to go up and down similarly. Chick Bowen 22:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
For me, the valid concerns about inactivity are outweighed by excellent answers to questions, demonstrating that the candidate's inactivity has not caused him/her to lose touch. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The thoughtful but not overboard answers are what tipped me to support. Inactivity is not concern, but in fact shows a balance of priorities. Everything I see indicates good clue. Finally, about the main page, it was the past, let it go. PrincessofLlyrroyal court 02:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Candidate seems qualified.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Excellent answers to Q3 and especially Q6. I'm not concerned about burnout or low activity because the amount of work required of 'crats is very low. I'm also not worried about Maxim's low participation in RfAs, because it's obvious that he has a good grasp of current practices. Lastly, I have to rep the people who keep me company in the village stocks... ;-) — east718 | talk | 04:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. Strong candidate, great answers to questions - I'm not bothered by anyone taking a break, and I'm impressed by the lack of involvement in drama -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Support, because I disagree with the two reasons to oppose presented below. The first one is just bloody silly, even. There's been some months in the past where the user did not make a lot of edits? So what? We're all human beings, we never signed a contract forcing us to devote a certain amount of time to this place, even if we're admins or bureaucrats. Demanding that bureaucrats are to be active on Wikipedia at all times during their lives is just.. odd. Even having a semi-active bureaucrat is quite a bit more useful than having none at all. In addition, I consider it a good thing that the candidate has not been around RfA much, considering that RfA is in dire need of change and fresh perspectives. --Conti|✉ 11:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Support; I'm not worried about activity levels: we are all volunteers and infrequent contributions are no less valuable that frequent ones. What I am seeing is an even temper and consistently good judgment and those are the criteria I judge prospective bureaucrats against. — Coren(talk) 14:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Support I am not bothered about the activity level or lack of commenting on RFAs. Candidate seems very honest and recommitted.--v/r - TP 14:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Support per TT, Beeblebrox and Courcelles. —DoRD (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Good user. WayneSlam 20:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Good candidate at this time. Keep up the good work! ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Support He has the right general approach, including a willingness to prefer closes based of crat discussions when appropriate. That he regard content creation as a criterion to be a matter of case-by-case judgment reflect the uncertain community view of it. And I agree with most or all of his specific alls for the examples, especially where they disagree with what was actually done. I strongly agree that a general pattern of opposition based on good reasons is sufficient justification to not promote even in the 70% range. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Answers are very thoughtful. sonia♫ 01:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Support The opposition is not bringing anything up of importance in my opinion. Just because the man does not have a considerable number of edits over a long period of time does not make him ineligible to become a 'crat. It's his actions that we should judge, not the amount of them.--White ShadowsStuck in square one 03:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. I do not see a compelling reason to oppose. Ruslik_Zero 08:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Hasn't broken the wiki so far, doubt (s)he will with a couple extra buttons on top of the admin. stuff. Go for it. — Ched : ? 13:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Maxim is a good user. He answered the questions very well. He will make a good crat. Alpha Quadranttalk 15:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - The candidate has been a long term contributor to the project and knows the policies well. Maxim has shown he has a good overview of the bureaucrat position in that often times it is more important for a bureaucrat to be an observer than to be an active participant. This is an important point, some of a bureaucrat's work is to be the voice of the community rather than their own voice and that means their time is spent reading rather than writing, therefore a reduced edit count is a positive in that sense. I believe Maxim's work for the project has shown he would be an effective and thoughful bureaucrat and I welcome his offer of help in those areas. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 18:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Support No good reason to oppose. --rogerd (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Would have liked to see more recent RFA related activity, but it isn't enough to stop me from supporting. Monty845 18:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Support I've had my differences with Maxim. Hes a schmuck, but trustworthy. I'm surprised by the majority of opposition, as it rests on low amount of activity only. People have lives. Get over it. Syn 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - Hear, hear: I don't participate often at RfA, the talkpage, and related pages—chiefly because of the atmosphere. I regularly read those pages, however, and on occasion I do drop by with a comment, although it is mostly contained to the discussion section. The actual process of RfA hasn't changed much in my years on Wikipedia, but the politics have evolved. As a prospective closer of tough RfAs, I believe I'm well-suited to provide an impartial judgment on the outcome, because I do not get directly involved in the politicking that characterises the processes.Carrite (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Support per the strong answers to my questions. Maxim's answer in Q11 about how he would weigh opposes based on content creation in relation to opposes based on other reasons is sensible and illuminating. I agree with Maxim's answer in Q12 that votes should not be struck. His thoughtful analyses of the RfAs in Q13 reveal that he is able to weigh judiciously and impartially controversial RfAs. In Q17, he defends his proposed closure of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1 with an extended rationale for his position. This indicates that Maxim will respond well to queries on his talk page to people who contest his closures of contentious RfAs.
His extended explanation in Q18 is well reasoned though I believe that bureaucrat discussions for controversial RfAs are more suitable than unilateral closures. Each bureaucrat has his or her biases about the various arguments advanced at RfA. Some may inadvertently dismiss legitimate opposes because of their biases. The effect of these biases on a close RfA decision can be mitigated when the bureaucrats collectively discuss how an RfA should be closed.
Maxim's willingness to explain his decisions, his long tenure as an administrator, his dispassionate view of RfA (see quote from Carrite in the above support), and his commitment to closing controversial RfAs demonstrate that he is fit to be a bureaucrat. Maxim, thank you for patiently answering my numerous challenging questions. Best of luck, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - lotsa experiences on various wikis. A jack of all trade. His acknowledgement he will be less of a jerk is humbling which means more room for good communications. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 07:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - Not concerned about inactivity. James500 (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - committed and trustworthy person wants more work and responsibility with no tangible reward except heightened scrutiny and criticism ? Give them the job already - Peripitus(Talk) 09:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Support—I'm unconcerned about activity-related complaints. Good answers to the questions, particularly to Roux's query about how SarekofVulcan's reconfirmation (with its 180 instances of the word "WP:INVOLVED") should have been dealt with. Tony(talk) 09:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The activity gaps don't really bother me as much as I thought that they would. The answers to the questions give me confidence that this is a good candidate. StrikerforceTalkReview me! 14:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - Has my trust, and the activity issues don't concern me that much. From what I have read and seen, I think Maxim would used the tools appropriately. CT Cooper ·talk 16:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Support – I have no reason to think that Maxim will not use the tools properly. —mc10 (t/c) 17:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
An experienced, clueful editor. Any concerns I had about his RfA inexperience were assuaged by the answers to the questions. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well-considered answers to the above questions, among many other reasons to support. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 17:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
One of the best editors and admins I have worked with. Definitely a good candidate for the 'crat tools. Resolute 19:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
He's sensible and has a lot of experience. It has no bearing here, but I'm also a fan of his content work. ceranthor 20:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. No evidence that the candidate would misuse the tools in any way. My concerns about inactivity have been allayed by the clueful answers to the questions. Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Strong support - I actually was talking with Maxim for a long while after he posted the nomination and I have a long history with him (working with him on several projects) and honestly if I don't support his hard work, I am doing a disjustice. As for the opposition, my editing used to be ~500 a month for a long time, now it averages ~250 a month, not sure whether or not that might be a problem. I'm actually rather impressed how well this RFB has gone, I was expecting a more decisive design. Mitch32(Can someone turn on the damnair conditioning?) 17:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
support Likely to use the tools well. Reasonable answers to questions. No reason to think tools will be unused. Recent inactivity is not a concern because total activity is so much. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
support ok for me. Everybody could have a part of inactivity. The important thing is the quality of his actions. Otourly (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
support looks ok to me. --MGA73 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Support, clueful and thoughtful. – SJ + 00:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Support Can be trusted with the tools, and has done great stuff for Wikipedia. Inactivity isn't an issue, as he ha been active recently. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Support Trusted as an admin and I see no indication that he would abuse the extra buttons. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Support The conduct of this RfB has convinced me that Maxim will be a good bureaucrat. My76Strattalk 02:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Support I have never had a concern with Maxim's actions and I completely trust him. Limited activity isn't a major concern to me since giving the rights to the right person (even if it results in a limited number of crat edits) are better than none. Royalbroil 03:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. Maxim's thoughtful communication and weighing of consensus demonstrated in the Qs has persuaded me. Martinp (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - The whole point of the current discussion to elect more 'crats is to find active admins that will be online as needed. I see you have more edits in one month in 2007 than you have made in the past two years - in other words, you just have not been very active recently. Thanks for your past service, but given your relative lack of participation here of late I cannot ask you to serve as a 'crat. I have other issues with this nomination as well but can't get past this one. My best wishes always. Jusdafax 07:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The candidate has made over 100 edits in every month of this year. Generally, some positive actions taken with a user right are considered better than no actions. Chester Markel (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but 39 edits from August to December of 2010, including three consecutive months with zeros, is not a level of activity I find support-worthy for a 'crat candidate. Jusdafax 08:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I would say recent evidence shows a renewed interest in the project and a commitment to editing. And the fact that he's not making an overwhelming number of edits suggests that giving him additional responsibilities will not be a burden. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib) 22:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Jusdafax. You do good work but I am concerned with a lack of recent activity (minimalistic number of recent edits and ~250 log actions since July 2010). In your nomination statement, you speak of lack of active crats when ironically, you yourself are not very active. Sorry, FASTILY(TALK) 09:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I've picked an oppose at random to comment on, since they all basically deal with the same thing—inactivity. (Sorry Fastily for badgering you :P) The position of bureaucrat does not require a great time commitment. I've observed that the recent RfAs close times have all been convenient with regards to time zone, and I would have closed them had I had the ability to do so. To explain on the activity: real life has been in the way, but I have more time now, and I expect it to continue like that; otherwise, as I said in my nomination statement, it would be grossly irresponsible to seek bureaucratship. With regards to log actions, I have in the past demonstrated that I am not shy to use extra tools—I have made over 100,000 deletions, thousands of protections and blocks, and few hundred user rights changes. Finally, I'm a bit confused as what is wanted in terms of activity; with my edit counts not inflated by Twinkle, I would say that I've been an active editor for the past five months. What I'm trying to get across is that I wouldn't be seeking a position to which I couldn't commit enough time. Maxim(talk) 14:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but who? I expect prospective bureaucrats to be active and involved in RFAs, and I can't say I've ever even heard of you and I'm pretty active here. Nothing against you or your admin abilities, but I think bureaucrats should show a bit more activity around the process they are going to be involved in. AD 11:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Change to Neutral (with regrets) I've reviewed some of candidates contributions, and in article space, quite impressive. However, we know that 'crat, like admin, is not a reward for doing good article work. I note, as others do, the drop off in activity in 2009 and 2010. The drop off was acknowledged, but not explained. I'm not asking for an explanation, it might well be personal and none of my business. It may well be that the reason for the drop off is no longer relevant, but I don't have any way of knowing that. I'm mildly concerned about the timing of this given only five months of recent activity (over 100 edits per month), but I am more concerned about the mix of edits over the last year. On the one hand, the project is about the content, so over 80% of edits to article space deserves kudos. On the other hand, the present question isn't an award for article contributions, it is a decision regarding who has the trust of the community to take 'crat actions. I see an editor, who after over a year of minimal activity, is returning to a more active role, but is not engaging with the community. Only 100 edits to the Wikipedia name space since June 2009, and under 50 edits to Wikipedia Talk in over two years. I see a candidate returning from a hiatus, getting back into the swing of things, who has the potential to be a strong candidate for 'crat in six months. The candidate may feel ready now, and may be ready now, but I need to see the evidence.--SPhilbrickT 12:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The more I read your comment, the more I want to give you a separate reply. You raise an interesting point regarding engagement with the community. I feel that a bureaucrat—or a prospective candidate—is not in a good position to be in the middle of meta-debates. A bureaucrat, when dealing with a contentious nomination, should in a position to deliver a dispassionate judgment. To be effective in that role, one must be well-aware of what is going on but not involved in the politics. I avoid the meta-debates because in general, they will either lead to nothing, or generate more heat than light. It does not mean that I am not informed; I observe, a lot, but comment only when I feel it's very necessary to do so. This pattern, in my opinion, translates to the ideal role of a bureaucrat, where the community decides the outcome of the RfA, and the well-informed bureaucrat is able to fairly interpret the outcome of the discussion. I understand you want to see evidence that I'm ready, so I would suggest that you should feel free to pick my brains, e.g. ask me questions. The inactivity was as a result of real-life intruding; I kept myself up to speed with the goings-on during my absence, and I strongly feel that I have enough time to devote to an extra responsibility. Maxim(talk) 16:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Moving to support. Sphilbrick says it well. Discussion on the talk page of this RfB. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, after seeing some of the supports, I'd like to point out that per Soxred's tool, "Maxim" has never voted in an RFA. When there are so few active crats, one forceful, go-it-alone crat can have a big impact on the direction of RFA. Is the ideal crat someone who's content that his judgment must be sound, someone who feels he can never benefit from sharing his perspective and getting feedback in the most important area we're asking him to work in? That's more or less the opposite of what I'm looking for. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a problem with X's tool, not with Maxim. Here's the link you want. 28bytes (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, Maxim. Looking down that list quickly, I'm having trouble finding many more recent than 2008; the most recent one I saw was one of MZMcBride's from September 2009. Some of the older rationales aren't that great, but then, some of my older rationales aren't that great either :) Do you have any rationales from 2009 or later that reflect your general approach to RfA? - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, moving to support. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not especially bothered by the activity levels per se, but I do expect someone interested in closing RfAs to have participated in more than 1 of them since late 2009. Related to that, in reply to Dank, just above, you say "I try to engage a candidate in discussion", but how is a candidate expected to respond to "I fear that as an admin he would cause more problems than he would solve, or worse, go on an outright power trip"? I would think the wisest response a candidate could make to that statement would be to ignore it. All the other "recent" examples offered were from 2009. 28bytes (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it's important to note that Dylan did not engage any engaged few opposers in his RfA. While I concede that my language was strong,—perhaps too much so—the evidence I used to support my statement speaks for itself. No one replied to the point I raised, so it seems that it was generally found unobjectionable. As for participating in few RfAs, my previous commentary on this issues stands (cf. my reply to Sphilbrick), but I would like to add that RfA as a process has not undergone any overwhelming change, other the sharp drop in nominations, since I first became familiar with it more than four years ago. The standards have changed in some places, e.g. prospective admins need even more experience in terms of time and edits, more article work is expected, there is more emphasis on reviewing speedy tagging (this is in part because admins now have Special:DeletedContributions; this feature did not exist in 2007). I wouldn't be running for bureaucrat if the present RfA process was unfamiliar to me, because for one thing, I would not be able to make informed answers to the questions I have been asked during this nomination. Maxim(talk) 20:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Dylan did engage opposers in his RfA. He replied to Malleus, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Diannaa and Pointillist. But since you mentioned speedy tagging, I'd like to ask if you stand by your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/decltype, where you take the candidate to task for failing to tag an article that wasn't eligible for it: "If the only objection is the fact that it doesn't meet something in WP:CSD, that's just silly." And if it's fair to criticize editors for not doing out-of-process deletions, does that mean you would, as a crat, be apt to perform IAR RfA closures? 28bytes (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected—I screwed up in my previous statement and have struck accordingly. I feel that you have quoted me out of context. To provide this context, I was refering to the article Statian Rummy, where the initial version stated that the game was made up in one day (on the same day that the article was created). The spirit of speedy deletion is to expedite the deletion of content that is obviously inappropriate, and most certainly that article was in that category. A personal note to the creator as to why that content was inappropriate and removed would have been better, imho, than slapping boilerplate templates on his talkpage. I don't mind clearing up things regarding that comment, but I'm a bit confused as how this relates to my ability to be a bureaucrat. If a contentious nomination arises with speedy tagging a focus of the discussion, I'd probably recuse from closing. If it relates to my interpretation of WP:IAR, then I can give that too. To me, IAR is about being bold and looking at the big picture. With regards to IAR as it relates to RfA and speedy deletion, it's a comparison between apples and oranges. I'm not sure what you even mean by an IAR close of an RfA. An IAR deletion, in the aforementioned case, is a matter of looking at the big picture. I think that a personal explanation is better than checking all the boxes but not actually communicating with the user, who is obviously confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. Process is important, but so is the big picture. I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction. Maxim(talk) 23:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your considered response. To clarify what I mean by IAR RfA closures: if you sincerely believed the encyclopedia would be improved by granting a particular candidate the sysop bit, but the level support at their RfA was much lower than the traditional "discretionary" range, what would you do? 28bytes (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification. I'll try to give an answer, but we're dealing with a hypothetical here and any such potential cases would be best suited to be assessed individually. Anyways, IAR is not a license to act rashly and unilaterally against community consensus. In brief, if faced with such a situation, where I felt that the consensus reached in the discussion doesn't "correspond" to the numbers, I would point this out to my fellow bureaucrats and gather their opinions. If I keep strictly to your wording that "if [I] sincerely believed the encyclopedia would improved ...", then in that case I'm certainly not going to be super-voting and closing how I want the RfA to end. The role of a bureaucrat at RfA is to respect, assess, and implement community consensus, and super-voting like that is precisely what a 'crat should not do. Maxim(talk) 00:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
That answer eases some of the concerns I had after reading decltype's RfA. I'd still have preferred to see better participation in RfAs over the past year, but I'm also aware that a number of editors whose opinions I have a great deal of respect for are in the support column. I will give this some more thought. 28bytes (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Switching to support. 28bytes (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Agree that 39 edits from August to December of 2010 is below the level of activity I expect of candidate, as is the dearth of RFA activity.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, per Jusdafax, and I just noticed you deleted the main page. (Source: Village stocks) With new tools, what other chaos has the possibility of being caused? --Σ☭★ 23:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That joke just made my day! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
February 2008 is three and a quarter years ago, which is quite a long time in wiki terms. If you are going to oppose over such an old incident, may one ask how old such an incident would need to be before you were prepared to disregard it or at least go neutral? ϢereSpielChequers 13:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Inactivity and inadequate engagement with the RFA process. Assessing consensus means you have to be involved in enough discussions to understand the underlying drivers. SpartazHumbug! 11:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with the above. Good or bad, RFA is a complicated place and people need to be engaged with it in order to make sensible calls in the edge cases. RxS (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Concerns with low non-mainspace activity level, communication, lack of presence at RfA and overall lack of community involvement. SwarmX 20:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Vodello, I don't mean to pick on you, but I don't think you're being fair here. My edit count in late 2007 and early 2008 is inflated by Twinkle use, and in late 2009 and the whole of 2010, real life was in the way. I have been active since January 2011, and I would not be volunteering to take on a new position if I did not have the time to do so. It is irresponsible to offer to do a job, then renege on that commitment. Thanks for your consideration, Maxim(talk) 21:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see a need for more bureaucrats at this time, especially one who is not even active in 'crat areas. Also per above. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is WP:NONEED wrong or inapplicable either to 'crats generally or this candidate in particular? James500 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Because I don't feel I can fully trust a user who appears to me to be hat collecting with these tools, and there is no need to tempt fate, whatever that essay says. - Kingpin13 (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Your points about activity are perfectly reasonable, as I mentioned in the discussion section above, so I won't go into another lengthy comment on that subject. However, I do have a query regarding hat-collecting. To the best of my recollections, we have never previously interacted, and I'm surprised by your assessment of my candidacy as hat-collecting. I'm wondering how you got to this conclusion; it's not that I take it personally, but I'm just confused, if anything. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 04:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, personally I can see no reason for you to be a crat, and I don't see what reason you can see for it, considering your previous activity indicates that you are unlikely to make any meaningful use of the tools. So that led me to conclude that this request is more of a request for the sake of having an extra userright than to actually make any use of that userright. Maybe I'm wrong on that point, but the point about activity still stands, and I guess I just don't understand any other reason for you to be requesting this right - but I can accept that you're requesting it because you do think you'd make use of it, but I disagree that you will, hence the oppose. (note, my comment above changed a little bit, see this diff - Kingpin13 (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification. I'm volunteering to be a 'crat because there were some recent comments suggesting that some admins should run at RfB, and because it's a job that I feel I could do particularly well. With regards to making use of userrights, I'm sixth among non-bot accounts on WP:ADMINSTATS, so I would disagree that I would be unlikely to make use of extra tools. Thanks again for your explanation. Maxim(talk) 05:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: I don't see a need or compelling case made for this promotion, especially given the inconsistent activity levels. I also see in fairly recent history a lot of page moves that were likely to be controversial but were made without discussion. This doesn't give me a great deal of confidence how the editor will judge consensus. Jonathunder (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Those very straightforward moves were to add diacritics to player names where necessary as per this agreement. There's nothing controversial about them. I respect your opinion regarding my activity levels, but I felt that it would be beneficial to clear up the page-move issue. Maxim(talk) 23:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Leaning support. My position on the current need or lack of for new crats is that extra redundancy is a good thing, provided that the "redundant" parts are of equal quality to the current inventory. My gut feeling is that Maxim fits that description, but I will do some more research before committing myself. —WFC— 07:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
On balance, I'll stick here. If I went on my gut feeling for every candidate (as I once did to a large extent), I'd be very inconsistent. The "low" edit count isn't an issue per se, but since 2009 there is virtually no participation in crat-related areas. The argument that staying away from RfA makes you objective is logical, but there is a trade-off to be had between that, and participating frequently enough to show that you can objectively evaluate arguments relating to contentious candidates. —WFC— 05:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Meh. I'm not convinced we need more crats, but if we do, we'll need more active ones. I've seen good work from Maxim, but I don't really care either way if xe is a crat. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral. Edit count or log actions is of no concern to me. Since crats are not like ArbCom but like admins, there is no reason to require a particular level of activity for a crat to meet in order to support them. ArbCom members should be active because there are only a limited number of them and thus inactivity is harmful. Crats, on the other hand, we can, and should, have as many as possible. As Andrevan said well in his essay, redudancy is good and it's better for the project to have many crats who don't have much to do than few crats who have too much to do. Just as with admins, if Maxim does only a single positive action as a crat, it is of benefit to the project. After all that general chatter (sorry for that), I also think Maxim would be a good crat. From all I have seen he is calm, helpful, friendly and able to do what crats need to do. I'm more wary about his lack in contributions to any crat-related areas in more than 2 years but I would trust Maxim enough to read up what he doesn't know. What keeps me from supporting is the fact that his edit summary usage is below 75%. Crats, much more like admins (and those much more than "normal" users), have to be able to communicate their actions clearly and edit summaries are one of many tools to achieve this. I know, some people will think this to be a "petty" reason not to support but I have (and probably will) expect a certain level of edit summary usage from all candidates at RfX. As such, I think I would sound more hypocritical (and rightly so) if I made an exception here just because I personally like the candidate. On the other hand, if Maxim assures me that he will change his behavior in this area and start using edit summaries for (almost) all edits from now on, I will consider switching to support (since I trust him enough to keep his word). N.B.: That's not a way to "buy" my !vote; unless proven otherwise, I will assume in dubio pro reo that Maxim never considered the importance of edit summaries and that his current behavior is a reflection of that. And if that's the case, willingness to change it is a sign that the candidate is able to reflect on and correct his mistakes, i.e. something that I think any good user should be able to do Regards SoWhy 19:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
SoWhy, I'm grateful that you've commented on my edit summary usage. I took a look at my recent edits in the mainspace, and I generally don't leave them when I make a series of minor, repetitive edits. I had felt that a few edits in just as many minutes, marked minor, would be self-explanatory, but I understand that leaving summaries is a "Best Practice", so I will pay more attention now to that part of my editing. Thanks. Maxim(talk) 20:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
There are a couple of reasons why such edits need edit summaries imho, I listed them at User:SoWhy/Use edit summaries#Common arguments. Maybe it will help to show that even with a series of minor, repetitive edits, using edit summaries is not only useful but sometimes actually the only way for others to efficiently check your edits (for example this edit would be incomprehensible without the edit summary). Regards SoWhy 20:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral. I am not convinced that we need more crats--I haven't seen anywhere any evidence of unmanageable backlogs or terribly late closes on RfAs (though, as a side note, I think in any RfA that goes over time all late votes should be automatically discounted). However, I am likewise not convinced that another crat would do any harm, and Maxim's arguments about neutrality and the appearance thereof are somewhat compelling. These are equally balanced for me. → ROUX₪ 20:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral. Per Roux and Jusdafax. I'm not convinced that we need more crats. That said, I believe in adminship being an inclusive process, and there's no reason that shouldn't apply to cratship. Wiki activity as it is isn't much of a concern to me - what we all want to see is whether you'll be an active crat. I'm also surprised nobody mentioned that Maxim is also the user who deleted the Main Page. Not a big deal, but it's a funny thing. As I see how the debate goes along, I might add things to my position or choose an ultimate !vote side. — Waterfox~talk~ 22:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well now he'll be able to rename Jimbo. I look forward to that. -- Atama頭 23:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral - leaning towards support. Moving to support. I believe we need more bureaucrats, but four points give me pause: previous use of other user names/a user name (although declared to Arbcom), the fact that I cannot for some reason find his RfA, and what I personally detect as a certain 'eagerness' to be an admin and a bureaucrat, and (until I make the same mistake myself) deleting the main page. However, due to the number of supporters, many of whose opinions I greatly respect, the commitment to be more active, and the quality of his work, my !vote is in this section for the moment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
My RfA is here—I was renamed. Comments #1 and #3 I can't really address, but with regards to the deletion of the main page,—which has been raised by others—it was a one-off blunder. In short, I wasn't feeling all that well on that day and I noted that the Main Page could deleted again (before it said it had over 5,000 revisions), and it was suggested to me in jest that it would still be impossible to delete. So I fell for it. Please rest assured that I have not since engaged nor do I intend to engage again in such stupidity on the Wiki. Maxim(talk) 01:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
There have been discussions on recent RfAs abut the appropriateness of user names for admins - I understand your reasons for the change. Your very first RfA demonstrates again what I consider to be 'over eager', and under today's conditions and my criteria I probably would not have supported your EC RfA. However, as your work as a bureaucrat will come under a lot of scrutiny, I now see no compelling reasons to remain in this section. Just don't delete my user page on one of your off-days. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral - Moving to support.There's clearly a need for more crats, but in a perfect world candidates would have been a bit more active than Maxim. That said, I've only seen good things from this admin. Leaning to support, but neutral for now. Candidate's levelheaded response to questions convinces me. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Positives: Handled the questions very well thus far, shows good temperament and patience. Negatives: What Aiken Drum said (AD is the third oppose). Will think about this further. Sven ManguardWha? 02:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm torn. On the one hand, we could do with a few more 'crats, and I certainly don't think Maxim would abuse the position, which has a fairly limited scope for damage anyway (unwanted renam ing and bot-flagging would be annopying, but easily rectified, and making new admins without the going through RfA would be very quickly picked up). On the other hand, you basically say it in your nomination statement: we have 'crats to flag bots, close RfAs and rename users; As I understand it, renaming is a fairly robotic task, but I don't se a demonstrated experience with bots (please correct me if I'm wrong), in fact, you've been a BAG member for years but have never acted in that capacity, not even in the weeks leading up to your RfB; and, by your own admission, you don't participate at WT:RFA and have !voted in only a handful of RfAs since your return to activity. The inactivity and the long break don't concern me per se—several incumbent 'crats have been inactive for a long time and then come back and as long as you keep up to speed with policy and best practice, it shouldn't be an issue, but you haven't really proven that you are up to speed or shown that you have an interest in RfA/bots/CHU. I've considered supporting, I've considered opposing, but I'm not sure, so I'll probably end up here until it closes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
With regards to BAG, my nomination is here, I've participated in a BAG statement on date delinking, and closes include 1, 2, 3 and significant commentary include 1, 2, 3, 4. My motivation for joining was that I was asked, and that it was at a time where nominations were encouraged so that BAG was less of an insular group, so there was a very sizeable influx of new faces.
With regards to CHU, I have significant experience there, not only with clerking, but I helped Kingturtle learn the ropes at CHU. He gave me a barnstar for it. (Incidentally, it was during a period when I was massively burned out. I got myself into too much drama.) Kingturtle became a bureaucrat in 2004 but only started at CHU in 2008; it is this sort of very clueful bureaucrat that I have thought of when answering questions 6 and 9. If you want him to comment on this, I can go poke him at his talkpage, or he might notice that I've mentioned him before he's pinged.
With regards to being up to speed, I invite you to review my answers; I believe that they speak for themselves with regards to how well-informed I am with the processes and expectations. Also of interest may be my statement in the discussion section and the more recent comments regarding my answers. I remain confident that a bureaucrat's role should be that of an observer, instead of a participant. Finally, with regards to interest, I believe that my commitment in this RfB, e.g. answering 18½ questions as of this post, demonstrate an interest in the processes and a willingness to assist in them as a prospective bureaucrat. I hope that these points help you in your decision. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 20:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral. I didn't want to do support since haven't participated before, and I understand the weight of the matter. I want to say that by the responses above I find the candidate to have a clear grasp of the needs of the job and how to handle them with competence. Particularly, it shows the knowledge not only of the processes but of the various circumstances than may arise during RfA, together with the judgement required to act upon it. As for the contribution history I feel it is a stretch to judge so far back in time, and the candidate stepped up in light that the issue with crats was availability. There is no other duty than the one you put upon yourself - frankieMR (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral. Didn't like the lack of engagement with questions 4 and 6, but liked the responses to the trial RFA questions. The lack of activity is an issue as is the lack of RFA participation. That said, I'm digging the content work. Add on top of that is the essential irrelevance of the crat role itself. Just don't know. TCO (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral I haven't changed my concerns about recent activity, but I've decided that they aren't really a reason to oppose, they merely make it impossible for me to fully support at this time. Accordingly, I've indented my oppose !vote--SPhilbrickT 15:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral. I am unconvinced that we need more bureaucrats. Moreover, I am unconvinced that Maxim will undertake a significant amount of bureaucrat work. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral, mostly per Axl. We're not in a huge need of bcrats, but if we're going to nom one I would want one that's more consistently active. Besides that, this is almost feeling like a reward for article work, which is exactly what bureaucratship should Not be. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 17:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.