Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/The Rambling Man

The Rambling Man

Voice your opinion (talk page) (93/1/2); Scheduled to end 16:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - I'm nominating The Rambling Man for Bureaucrat because he's a fairly extraordinary Wikipedian. I'll keep this nom short with a punchy list of some of his relevant merits. He works within policy, but is happy to help influence its development. He solicits consensus, will argue his corner, but is prepared to change his mind. And even (gasp!) apologise if needed. He's enormously experienced, not least in RfA debates. He collaborates well with others, not least in his terrific collection of featured articles and lists. He remains calm and civil even when dealing firmly with trolls. He is an extremely and consistently active contributor. Best of all, he's modest and not power hungry - he's convinced this RfB will fail. He'll be a fine Bureaucrat. Dweller (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'd be honoured. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2008 (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. Yes I have. The primary criterion for promotion is that there's a community consensus in favour of allowing an editor the three extra buttons. As most of us are aware, a consensus to promote usually manifests itself in the community showing over 70 to 75% support for a candidate. But of course the process is more subtle than just that. The way in which the community expresses its feelings for a more borderline candidate in the various opposition and neutral opinions are essential to form a rounded picture.

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

A. For me, it's a straightforward case of discussing the issue with other bureaucrats. While it's good to carpe diem, it's usually a better idea to step back, reflect and discuss. While Wikipedians expect a good level of service from folks they've agreed to bestow tools upon, there really is no rush and no need to make snap decisions. Certainly in the early days of my adminship, I went about my business very gently and if successful here would do the same as a bureaucrat. I've always been open to criticism and encouraged dialogue with folks who believed that I may have stepped out of line as either a simple editor or an admin.

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 think that experience I've gained as an editor, working within a number of projects and successfully collaborating on a number of featured articles, shows that I'm able to engage with others politely, fairly and, dare I say it, with a little bit of fun? Obviously the time I've spent with the mop has improved my understanding of policy, but I learn new things all the time. Since becoming an admin, I've got my hands dirty quite a bit and haven't suffered any wrath beyond the usual vandalism.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Absolutely. My edit record should be sufficient to assuage any fears that I may become an inactive bureaucrat, should this RFB end successfully. The only way I wouldn't contribute as a bureaucrat would be if the internet stopped existing.

Optional question from VanTucky

5. What is your perspective on the recent resysopping of ^demon, in light of the fact that his reconfirmation RFA closed with less than 65% support? How you would you have closed it and why?

A. Hmm, this is quickly becoming the RFB test case, a little like the RFA "When would you ignore all rules and why?"... I'm not keen on the result of this RFA as it does exactly what has happened here, leave questions unanswered and makes a bureaucrat appear a little like an inflated Premiership referee who makes the odd odd decision. However, should an admin wish to relinquish his/her three extra buttons and then expose him/herself to the scrutiny of the community then it's their choice and in doing so they should experience the same bureaucratic decision-making as a "virgin" admin. To cut my longish ramble a bit shorter, my perspective is that ^demon could have returned to adminship without discussion, he chose not to and probably (probably) ought not to have be re-sysopped. However, my response to Q2 above applies here, I would have discussed it with the other bureaucrats first. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Tim Smith

6a. As an administrator, you are to be commended for making yourself open to recall. There is currently no analogous process for bureaucrats. Should bureaucrats be open to recall? Would you support a Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats open to recall?

A. Another hot topic over at RFA, the question of recall. I think that all admins and bureaucrats should be accountable for the actions and that should the community come to a consensus that someone has abused their position, they should be de-sysopped. Placing myself open to recall really is just a mechanism by which I'm making it clear to everyone that I'm happy to be held accountable and would encourage people to scrutinise and question my behaviour. In answer to your question, my position will not change should this RFB be successful. I'm not convinced that either category needs to exist per se, individuals should take it upon themselves to be honest with the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

6b. What degree of consensus is required for a successful RfB?

A. Aha, a question around the topic currently being discussion on the main WP:RFA talk page. As it stands, the RfB section of the WP:RFA page says "... the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, generally requiring a clearer consensus... " and since the generally accepted RfA promotion mark is around the 75%, then the RfB mark is higher than that. However, there's a general perception that "degree of consensus" = "support %". Not true, not for RfA or RfB. Obviously a certain level of support is required but commentary provided by those who contribute must also be taken into account. So in answer to your question, a clear consensus is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

6c. As a bureaucrat, would you close or participate in closing a discussion in which you had commented?

A. I would almost certainly never close a discussion into which I had made any significant input, but clearly I'd be more than happy to participate in a closure should my opinion be requested from other 'crats. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Long and Probably Arduous Optional Questions from Seresin

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

A. Firstly, can I just say that I would hope, should this pass, my first action as a bureaucrat wouldn't be to have to solve your quandries single-handedly! Of course, in all these situations I would not act unilaterally and would discuss the scenarios in question with bureaucrats of greater experience. However, with your specific situations in mind, I would initially question the de-sysopped editor as to the purpose of the RfA and remind him/her that the tools can be returned without the process. If, however, the process is still undertaken then I think it ought to run its course. Should the RFA be stopped midway for whatever reason then I think it would be a case of determining the consensus at the time, since it would be my opinion that should a de-sysopped user be determined to expose him/herself back to the RFA process, they should follow the due process. As for who determines conensus among bureaucrats, I guess that's like "Who watches the watchman?" - I imagine that should a clear consensus really not be achieved by the bureaucrats then arbitration could be sought. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't quite follow your answer here. Other crat candidates have declined to answer hypotheticals, or even comment on specific cases but it sounds like you're willing. (as an aside do you think that's good or bad?) This hypothetical case seems to be similar to an actual case to me, does it to you? Do you recall whose? Do you have any comment on how that case transpired, and/or things that other crats should or shouldn't have done in it? ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

8. Similar to the above, and may seem an obvious answer but you never know with those tricky ArbCom rulings. An editor who was previously an administrator decides to have another RfA; it fails. However, he did not resign "under a cloud." Can he get his +sysop back by asking? Or must he then have a successful RfA to get it back?

A. In my opinion, if the editor has failed an RfA, it would be very unwise to re-sysop him or her. This would be a blatant act of going against the consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

9. You see a contentious RfA, and one where there are likely to be problems regardless of how it is closed. We can use the <70% RfAs, if you'd like. There is not cut and dried consensus. You decide that you want to get other bureaucrats' opinions on this RfA before closing. On BN, or on a /crat chat page, you have both bureaucrat and non-crat opinions. Do the non-RfB passers' opinions matter in determining whether or not there is consensus?

A. Yes of course. We're all human and I'm certain there are many editors who would make more than capable admins and bureaucrats but who choose not to. These folks, and those who take an interest in the processes and procedures all have the right to have their opinion heard and considered. You never know when you can't see the wood for the trees. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

10. I've always wondered about this. It is probably not something the bureaucrats have authority over, but rather the community, so feel absolutely free to indicate if that is what you believe. Bureaucrat X closes an RfA as successful (in good faith). You, however, (also in good faith) believe that it clearly failed; you believe this very strongly. Is it within a bureaucrat's authority to say another bureaucrat was wrong, and therefore re-close the RfA as failed, and ask a steward to remove the flag? Or does a bureaucrat's authority only lie in being the first one to get to an RfA?

A. Well first up I'd need to discuss the matter with the promoting bureaucrat in question. This appears analagous to admins wheel-warring. If the RfA has been passed then I would not seek to re-close it as a fail - as you pointed out, should an RfA be passed against my opinion, I would guess I would not be alone and the community would react accordingly. If I was alone in my opinion then I'd have to deal with it - the consensus rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

11 We're done with RfA questions. Now to renames. Can non-bureaucrats shape rename policy/guideline/convention? Or, rather, is it like ArbCom where the ArbCom (and Jimbo) have authority to dictate such things? What is your opinion on a bureaucrat violating a long-standing convention on renames?

A. Well I think there's a slight difference between shaping policies and guidelines and then just violating them. I personally believe that while ArbCom and Jimbo have authority to dictate, they also have a duty to listen to consensus. A bureaucrat violating convention needs to be dealt with and I would imagine that if it were allowed to go ignored it would undermine all bureaucrat activities. It would need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, I'm not suggesting an immediate de-flagging for instance, the bureaucrat's actions would need discussion to avoid hasty decision making. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

12, for good measure Short and quick, though. Here on enwiki, we do not currently have regular "reconfirmation" of administrators, nor do we desysop inactive admins, as they do on many projects. (See meta's process, for example) How do you feel this should be applied to bureaucrats, if at all?

A. Reconfirmation seems like a reasonable idea if it weren't for the fact that admins and bureaucrats should be (and generally are) held accountable for their actions by the community. Just because an admin or bureaucrat becomes inactive for a period I don't really see why they should be de-sysopped - outside of Wikipedia we all have real lives (I think!) and sometimes real life will modify your Wikipedia activity. In answer to your question I think I've said above, actions of admins and bureaucrats should be scrutinised by the community and should a consensus be reached that their actions are inappropriate, they should be dealt with accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions fromMBisanz

13a. Crats flag Bots per WP:BAG consensus. They also interpret close elections of editors to the BAG. What is your standard for an editor passing a BAG election?

A. My honest answer right now is that I wouldn't go near a close BAG election! My experience in that area is limited and right now it would be unreasonable of me to force my interpretation of the suitability of an editor to BAG - I'd leave it to a more experienced 'crat. However, it is an area that I have an interest in (I'm a software engineer when I'm not on here) and so it's something to which I feel, given time, I could make a real contribution. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

13b. BAG approves Bots in the WP:RBA process. How many BAGers supporting a Bot function would you require to flag a bot? What if there was opposition from non-BAGers?

A. Again, I'm afraid to report I'm no expert in this process at the moment but even a quick read of the page indicates a backlog so it's somewhere which would benefit from fresh eyes and, in spite of a steep learning curve, I'd like to get stuck in. To answer your first question, at the moment I have no prescribed level of support to flag a bot. I'll learn that. Your second question I can answer - as you may have gleened from some of my other answers, I consider all opinions to be worthy of inclusion in a discussion, regardless of whether they come from inside or outside BAG. So I'd consider them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

13c Currently the process to involuntarily de-flag a bot is handled in an ad-hoc manner at WT:RFBA. Where, from whom, and in what form, would you require consensus to de-flag a bot against its owner's wishes? Against the BAG's wishes, but with the community's consensus?

A. I think that there's no generic answer for this scenario. I consider the BAGers opinions to be more significant as they would be capable of really understanding what Bots are doing while the community only see the results which, while sometimes are undesirable, quite often are correct. Betacommandbot has, on numerous occasions, drawn the wrath of the community for many cases where the Bot was correct, but simply annoying or not clear in its warnings. If the community had gotten their way each time, I imagine BCBot would have been taken outside and shot.

As you can see, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in the world of Bots but you can assume that should this RfB end favourably, I'd make it a priority to become more involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from Rudget

14. If an RFA (which wasn't "contentious") was just slightly under the recognisable 75-80% percentile promotion range, and the opposes which had been stated were slightly weak or you had engaged with that user before and had been left with positive observations, would you promote normally or seek discussion with other bureaucrats? Rudget. 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A. Neither. I'd determine the overall consensus by examining the opinions of the community. This would include all support, oppose and neutral concerns. Only then would I form an opinion in my own mind and, should that opinion be (in my opinion) open to question, then I'd approach other 'crats. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from Dorftrottel

15. Hypothetically speaking, if an RfA were to be opposed by a relatively large number of people who have a significant history of voting in unison, would that influence the weight you assign those opposes or not? Dorftrottel (canvass) 01:40, March 1, 2008

A. That's a very good question. Naturally I'm certain I'd be initially inclined to consider an oppose voting cabal's opinions with less gravitas than other opposes, but unless there's any evidence of kind of anti-WP:CANVASSing then it would be wrong of me to act on it I think. Again, it would be something that I would need to discuss with other 'crats. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from J.L.W.S. The Special One

16. "Potentially controversial nominations should be decided through a discussion between multiple bureaucrats, rather than closed by a single bureaucrat." How far do you agree? Explain your answer.

A. I agree with the statement pretty much wholeheartedly. This is a wiki and as such significant (or controversial) decisions should be discussed. It's not a case of sharing the blame, it's a case of making the right decision. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

17. Define "bureaucratic discretion", then state and explain at least three factors involved in bureaucratic discretion.

A. Well, without resorting to my dictionary I'd suggest that bureaucratic discretion is the freedom of a 'crat to make decisions or choose the outcome of situations that arise within his or her duties such as closing out RfA's or changing usernames. My sole aim in decision making as a 'crat would be that my decisions do not cause "damage" to the Wiki. As all scenarios are different (as exemplified by some of the questions above) I think the factors involved differ. For instance, close calls at RfA should involved close examination of all commentary, discussion with other 'crats and a duty of care to respect the community. I don't think I've adequately answered the question but I think that I'd would rely on my own common sense and the sense of other 'crats to help me out. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

18. How far will being a bureaucrat affect your actions as an editor and administrator?

A. Well, I make over a thousand edits a month right now (nearly 2000 last month) and I suppose it's split around 70% editor, 30% admin (although it does change depending on how creative I'm feeling). When going for RfA I pledged that it would not detrimentally effect my editing and I believe the featured content I've provided since will back that up. If the RfB is successful then naturally it will effect my editing and admin actions but perhaps I'll have to spend a little longer on the Wiki in order to make up for it! As for affecting my actions, I don't think it will modify my behaviour towards other editors (if that's what you're asking?) - it won't change the way I edit and create articles, but I guess as time elapses and I become more aware of how 'crats make decisions then it will help me help the community further. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support

1. As nominator. --Dweller (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Great guy. Epbr123 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I feel a success coming on here!!!Dusti^{talk to me} 17:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. An extremely neutral admin who would be good at judging consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Another excellent candidate. Acalamari 17:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - I consider self-nominations as .. hey, waitaminute!! Seriously, Rambling is a great admin and has the perfect temperament for 'crat duties and I certainly trust him on matters of neutrality and good judgment. He'll be great! - Alison ^❤ 17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Only seen good things from this guy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Absolutely - I trust this user entirely as a bureaucrat. Now, how long until the next nominee comes along...? EJF (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support, though it was a pain trying to drag you here Rambler. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Suppport, probably the best Wikipedian I've seen. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong Support - Ramble on Dude !!.. :) ....--Cometstyles 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support, no concerns about his judgement or his dedication - would make a great bureaucrat. Neıl ☎ 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Especially capable. Rudget. 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Strong support I trust you to be fair, and I trust you to be neutral. I feel that you definitely will base decisions on consensus & not your own opinion, which is important. нмŵוτнτ 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support, strongly. AGK (contact) 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Suppport He would make a good bureaucrat. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. An extremely stable user whom has the ability to write great articles and make good decisions, the former is something which I hope you will not give up on if you receive the + bureaucrat right. Qst (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Dlohcierekim 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support, no problems here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support I thought RfB's were supposed to be self-noms? Avruch ^T 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support has the stability and been 'round enough to see the bigger picture. [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - agree with casliber. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
24. support —DerHexer (Talk) 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support - from previous experience around football-related articles, this user has always struck me of sound mind and sensible judgement. - fchd (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support, per his experience, his answers (particularly 2A) and other support(s) above (some opinion(s) I have learned to respect). Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Can't say no here. :) GlassCobra 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Of course Simply stated, hes a great Wikipedian. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Maxim_(talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support. Ronnotel (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support. I trust this user to make good decisions. Malinaccier (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support. If I made a list of Wikipedians I trust the most, he'd be somewhere near the top. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Support - I'm sold on his sanity and neutral, calm outlook. ♠PMC♠ 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Well-reasoned answers to questions. VanTucky 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Jmlk17 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
37. Support - Gondo says it well. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Very impressed, looks to have good judgement. Davewild (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. A good, trustworthy admin who knows his way around. The Man should prove to be a level-headed 'crat. Majoreditor (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
40. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. bibliomaniac15 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
42. Support Good admin work --> good bureaucrat --Stephen 23:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
43. Strong support Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
44. Support - trustworthy admin. Addhoc (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
45. Aye. No-brainer support. Black Kite 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
46. Support: Everything I can see has been positive, the leap from admin to bureaucrat is not so great that there are any additional concerns; only extra criteria is an ability to judge community consensus more effectively than as an admin, and I'm sure he has it in him —αlεx•mullεr 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
47. Support - We need more 'crats, and The Rambling Man will do a fine job. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    Support Indeed. Jmlk17 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    Vote indented. You seem to have accidentally voted twice: [1] [2]. --Deskana (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

48. Dual-bathrobe-and-no-IRC-knowledge-support. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
49. Support An easy decision. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
50. One of the good ones, definitely. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Naturally. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Will make an excellent bureaucrat. Captain panda 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
53. Support per above. Great sysop, and can be trusted with the tools. I know that he will be an excellent bureaucrat. NHRHS2010 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
54. Support Complete and utterly wholehearted support. Woody (talk) 02:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
55. support JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
56. Support Prodego ^talk 02:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
57. Support -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
58. Strong Support Absoutely! Mr Senseless (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
59. Definitely qualified. —Dark ^(talk) 04:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
60. Support: Will make one excellent 'crat. seicer | talk | contribs 05:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
61. Support anyone born in the back seat of a Greyhound Bus, rolling down Highway 41, well, they need all the support they can get. Seriously, he's a great admin and never abuses the tools. I see no reasonable reason NOT to support him at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
62. Strong Support Excellent user great track no concerns.Has not abused his toolsPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
63. Daniel (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
64. Support. - Per the nom, and the user has made some impressive contributions to this project, would make a good 'crat. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
65. Support. Has my full confidence and support. Good luck! Dfrg_msc 07:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
66. Support - A well intentioned, well trusted admin - will make a fine crat. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
67. Support The primary function o fa B'crat is to have good judgement on borderline RfAs. The responses above demonstrate that he does. DGG (talk) 09:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Excellent, reflective answers to questions. Kbthompson (talk) 09:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
69. Support, demonstrates strong 'crat qualities. --MPerel 09:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
70. Support, good answers, cool head, passionate about the encyclopedia, not about his persona here. I only hope bureaucratic functions don't interfere with his tremendous work in article space, but I'll take the nominator's word that they won't. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
71. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
72. Support, per 71 other editors, answers to questions and he seemed very level headed the few times I've come across him. I'm —MJCdetroit ^(yak) and I approved this message at 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
73. Support - Cause I can. --Endless Dan 13:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
74. Support. Excellent answers to the questions. I agree with User:Alex.muller that the leap from admin to bureaucrat is not so great that we need to have strong concerns about it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
75. Support. Majorly (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
76. Support for being born in the back seat of a Greyhound Bus rolling down Highway 41 (which passes through my hometown). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    You're a little late to the party. I already had that quote... Look up^ --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

77. No objection. Ral315 (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
78. 'Sif he needs it! ;) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
79. Support of course.   jj137 (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
80. Support--Húsönd 23:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
81. Support - Can not find any reason to oppose. Tiptoety ^talk 23:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
82. yup --Doc^g 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
83. Ansell 00:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
84. Support - personal interaction with this user leads me to believe they will make a great 'crat :-D Pumpmeup 00:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
85. Support. Questions well answered. Good user as well. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 01:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
86. Support nothing objectionable about him.:) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 02:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
87. Support Surprised that such a user was not nominated earlier. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 03:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
88. Absolutely. --Coredesat 04:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
89. Obvious support The Rambling Man will make an excellent edition to the 'crat corps. Somitho (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
90. Support per Dweller's nom. Level-headed user active in many areas who has a good eye for judging consensus... in short, nothing that hasn't been said before. The "other-person-nom" thing happened in a couple other RfB's, I think; one of them was Quadell's. No visible (or invisible) problems. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
91. Support per interesting mailing list thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
92. Dorftrottel (bait) 09:59, March 1, 2008
93. Support After reading over this users history, I feel he/she has always conducted themselves in a very civil way. I say go for it. If you get this and ever come across me, be gentle cause I am sensitive! Canyouhearmenow 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Based on my personal criteria of waiting for admins to be at least a year old as such in the project. However, it is obvious he is a dedicated user, and I wish him a good request! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. In agreement with ReyBrujo...all looks quite excellent except that you haven't been an admin for at least a year...yes, I know such standards may seem arbitrary, but it simply is one of my personal expectations before I can support any Rfb. Fine job on those FA's and all your other work keeps me from opposing.--MONGO 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)