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

Final (29/38/5)

Closed unsuccessful. Andre (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Along with all of the madness of the other nominations for 'crat, I present to you A Man In Black. He received his mop in October of 2005 and has been involved in a good number of AfD's as the closing admin including Brandt Internet Troll Squad Essjay GNAA, Nigeria, I believe this shows his ability to gather consensus in tough situations. He, I believe, has the experience and desire necessary to become an active part of our bureaucrat pool. So without further delay, I give you A Man In Black and hope he, along with some of the others are able to help clear the backlog. Somitho 10:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. (Beats the heck out of being listed on...hm. We don't have a RFBr. Requests for Bromine?) We need another hand at the bot requests page and particularly at the long backed up WP:CHU. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A. I could be glib and say "Determine the community's consensus and close the RFA in that way." As a matter of realpolitik, right now the standards are promote at 80% support, reject at 70% support, and consider the case carefully between. Obviously, such numbers are not a straitjacket, and Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. They are, however, useful rules of thumb.

In any event, I have felt comfortable dealing with close, contentious cases at AFD, and I feel comfortable dealing with similarly close cases at RFA.

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

A. By carefully documenting my reasoning, to the point of explaining what impact individual comments had on me. User:A Man In Black/Brandt, from the last Brandt AFD, is an example of this, albeit applied to an AFD.

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. Well, I've been here for two years now, edited a broad variety of pages, and participated in the development and creation of articles and guidelines. While I'm outspoken about Wikipedia's referencing standards with regards to pop culture articles, without being too terribly egotistical I feel the standard I've set has seen support with the Wikiprojects I've worked with in the past.

More relevant to 'crat tasks, I feel the decisions and evaluations of consensus I've made in controversial, polarized decisions have seen community support, more often than not.

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. I'm willing and able to handle all three of those tasks, particularly WP:B/RFA and WP:CHU. I'm happy to help at WP:RFA, although I wouldn't have accepted this RFB nom if RFA were the only task, as I feel it's currently well in hand.

Optional questions from White Cat

5a. When closing any particular nomination would you treat it more like a "democratic vote"? How would you weight the number of "comments"/"votes"?

A. A bureaucrat is a tool of the community in this respect. The community at large dictates the discretion a 'crat can express, and I feel the community has made it clear that, for now, RFA is a vote unless that vote is very close. As a closing 'crat at RFA, my job is to read the votes (excluding socks and obvious bad faith and other, similar junk) unless the total falls into that 70%-80% discretionary area, where careful weighing of the comments and discussion is necessary.

Once you've reached that discretionary area, it's time to exercise that discretion, weigh the arguments pro and con, and see which are refuted and which are not.

That said, I am equally confortable with systems that are entirely discretionary (a hypothetical RFC-style handling of RFA, with 'crats making the final decision), WP:B/RFA's rather informal system, and even allow-unles-someone-can-justify-why-not (many systems on Wikipedia, including WP:RM and WP:CHU). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5b. A follow up question. In this existing system would you <s> out (and hence disqualify) useless remarks (in your words "socks and obvious bad faith and other, similar junk")?

A. Not routinely. There's very little potential gain, and great potential harm if I make an accident.

5c. How do you intend to cope with the challenges discussed on various occasions such as in the Adminship survey (summary) or at Adminship Reform?

A. I need a more specific question than that. One of those is a gallery of charts, and the other is a lengthy discussion with many different topics discussed.

Alright two issues which seems to have clear consensus on Wikipedia:Adminship survey summarized at User:White Cat/Adminship survey summary#Wikipedia:Adminship survey

One of the issues raised was that "some types of !votes are less worthy of consideration than others", what is your stance on this?

Another issues raised was that "RfA has become a popularity contest" rather than a median to grant admin tools

What are your opinions on these two particular viewpoints?

-- Cat ^chi? 08:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Question from Walton:

6. Given that Danny's RfA closed at only 68% support, with over 100 good-faith opposes from established users, do you believe it was right for him to be promoted? I'm not asking for an opinion on Danny himself, but on the bureaucrats' closure of that RfA, which ignored 100 people's opinions given in good faith. Walton^talk 14:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. It is an unfortunate fact that someone's opinion stated in good faith is going to be overridden support or opposition is unanimous. This is unfortunate but unavoidable, and the only way to soften that blow is to make decisions that will merit general trust, in an open and clearly reasoned manner.

I'm not going to replay that RFA in detail, but I respect the fact that the closing 'crats made an effort to make their reasoning process transparent and visible to all, in order to better earn that general trust. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Bishonen

7. What happen? I've never seen a 'crat nom that wasn't a selfnom before, and I think the normal practice is good. Are you unaware of it, or are you trying to change it? Bishonen | talk 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A. RFB's are usually self-noms? Well, you learn something new every day. Seems like an essentially cosmetic difference to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there have been a couple of other non-self-nom RfB's in the recent past, so perhaps that norm is fading. Perhaps there should be a discussion (not here) about whether the old rule was a good thing or not. Newyorkbrad 16:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Martinp23

8. You mention in your acceptance that "We need another hand at the bot requests page". By "bot requests page", I presume that you don't mean Wikipedia:Bot requests, rather Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. Anyway - what do you feel is the 'crat's role in BRFA discussions, and what checks should be made before giving the bot flag (I say this having not seen your presence around BRFA much)?

A.: "Bot requests page" was me blocking on the shortcut for BRFA; I knew it wasn't WP:BOTREQ, but I was blocking on BRFA. >_< I haven't been around WP:B/RFA as I haven't had a bot to get approved.

The role of a bureaucrat is to tag bots that have been approved by the BAG. Is this a trick question?

Questions from Deckiller

9. Should I jump on the RfB bandwagon?

A. Answer hazy. Ask again later.

10. Several members of WP:FF have stated that you helped to "drive them away", which from my perspective appears to be an unfair assessment. If you had a chance, and they still claimed that to be the case, would you take the time to heal any wounds?

A. My role in WP:WPFF has been limited to telling everyone how great a job they're doing, and being critical at WP:FAC. The only contentious situation I've ever been involved in there that I can recall is this recent one with Renmiri.

So basically, yes, I'd like to, but I'm not sure what's going on, given my limited interaction.

Optional (hypothetical) Question from Anonymous Dissident

11. – Hypothetical situation: An RFA is ready for closure. It has 71% support, and 29% oppose. You know the candidate, and both like them as a person, and believe they would make a good admin. All things considered, what would you do as a crat in this situation of RFA closure?

A: Insufficient information. Why is this candidate at 71% support? That's what's crucially important.

As for the implied conflict-of-interest, if I felt so strongly that I wanted to do something about the promotion of someone I thought would make a good admin, I'd just add my support to the RFA. If I don't comment on the RFA, I don't feel strongly enough for it to color my decisions.

• See A Man In Black's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

This header is criminally underused in RFA/RFB. If anyone would like further clarification of any of the questions or wants to discuss anything relevant before or after making a comment below, feel free to ask or say anything here. I would much rather discuss something before it becomes a misunderstanding. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:consensus not numbers Well I always use this section to state my opinion because I think voting is inappropriate. A Man In Black has shown himself to be a consummate communicator and very fair-minded. He's close to being my ideal bureaucrat candidate, and I have no hesitation in proposing the we promote him. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to withdraw my support, but I would suggest withdrawal at this point. Shalom ^Hello 16:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support, user and I had our fair share of differences but I feel he is more than qualified for the tools. -- Cat ^chi? 10:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Support - seems good. Husond, Majorly, Deskana, Andrevan, Ral and you... thats 6 RFBs. Madness. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (changed to oppose)[reply]

   Support — What the cat said above. Matthew 10:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Support (Struck per oppose arguments) The AFD experience is great, and the answer to Q1 was exactly what I want to see. AKAF 11:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support. Trustworthy. Andre (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support A fine user to become a bureaucrat in my opinion. Captain panda 13:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   A good candidate who would use the tools well. Ral315 » 13:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Moved to neutral.

4. Support per his statement that RFA is a vote. Haukur 13:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Not that active on RfAs, but I love his handling of controversial AfDs. He knows consensus. Majorly (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - A very experienced editor, trustworthy and an excellent admin..will make a great Bureaucrat..--Cometstyles 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Having the guts to close the Brandt deletion debate, and to explain his opinion in detail through a stressful deletion review, shows the ability to handle controversial cases with wisdom and maturity. The next time we have a bureaucrat chat on a borderline RFA, I would certainly be willing to see AMIB participate in that discussion. Shalom ^Hello 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak Support, for now. He cleverly avoided a clear-cut answer to my question above, which I don't blame him for - coming down on either side of the fence would have provoked a flood of opposes. However, I think he has an appropriate respect for the opinions of the community, as demonstrated by his recognition of the 70-80% numerical thresholds. I can therefore support at this time, albeit with reservations. Walton^talk 15:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I've had good dealings with the user in the past, great great person. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - everyone makes mistakes, and there is no real reason that these mistakes will occur on a bureaucratic level rather than editorial one. He has not wheel warred as an admin, as far as I am aware. He has my support, since I'm pretty sure he has a Clue. Gracenotes^T § 15:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support In the words of Steel: a non-idiot. —« ANIMUM » 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Very strong support I have no reason not to. Acalamari 16:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. zOMG bLoCk lOg. – Steel 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. I disagree with him on many things, but I can't deny he's got style. --Hemlock Martinis 18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Yay! Met user recently on IRC. Seems nice and level headed.--trey 22:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats. Turning down a trustworthy, qualified volunteer would be insane. -- Schneelocke 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support I completely believe in and trust you. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Seems to understand consensus. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support per all the above comments. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Well, some concern over the block log, but I think AMiB is a sensible person in general, and the issues raised there are not really part of the bureaucrat's domain. His work in closing controversial AFDs is outstanding, which I consider a more important factor in determining the candidate's suitability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. I believe you would be a good bureaucrat, it's a shame this isn't passing. --Deskana (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Strong and valuable contributor. Eusebeus 17:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I trust him with the additional tools. While AMIB might have some shortcomings regarding revert wars, I don't see that as being relevant. For the situations a b'crat would be in, and the tasks trusted to that user, I think he'd do great. Different weaknesses have different reasons behind them, and they don't always mean that someone with X would be bad at doing Y, if that makes any sense to anyone. We don't need a flawless user, we just need someone we can trust and who can do the job well. -- Ned Scott 22:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support—we have generally similar beliefs and wikiphilosophies (except for maybe WP:NOR), but our methods are somewhat different. Nevertheless, I have to give my support to the first user who really guided me in the right direction 2+ years ago. — Deckiller 07:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - from contribs and experience, this user is a very strong judge of consensus - critical for a 'crat. ck lostsword•T•C 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. He has my trust. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Good guy, easily trusted with bureaucrat buttons. Rebecca 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Per shalom, this user will make a great crat. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Hiding Talk 10:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Does not have the temperament. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As I understand it, being a 'crat requires the ability to determine consensus in difficult cases, the ability to explain such decisions, an understanding of what admins are and why we have them, an understanding of what bots are acceptable, and the willingness to help out people who need a change of username.

   What in my block log makes you think that I lack these skills? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It proves that you are an impatient and commit to edit-warring without engaging into discussions. That also means that you value your own opinion above those of others, and it's not just a couple of blocks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am impatient and a bit prone to edit warring, particularly when it comes to poorly-sourced articles. If that means people don't think I'm qualified to close RFAs, authorize bots, or change usernames, there's nothing I can really do about that in the course of this RFB.

   As for valuing my own opinion above those of others, yes and no. I am opinionated and outspoken, but I am also capable of compartmentalizing my own opinions, particularly when I need to keep those opinions segregated from admin tools. There's a weight and an irreversibility and an inherent unfairness to the use of admin or crat tools, and they need to be used very carefully. It's a large part of why I make so few blocks and protect so few pages; the potential damage is both great and extremely difficult to measure.

   I am not the world's best user, but I have done my best to be a careful and scrupulous administrator. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. My current and past vendetta aside and looking at this from as neutral a point-of-view as I can, he does engage in edit wars and often does little to explain his edits other than cite various policy pages. While he has made several notable and well-formed contributions to Wikipedia, he also often ignores and discredits opinions that do not match his own and values his own opinion more than those of others. He also often places various templates for clean up on pages he has limited knowledge of and thus I feel is not qualified to add such templates. An editor, any editor, regardless of who they are, should have at least a moderate knowledge of any subject to be able to properly judge its worth and tag it accordingly. I admit that I have had many difficulties with him, but I am placing those aside as I type this. He has made many outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and I acknowledge that. However, I also feel his conduct is not as good as it could be, especially when dealing with opposing editors. The Clawed One 14:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   AFAIK, AMIB cites policy pages and does so competently. His knowledge of policy and guidelines is impeccable, but what is more worrying is the fact that he choses to revert-war and use rollback while involved in content disputes. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed, he does have an excellent knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, no one can dispute that, and he does cite such policies and guidelines to justify his edits. My worry, however, is that when he cites such things to support his edits, he does so in a vague manner, making it difficult for editors to understand why he had edited the page in such a way, and this in turn makes it difficult for casual editors not as familiar with the policies to fix such errors. There is also the revert-wars that you spoke of. The Clawed One 15:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: It would seem that the vote in favor of the candidate is not as great as the vote against him. A withdraw is advised, as I do not think the vote will swing back to give him a favorable margin anytime soon. The Clawed One 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Per Nick. Violating 3RR is a huge deal considering you've done it more then once. I don't want a 'crat who wheel war with other 'crats. ~ Wikihermit 15:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Um. Bureaucrats can't wheel war, unless it's warring over a username change, I guess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, yeah, 'crats can't desysop. I still won't want a controversial 'crat. ~ Wikihermit 18:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose per Nick. Throwing your toys out of the pram and indefinitely blocking yourself after someone dares to block you for violating 3RR is not endearing. Neil ╦ 15:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   At the time I was having all of my edits being reverted indiscriminately by a shifting set of anonymous IPs. Harassment does not bring out the best in people. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed. But how you deal with it shows your character. Neil ╦ 16:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm a bit baffled at discussions of character or dealing with harassment or editing habits in a nomination for a role whose entire task is evaluating the community consensus in sometimes-contentious discussions. I thought I was volunteering to take on a task that requires dispute resolution skills and a degree of experience with similar administrative tasks, not running for office.

   Bureaucratship strikes me as even less of a big deal than adminship; controversial decisions are seldom if ever made by single bureaucrats, there's no possible threat of wheel warring (the only possible wheel war is crat admins someone, steward unadmins them, crat admins them, steward unadmins the user and the crat, the end), and any even slightly controversial decision is a matter for lengthy discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose I hate to minimize years of good work for a half dozen bad examples, but trying to minimize the bad examples from bureaucrats is important. There are broader concerns about civility too. Several of your blocks were earlier this year! And certainly we all make mistakes, but the fact that you've been blocked so many times, and keep getting blocked for the same reason, indicates to me that you're not learning from your mistakes. Then, in late March, I think growing out of one of these disputes, you threatened to quit the project. If you can barely keep your cool -- if you can barely stay involved with the project -- when somebody makes edits you don't like to the Resident Evil Navbox then I'm sorry, but I don't think you have the right sort of temperament to be a bureaucrat. --JayHenry 15:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I quit the project because of 82.26.101.64 and other related IPs. I dealt poorly with concerted harassment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose per Nick; Patience of a crat is what makes or breaks the RfA process - May go sideways in handing out mop. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose The Brandt AfD decision may be the best thing to happen ever at AfD, so I came here pre-disposed to support MIB's judgment (and I also happen to like him personally.) I agree, however, that a b'crat with a 3RR block log is not a good example. Patience is a must in a b'crat, and 3RR problems indicate a lack thereof. I'll be willing to support another b'crat nomination after some time, but I think it is important that MIB take to heart the message that edit-warring (and short temper will vandals) are not acceptable in a b'crat, who must deal calmly with all kinds of heated conflict. Xoloz 15:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose I've contacted this user once and wasn't impressed by his authoritarian tone and incapability to engage in a productive discussion.--Húsönd 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Withdrawing oppose, that happened a long time ago. Nitpicking.--Húsönd 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose your block log (as noted by NH Nick) is a little too scary. I'd willing to support a candidate with one or even two blocks, but yours is just too long. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 16:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose - This is the first time I have ever opposed either a RFA or RFB, but I regretfully think it is necessary. The incident in March 2007 when you reduced your talk page to saying "Well that was a fine waste of time" or something similar due to a dispute disturbed me greatly. Bureaucrats do have to make controversial decisions and I am concerned that you would not be able to handle criticism or deal with heated conflicts. Trustworthiness is a very important factor in my opinion; 3RR violation blocks and edit warring with admin rollback (such as that logged at [1]) do not give me confidence with trustworthiness. Your contributions to the encyclopedia have been outstanding but I am not convinced you are ready for the bureaucrat tools. Camaron1 | Chris 16:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Do bureaucrats regularly have to deal with users reverting every single one of their edits en masse from a shifting IP? It wasn't a dispute; it was a concerted effort at harassment.

   If you'd like an example of how I deal with challenges to decisions I've made, consider this (particularly given the level of hostility expressed by some of the opposition) and this (particularly given Grue's accusations). I can deal calmly with criticism or heated conflicts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am not convinced. It doesn't matter if it was a dispute or harassment, the reaction was the same either way. Bureaucrats can have to deal with disputes and even harassment, and it won't necessarily always be registered users that are involved. Camaron1 | Chris 17:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose. Your demeanor doesn't seem to be bureaucrat material. With how many opposes are showing up now I'd suggest withdrawal at this point.Wizardman 16:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Regretful oppose. This user is to be praised for having taken on the thankless task of closing the Brandt deletion, and for making a boldly courageous decision of a "complex merge" (as he called it), bold because this was not a result that came out of the consensus of the community. But, frankly, I don't want a bold bureaucrat. I want someone who will determine consensus. If they have to intelligently discount some factors in favour of others, that's to be expected. But if he ever closed an rfa the way he did Brandt, there would be a firestorm, and a b'crat should prevent firestorms not start them. Bucketsofg 18:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Unfortunately, I cannot approve someone who has an extensive record of 3RR blocks. Scobell302 01:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose. The Brandt closure was a disaster, and a terrible precedent. It would take a whole lot of "good works" in other areas to make up for that, and I don't see enough. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose from Support -- I cannot support an RFB with an extensive blocklog. Sorry. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose. per Nick and Chris. Dureo 14:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose - Basically what Bucketsofg wrote about the Brandt closing, but stronger. There were a huge number of editors, many highly experienced involved in a series of 14 long debates, and you came up with a solution that wasn't the main focus of discussion, so clearly did not have consensus. Rather than proposing it, you implemented it, implying that you, basically alone, knew better. The main reason that closing wasn't overturned was because everyone was tired and no one had a better solution (note I didn't argue to overturn it at the Deletion review); but that doesn't make that solution a good one. That's a cowboy, not a consensus builder. That's not what we need in a bureaucrat. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. OpposeStrong oppose. Long-term edit warring and admitted abuse of admin tools in support of ideological conflict [2], [3], [4] do not a bureacrat make. --JJay 01:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose. Recent history of blocks for edit warring is not something I expect to see on a 'crat nominee. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strongly oppose, every time I see this guy around I recoil in horror at whatever he's doing. Wrong about everything I've ever seen him take a stance on. Everyking 05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thats a little bit harsh and hurtful, wouldnt you say? Hes an admin - has to have done something right. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. I don't like him much either, but to be an Admin and stay one you have to be doing something right, and I've seen such compliments on his talk page. The Clawed One 06:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe, I just haven't seen any of it. Everyking 06:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [5] and [6]. And then [7]. The other user who was supporting me when I first came around, Jarlaxle, is indefinitely blocked. How times change. Check out my userpage/user talkpage for how I've progressed in between. While he has taken a rather bold stance on occasion lately, he used to be very good at guiding newcomers correctly back when he came around in mid-2005. I think he's just lost a little patience since then (haven't we all), but he's done plenty of things right. — Deckiller 07:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20. Oppose I've had my problems with AMiB, but, as others have mentioned, he always seems to run into an article, do drastic changes, and then get into edit wars when everyone else disagrees with him. Discussion is usually pointless, because he'll just cite the same policy and refuse to hear anyone else's interpretation of the policy. So he keeps editing, and everyone else keeps reverting, and its just generally a bad situation when that happens. So, I oppose him being given more / higher responsibilities. Scumbag 18:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose. This was a tough decision, since I am quite supportive of having more bureaucrats, as well as opposed to bringing unrelated issues into nominations for adminship, and have found most of your closures of difficult AfDs to be excellent. Ultimately, however, I believe that your talent is not so much judging consensus as it is just judging. Allow me to explain: most of the difficult AfD closures you have done were honestly cases where no consensus was present, but you, recognizing that a decision on the issue did have to be made, enforced a decision anyway. Since you've normally been right, this is actually a great thing, we need admins that can do that. However, the same traits that let you judge non-consensus AfDs so well also make you rather impossible to work with once you are convinced of something, hence the edit warring and why you are constantly in disputes. As a result I'm concerned that your bureaucrat work would end up being not community consensus but AMiB's (informed) opinion.
    In short: great rouge admin, not-so-great potential bureaucrat. Apologies for the miniature psychoanalysis. --tjstrf talk 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose per above. Prodego ^talk 21:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. I highly respect your efforts to eliminate cruft, but after seeing you attempt to be a one-man consensus army (like on {{Mortal Kombat series}}, where you were edit warring with four or so different editors) to be comfortable with allowing you being a 'crat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose The guy's engaged in (another) edit war even as this nom continues. Edit: I feel it is fair to mention that I am involved and may be a bit biased, but anyone checking the contribs of myself, user MalikCarr, and AMIB should be able to see what's going on for themselves. Jtrainor 05:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose per Nearly Headless Nick and recent blocks. I just cannot give you my support in becoming a 'crat. Terence 05:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Reluctant Oppose. A good user, but his brusque behavior and overly rigid interpretation of WP:FUC cost Wikipedia a dozen good-faith, intelligent editors at WP:TVS. AMIB's insistance that only one Fair Use image can be used in an article (when we have quite a few Featured Articles which use more than one FU image) caused quite a few editors to leave the project quite upset, when they could clearly see articles generally regarded as "the best of Wikipedia" which use more than one FU image. His rigid interpretation, I feel, cost him the good will of many editors who could have been convinced to help him reduce the number of FU images, and instead sent these editors to work on other sites where they are allowed to use two or more FU images. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I never said that one image is fair-use per article. One image is fair-use per purpose. I was removing galleries of up to a dozen non-free images, most of which were not the subject of any sort of commentary. The fact that this required the removal of good-faith edits is regrettable, but long-standing or popular abuse of Wikipedia's fair-use policy is still abuse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

27. Oppose I do not want a bureaucrat who always violates 3RR and insults others. He closed the Brandt AFD as a "complex merge" when there was no consensus for that. This suggests he will close RFAs against consensus. We don't want more Carnildos. --Kaypoh 15:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose per his block log (see Nick) and especially the Brandt deletion (see Kaypoh). Although being a bureaucrat has nothing to do with edit warring, we need someone who can determine consensus. SalaSkan 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose per my long standing reasoning and per many concerns above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Strong Oppose per Jtrainor and other rational, cool-headed Wikipedians. In the short time I've known AMIB, I've been accused of being a troll, a vandal, committing disruptive and obstructionist editing, protectionism, violating countless Wikipedia policies, grandstanding and blowing smoke in the face of consensus. Of course, suggesting that AMIB might fall into any disreputable categories will have your talk page's comments removed for trolling as well. Sorry, not interested in seeing further administrative firepower falling into these hands. MalikCarr 09:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed MalikCarr's accusations that I was a deletionist vandal and his suggestion that I leave his articles alone and go elsewhere as "trolling." This is part of a vendetta for me touching his articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Oh, now you're the one accusing me of conspiracies? This is an amusing development if there's ever been one. [Sidenote: I don't believe anyone used the term "vandal" other than you in our discourses] Incidentally, deleting a fair use rationale because you don't like it, then deleting the relevant image because there was no rationale, is one of the lowest and backhanded tactics I've seen on Wikipedia thus far, and I've gotten into edit wars with this guy before. MalikCarr 10:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

31. Strong Oppose Per Nick. Politics rule 17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Somewhat Oppose after reading what he wrote in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam#A New Friend. Just because an editor doesn't have a cool head doesn't mean the admin should use the same attitude to against it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose I don't recall that I've had direct dealings with aMIB, but I've seen him around. From what I've seen, I agree with most of the above comments. Anomie 13:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. per Everyking. Matthew 18:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strong Oppose prolific edit warrior (look at the block log) and made several very strange decisions recently, such as closing Brandt's AfD as "redirect".  Grue  20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose per Nick. I just don't think he's bureaucrat material, due to the edit wars he's been in. I don't necessarily think that having been blocked in the past automatically disqualifies a user, elevating a user who's been blocked for policy violations less than half a year ago is a good idea. If he's renominated a year from no with no additional blocks, I might see it as a non-issue. But for now, it's too early to tell if those 3RR violations are a thing of the past. Also, his handling of the Brandt AFD doesn't seem like a good thing to me. Some have praised him for making a "gutsy" decision, but AFD closures aren't supposed to be "gutsy". They're supposed to be a straightforward reporting of the consensus (or in cases like Brandt, lack thereof) achieved in the discussion. If he felt a "complex merge" was a wonderful solution to the impasse, the Wikipedia way is to propose the idea to the community and see if a consensus can be reached. — Red XIV ^(talk) 22:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose. Way too much edit warring and way too many blocks. --- RockMFR 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose. Sorry, but no. aMIB Just recently closed a DRV discussion that he !voted in (I would like to point out that I have an "anti-COI" here as I am the admin whose deletion he endorsed...). Bad judgment with that, with the Brandt close and with the repeated edit-warring. IronGargoyle 00:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The user left three months ago for good. Glad to see him back, though! However, I don't think I can trust someone to gather consensus when he can't do that in articles (long history of edit warring). -- ReyBrujo 17:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. A good candidate who would use the tools well. Ral315 » 13:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral. I don't think he'd be a bad bureaucrat, and I think he's effective at reading consensus, but the revert-warring is an issue that worries me (I wasn't aware that it was that pronounced). Ral315 » 19:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. At this point, I have to strongly recommend withdrawal, due to the issues brought up above, plus due to the lop-sided tally. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral I'm not gonna pile on. I've long the editor's work and efforts, but I'm afraid he's just to confrontational to serve as a b'crat.-- danntm ^T _C 18:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral Avoiding the pile-on, as I believe he is a good admin, but is not set, nor ready for 'crat tools. Jmlk17 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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