Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Xaosflux

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

Xaosflux

Final: (173/1/1) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 00:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Xaosflux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Hello, I am Xaosflux and I have been a Wikipedian since 2005 and an administrator since 2006. I have logged over 15,000 administrative actions. Some of the areas I am most active in are Miscellany for deletion and Requests for permissions. Having processed countless deletion discussions, I have only been called to deletion review a handful of times, and have rarely been overturned.

I am also a member of the Bot Approvals Group, processing many requests for bot trials and authorizations. My work with BAG has taught me the importance of engaging subject editors and the community at large to help ensure that massive changes are not enacted that are not well supported by others.

I believe I would make a good bureaucrat for the English Wikipedia and that my qualifications above demonstrate that I can be trusted to execute the position for the good of the community.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:— xaosflux ^Talk 00:06, 2 July 2016 (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 am familiar with the RFA process, including the most most recent updates. I understand the current community consensus is that administrator candidates should be appointed if they gain a 75% supporting consensus of participants, and that they should not be promoted if they receive less than 65% support. For applicants in between those ranges, bureaucrat discretion is available. I understand that consensus measuring is not literal vote counting and that the community has supported giving less weight to some votes (e.g. "Weak Support").

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

A: I believe the best method for dealing with such a situation is to be transparent and explain such a closure with a closing statement. In almost every RfA process, there are contrasting views of the community participants, and it is important to recognize all acceptable arguments. When contentious, I have learned that a good closing statement can be the difference between moving on from a discussion and having to frequently revisit it. In the event that consensus is very difficult to determine, bringing additional bureaucrats to a "'crat chat" may be necessary.

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 am active on most of the village pumps and frequently engage in policy discussions, should I volunteer to work on something that I have been less active in I review the associated policies and guidelines first - aware that the community changes expectations over time. The areas that I am most active in directly work with community members, and I am always open to help others and discuss my edits and actions. If I make a mistake, I feel the best way to deal with it is to accept responsibility, apologize, and work to be better.

Additional question from Hawkeye7

4. An admin attempts to interfere with a Wikimedia software rollout and is summarily desysopped by a steward. She applies to have her admin rights restored. Can you tell us what policies and procedures apply in this case?

A: The following are applicable: meta:Stewards_policy, detailing the use of tools by stewards, and the meta:Steward_requests/Permissions page that outlines the process. Within the English Wikipedia the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats procedural policy and the Wikipedia:Global_rights_policy#Stewards section are applicable. Unless either change was truley an emergency that signfigantly impacted readers or editors from using or maintaining the encylopedia this scenario suggests the steward was out of line and should be called upon to defend how their action represented a consensus of the English Wikipedia community. I see this as slightly different from the dewiki superprotect scenario, as this calls out the action of a single steward apparently acting alone - compared to the actions of the foundation staff directly.

There are many variables that could be in place here and they would need careful consideration. As to the application for reinstatement - if it were via the RfA process then I think that process should be able to run its normal course. If it were through a WP:BN request a community comment period would need to be opened, and in such a case may need to be extended pending steward commentary and/or any active arbitration committee motions or cases that could be related. These would all be unique situations that would have differnt community reactions (e.g. the difference between WMF rolling back out the article feedback tool v.s. rolling out sponsored pages). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Andy M. Wang

5. In mid-April this year, I happened to notice that the number of sysops was exactly ten times the number of TEs. (1310 and 131 respectively). In the 3 months since, the usergroup membership of TEs, rollbackers, etc has risen, and the number of sysops has dropped. Today, due to desysoppings, the number is now at 1295. What are your general thoughts on these trends, tool unbundling for non-admins, and the sustainability of this project in general?

A: I am not overly worried about the decline in the number administrators, but I am concerned about growing backlogs. I am supportive of the growth of members for the tool groups, as it indicates there are editors willing to help in the related areas. I do not support removing access from administrators, but am in favor of new community approved access groups that balance risk with accessibility for maintaining and improving the project. The newer pagemover group is an example of an initiative that I recently supported. As far as enwiki in general: we are "too big to fail", but I think the community of editors is still very strong and will continue to maintain the encyclopedia without the foundation having to take over. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Lourdes

6. Please provide two situations/examples where you might reject valid (aka, non vandal, non-troll, non-sock, non-ip, and non-delayed) ivotes in an Rfa, which you have closed. It would be good to have one example of an oppose and one of a support Ivote. Lourdes 10:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

A: I would not completely reject any comments that are specifically valid. Some examples of contributions that are not on your list that I would reject towards tallies would be over-votes (multiple numbered contributions from the same editor, including through legit alt accounts) or those from a contributor that has a specific sanction prohibiting participation in RfA's. Outside of that, I do consider that some votes may have less weight than others (for example those that are self-declared to be "weak" support or opposes, or "leaning" neutrals). Additionally, the community has made it clear that RfA is still not a "vote" and so I would also consider straight "[Support|Oppose]. ~~~~" entries with less weight towards the consensus building process. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Jason Quinn

7. On your user page I see you have {{WikimediaNoLicensing}}. Editors on the talk page for WikimediaNoLicensing express belief that such a template is not needed. Judging by your user page, licensing seems to be a passion for you more so than most editors and your usage of the template indicates you likely believe it is necessary (rather than superfluous), could you add a comment on the template's talk page to help settle this issue. In particular, is this template compatible with the CC license and does it bring something new to the table (that is, are the editors who've commented wrong in their assumption that it is unneeded)?

A: That template is quite old, dating back to the early days of the project. I do not think that it is binding, and will comment on the template talk as to possible improvements. My general view when adopting it is that it would be an flag that editors could use to indicate how they would vote in future licensing votes (as opposed to granting a proxy vote to WMF). I am supportive of the Creative Commons licensing schemes in general and of allowing all Wikipedia edits to be reused with attribution to the authors. I occasionally process requests for page exports, and am always sure to provide multiple means for the recipients to identify the authors and our licenses. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

8. BAG members approve the bot and the Crats flag it and it is Two-man rule except perhaps MBisanz and Addshore all others are only bot group members. Will you both approve ( or be part of the discussion to approve the bot) and flag the Bot ?( Will it not be an issue if in a unlikely event that a bot both approved and flag by a single user malfunctions?)

A: I would not perform the flagging of bots that I approve as a BAG member. I would not necessarily avoid flagging bots where I participated in the review, such as by asking questions. The bot approval process has a several important aspects including: - technical review, operational review, and consensus that the task should be performed and meets community standards. Of those tasks I feel that our bureaucrats responsibility is to ensure that those matters have been presented and accepted. One thing that is important to note on this topic is that the presentation and acceptance of tasks is required for all bots, but the bureaucrats are only involved in the initial task of a bot - subsequent tasks are currently approved solely by BAG. This may need some adjustment (such as requiring significantly different tasks to run under different accounts - even if by the same operator), however that conversation is beyond the scope of this RfB (though would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

RfBs for this user:

• Requests for bureaucratship/Xaosflux

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

---

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

Support

1. Support Xaosflux is one of the most active members of BAG, and it would be excellent to have another bureaucrat there. That way it would be far easier for him to grant bot flags when BRFAs are approved. Although not a massive problem, having to rely on other bureaucrats to do this is simply inefficient when the approval and flagging could be done at the same time, by the same user. I have no doubts that he would make an excellent crat, and it's good to see that there's another RFB after the process has been silent for two years. Omni Flames (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Xaos has been doing good work since the old days. I support his joining the shuffle. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 00:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - Xaosflux has a full decade of experience as an administrator. He always knows what he's talking about, and I have no hesitation in supporting him for bureaucratship. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support. Good luck, Xaosflux, and thank you for your service. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support I don't see why not. 10 years as an admin, being a member of BAG, there's no reason not to. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Support. Experienced long-time administrator with good judgment; a solid candidate for this position. While it may not be essential to add another bureaucrat on the RfA side, Omni Flames above explains well why Xaosflux may be especially helpful in the less prominent but also important bot-flagging role. Beyond that, I just checked and it's been two and one-half years since the last new 'crat was promoted, so I'd say it's time for at least one addition to the roster in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
7. Support – Absolutely. One of the "least drama" Admins seems an obvious choice to promote to Crat. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
8. Support – I've seen nothing but good things from this longtime administrator. Don't think I've had any direct interaction with Xaosflux, but I am still sure he will be a good fit for "bureaucratism." United States Man (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
9. Support per Omni Flames. Could be a huge help to flagging bots quicker. —MRD2014 T C 00:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
10. Support. Clear need for bot flagging. I'm familiar with his MfD closes and he's a solid closer. ~ Rob^Talk 00:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
11. Support, per Omni. To those asking if we need any more - is there any reason to not have more? ansh666 00:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
12. Support do we need additional bureaucrats at the moment? Maybe, maybe not, but as time goes on, attrition will take its toll, and we eventually will. Xaosflux is as qualified for this role as they come, so I personally thank him for stepping up and volunteering. There is no reason not to grant the flag at this time. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
13. Support Wow, 2 years since the last bureaucrat promotion. Anyway: Great editor with great work in BAG and administrative work across the board. I'm confident that Xaos will put the bureaucrat tools to good use, regardless of whether or not there is a dire need for bureaucrats - more efficiency regardless! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
14. Support. I don't see any reason not to support—to adapt some RfA terminology, Xaosflux has definitely been a net positive as an admin, and at this point being a "net positive" is really my only criteria for supporting anyone. On an unrelated note, we finally have our first RfB in years! Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 00:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
15. Support. I actually supported Xaosflux's RFA back in 2006, and I'm happy to support. I don't feel we need more bureaucrats, but I don't feel there's any harm in having more either. KaisaL (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
16. Hang on... they're not already a 'crat? Well, that can be easily remedied... Support. There we go. Best of luck, and keep up the good work. GAB^gab 01:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
17. Support. Always had very good and easy interactions with Xaosflux. Maybe we can clone him whenever we need another bureaucrat? —EncMstr (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
18. It's about time. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
19. Support - Per my comments here. One of the very few admins I'd support as a bureaucrat and the self nom gets a huge plus! - NQ (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
20. Support Of course. Jianhui67 ^T★C 02:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
21. Support, has a long history as a member of Wikipedia in good standing and as an administrator. Kierzek (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
22. Support, based on plentiful relevant experirnce. Clearly a net positive with the tools. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
23. Support Obviously :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
24. Support: Clear yes, candidate will probably take on about 90% of bureaucrat work once promoted. — Esquivalience (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
25. Support Impressed with the candidate's work in a number of venues, including my experiences under the steely eyes of BAG. No concerns. --joe decker^talk 04:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
26. Support Well it's about time. I keep forgetting this user isn't a 'crat. Always need to look on their user page, to see the 'crat flag missing (JS Script).—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 05:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
27. Support -- an impressive body of work on Wikipedia combined with a definite purpose for the extra tools is enough for me to approve. --ceradon 06:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
28. Support About time someone ran. It's been what, 2 years, and we've seen handfuls of bureaucrats become inactive and have their tools removed. Mkdw^talk 07:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
29. Fully qualified and has demonstrated a need for the tools. SSTflyer 07:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
30. Rschen7754 08:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
31. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
32. Support He's not one already? Well, let's fix that. Katie^talk 09:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
33. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 09:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
34. Support – I enjoy working with him at Requests for page importation and I like what I've seen of him elsewhere on the site. Graham87 09:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
35. Support but aren't you already...? Oh wait, no, that's just my dumb brain always confusing you and Xeno. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
36. Support – fully qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
37. Support- This is the first time I've participated in an RfB and this candidate looks to fit the bill as a Bureucrat. No objections. Class455fan1 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
38. Support- CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 11:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
39. Support Widr (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
40. Support. Xaosflux has proved to be a solid admin. Involvement in BAG shows he'll clearly be able to contribute as a crat. ERK ^talk 11:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
41. Strong Support - Xaosflux has been an admin since 2006 and is a member of BAG so they clearly know what they're doing, They've been a great admin and will no doubt make a great crat. –Davey2010^Talk 12:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
42. Support. Xaosflux has good judgment and plenty of experience. I think they'll be a welcome addition to the bureaucrat team. /wiae /tlk 13:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
43. Support, the user is definitely qualified.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
44. Support Extensively suitable for the position - yes, yes, yes! Rcsprinter¹²³ (interface) 13:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
45. Support: One of the better qualified potential applicants, both experientially and temperamentally.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
46. Yes!, I think Xaosflux would make a great 'crat. SQL^{Query me!} 14:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
47. Support IMO the right type of character for a bureaucrat. Patient and knowledgeable. Minima© (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
48. Support – Well qualified. It appears that the current activity of bureaucrats is mostly related to bots and to the handling of RfAs. He seems apt for both roles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
49. Support - highly skilled admin and a great EFM (not that that really has anything to do with it). This editor has proven themselves to have the qualities befitting to a 'crat -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
50. Strong support, as said above, about time. I honestly thought he was a 'crat already. First encountered Xaosflux in page mover conversations with others (see Wikipedia talk:Page mover/Archive 1) This guy's been around a while, and he has been a reliable resource (even for 'crats) for administrative / bureaucratic questions, having tremendous context into the development and history of the project, and who to seek when uncertain. Xaosflux is eager to cut down on backlogs, including PROT edit requests, imports, MfD as I'm aware. In my interactions, seems very capable of moderating, and staying calmly neutral. Without a doubt, a great candidate. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
51. Yeah, sure. Xaosflux is knowledgeable of the areas he works in. Even though I don't really believe we need more bureaucrats to handle the low number of RFAs right now, he can definitely help out with bot flags. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium, now featuring BB-8 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
52. Support - this user has been around for a considerable amount of time and I wish him the best of luck. --PatientZero ^talk 17:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
53. Strong support I'm first off very happy to see a RfB, at all!! But moreover for this guy, I don't even need to think about my !vote. Xaosflux is one of my favourite Wikipedians, who I have a lot of respect for and consider a good friend. Bureaucratship makes sense given his involvement at WP:BRFA, but I wouldn't question his judgement in closing RfAs, either. Cheers! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

    • I would also trust his judgment on closing RfA's. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

54. Support - I feel confident in this user becoming a bureaucrat because he is interested in his admin work that he does. I feel that he will make good use of the tools because he is involved in WP:BRFA, so the tool would be useful to him as it is one of the roles of bureaucrats to give bot flags when needed. Hx7 17:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
55. Support Lourdes 17:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
56. Support - I recently said to the candidate, "Thanks for ... your reasonable attitude which seems to be a consistent trait of yours." A quick review and recent interactions with Xaosflux lead me to believe they will make a good bureaucrat.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
57. Has always seemed level-headed and has good experience. Lots of people above me whose opinions I respect. Jenks24 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
58. Support as good a candidate as I could imagine. Seems like they would be a useful addition as well per Omni so I whole-heartedly support. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
59. Support having come across their comments many times. I also thought they were a crat since they are axactly the long-standing good, harworking, consistent and low drama kind of person one expects to be a crat. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
60. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
61. Support Garion96 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
62. Support working hard in an area that needs more work, good candidate, no issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
63. Support - particularly because of the BAG work, but is an excellent candidate overall. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
64. Support Generally seems like an allround good chap.Brustopher (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
65. Support Good to see a qualified 'crat candidate; it's been a while, and Xaosflux will be as good with bot approvals as they've been with the mop. Miniapolis 20:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
66. Support With ten years experience as an admin, this new role seems very right and well earned. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 20:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
67. Support. Close to an ideal candidate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
68. Support. An extremely extraordinary example of an exceptional admin, and one who will excell as a 'crat. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
69. Support Good to have more bot ops as crats! Legoktm (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
70. Support active, trustworthy & sound, and good rationale for the request. I don't see why not! Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
71. Support likely to be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
72. Support - Several reasons to support, and can't think of any to oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
73. Support: In my occasional interactions with him, I've always found Xaosflux sensible, thoughtful and level-headed. In my opinion those are the attributes most needed in a 'crat. Will be useful to have a 'crat at BAG. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
74. ///EuroCarGT 00:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
75. Support great candidate in my eyes. st170e^talk 00:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
76. Support User is well versed in accounting consensus, and I have no doubt will continue to keep a level head. Crazynas ^t 00:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
77. Support Happy to support. Full marks for the answer to my question. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
78. Support Xaosflux has been an excellent admin for the past 10 years, and I am impressed with their answers to all the questions posited to date. I can think of no reason to oppose. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
79. Support no reason not to. Banedon (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
80. Support - Has shown dedication to the site with 10 years as an administrator, no reason not to trust their work as a bureaucrat. --J36miles (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
81. Support since I am familiar with Xaoflux and I cannot see a reason to oppose. Steel1943 (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
82. Support A cursory glance seems to indicate that the editors that know Xaosflux think he's the guy for this task. I tend to have faith in this belief. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
83. Support I agree that it's good to see a level-headed and qualified bureaucrat candidate. - tucoxn\^talk 03:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
84. Can't say I expected this; we haven't had an RfB—let alone a new 'crat—in over two years, and one wonders how necessary new ones are. While there may not be intense 'crat backlogs, there's no harm in adding "fresh blood" to the mix (even when said fresh blood has over a decade of experience), and it lessens the burden on existing 'crats and encourages them to take time off if they wish. Besides, users come and go with time. I have no doubt that Xaosflux will make appropriate and well-informed decisions, which is really the most important question here. — Earwig ^talk 06:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
85. Support -FASTILY 07:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
86. Support: trustworthy, a good administrator of long standing; seems to well understand the role and responsibilities of a bureaucrat. No reason not to support. Fylbecatulous talk 11:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
87. Support - an obvious step forward for (;;) (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
88. Support I trust Xaoflux as a crat. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
89. Absolutely. — foxj 14:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
90. Support: Will make a great crat. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
91. Support - This is a "no brainer" :P Mlpearc (open channel) 14:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
92. —Kusma (t·c) 15:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
93. Support - He is great thats all i say! --Varun ☎ 13:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
94. Support I remember Xaosflux from Back-in-the-Day™ and I think they can be trusted with the additional tools. Regards SoWhy 20:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
95. Support good admin and will be a good 'crat. It will be good to have a new 'crat on the scene as their hasn't been one in ages - Yellow Dingo (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
96. Support Long and impressive history as a contributor and an administrator. Surely trustworthy to help in bureaucrat matters and to add an extra opinion when needed. Donner60 (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
97. Support. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
98. Support. I don't see why not. The candidate is capable and willing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
99. Support --I am One of Many (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
100. Support per RexxS and Drmies. We need people with level heads in this spot. Montanabw^(talk) 23:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
101. Support per OmniFlames. Xaosflux is also a decade-long admin with a practically free drama rap-sheet, so I propose that we all drag him off to ANI for being an impossibly good candidate. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 00:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
102. Support knows the policies by now for sure Collect (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
103. Support Xaosflux is a trusted user who knows our policies backwards - this is a no-brainer for me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
104. Support For obvious reasons - technically competent and has an excellent grasp of policy —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 11:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
105. Support Appears to be the ideal candidate for this role. Experienced and long-serving. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
106. Support - I've worked with Xaosflux on many different projects, and he has shown extreme competence in all of them. I hold absolutely no doubts that he will be a great addition to the current crat group. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
107. Pile-on support per the Earwig. BethNaught (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
108. Support - Absolutely. What's not to like? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
109. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 16:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
110. Support per all the above. Time to close this one I believe. Congratulations.   Aloha27  talk  18:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
111. Support, looks solid. Nsk92 (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
112. Support trusted admin, nothing here to worry me. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
113. Support, an even-keeled, long-time, and trusted admin. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
114. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
115. Support - Yes please. James086^Talk 23:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
116. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
117. Sounds good to me. Harej (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
118. Support trusted. eurodyne (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
119. Support per earwig --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
120. Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
121. Support Piling on... Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
122. Pile on support because I can't even think of what on earth I would oppose this for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
123. Support Can it snow support? Xaosflux is an excellent editor and admin. Highly trusted and I'd welcome him as a 'crat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
124. Support. I've worked with or stumbled across Xaosflux in various admin areas over the years and generally found his judgement to be sound. It's funny Tryptofish should mention rigidity, though. I've sometimes found Xaosflux to be a little too inflexible and 'letter of the law' for my tastes, but within reason that's pretty much what we want of bureaucrats (as the name of the position suggests!). Maybe I'd hesitate to support him for ArbCom or some other role that required more 'out of the box thinking' but I'm quite comfortable supporting him for 'crat. In terms of closing RfAs, I'd say he's likely to be harmless at the absolute worst but what makes the case for me is that he understands the inner workings of bots and the approvals process and is therefore well qualified to that side of bureaucrat work (which is generating more work than RfA at the minute anyway!). Besides, new 'crats are getting to be as rare as rocking horse droppings. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
125. Support - no issues whatsoever. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
126. Support Keep up the good work!--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
127. Support Looks good to me. UiLego (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
128. Support as per the above. There's plenty of clue here, and their comments about BAG below cement the thing. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
129. Support Long term user since 2005 and admin and also a member of BAG since 2006 and has performed over 16000 Admin actions and well versed in policy and a strict follower of policy. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
130. Support Trusted admin who actually wants to be a 'crat? Sure, why not. clpo13_(talk) 17:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
131. Support, noting the discussion comments of xeno, the candidate, and earwig below ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
132. Support And I'm offended I did not get to nominate you. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
133. Support Reviewing answers above and comments from others, together with my limited knowledge of the candidate, and thinking about the 'crat role I see no problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC).
     
134. Support. I am a bit surprised by the paucity of work at AfD, but 10 years' good work deserves a promotion. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
135. Support just for the novelty of a new bureaucrat. That, and there's no reason not to, given long tenure and no-problem adminship. Plus familiarity with bots makes this a positive for the project. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
136. Support Solid track record; exemplary application. Billbrock (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
137. Support Thoroughly solid candidate. Swarm ♠ 22:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
138. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
139. Support – Appreciated your handling of my most recent bot request. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
140. Support No issues for me to be concerned about, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with having more trusted users with advanced tools. No harm will come to Wikipedia if we had 90 good bureaucrats than if we had 5 bad ones. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
141. Support One of the rare excellent admins and a good candidate. See no reason at all to oppose. EtherealGate (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
142. Support, absolutely. Very helpful and responsive at BAG. No issues with this candidate. Nakon 03:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
143. Support - For many reasons. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
144. I could get all verbose here, link to pros and cons from my personal experience, showing how they all helped guide my personal assessment and so on, but in the end, the answer to the question of "Do I think xaos will break something?" - is not just "No.", it's "Are you kidding?" I may only be one person amongst many here, but you do have my Support. I do truly wish you well : ) - jc37 05:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

     I just saw that my comments are # 144 (one gross), then hmm @ the math. If the gross is positive, with currently no listed negative below (though with some neutral factors), does the net of that gross result in a "net positive"? So to oppose now would be like going against math itself. (Waits for xaos to correct my math : ) - jc37 06:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

145. Support If I want to write why I'm supporting this user, that will make a big paragraph. So I think I would better keep it short and say Yes!!!!!!! --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
146. Support Per many of the comments already made. X takes the time to look into a situation before making pronouncements which is always a valuable thing to do. MarnetteD|Talk 16:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
147. Support whole heartedly. 頑張って！ Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
148. Support I've seen Xaosflux around a lot on Wikipedia. He definitely knows what he is doing and knows how to properly determine consensus. I have no doubts that Xaosflux will make a wonderful 'crat. — Music1201 ^talk 20:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
149. Support - I am impressed by Xaosflux's answers to the questions and I am confident that they are qualified for the position. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
150. Support - I am glad to pile on support for Xaosflux; a well qualified candidate I've seen around many times.--John Cline (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
151. Support I have no hesitation in supporting this highly qualified candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
152. Support +1 mostly based on previous impressions. PaleAqua (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
153. Xaosflux is an editor with over a decade's worth of experience, so why not? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
154. Support Record speaks for itself. Xaosflux's handling of this RfB, and the questioned posed to them, is also exemplary. This is exactly the type of person we want in this role: someone with a cool head, who strictly adheres to policy, and is both clear and concise. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
155. Support I am happy to support this candidate. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
156. Support xaosflux is a fantastic editor and administrator, clear on policies and guidelines; I strongly support his candidacy. —LLarson (said & done) 13:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
157. Support - I have always found xaosflux to be very thoughtful and collaborative. I have no doubt that he will make an excellent crat.- MrX 14:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
158. Support - Clearly qualified and has demonstrated the needed responsibility.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
159. Support. Clearly qualified, and long past time for some new blood in the ranks. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
160. Support Trusted user with a strong track record. Schwede66 19:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
161. Strong support. Universally agreed to have good judgment. I've been here long enough to have supported his RFA back in antedeluvian times, and in the decade since that RFA, Xaosflux has been an exemplary administrator. As I said back then, definitely, no reservations. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
162. Heh this was an awfully tough vote. :-) Thanks for nominating yourself! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
163. Support Trusted and qualified candidate. INeverCry 21:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
164. Support I too believe the candidate would make a good 'crat. Gap9551 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
165. Support No issues here Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
166. Support Looks good to me. ~Awilley (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
167. Support No problems with this candidate. Altamel (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
168. Yes please! Λυδαcιτγ 02:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
169. Support At one point I thought xaosflux was a 'crat. Clearly qualified and will do well. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
170. Support - piling on because why not? Yash! 08:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
171. Support - classic profile for a Bureaucrat ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
172. Support - great editor, always has been. will make good bureaucrat. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
173. Support – Pile on. But also demonstrates good judgement and has answered the questions well. Harrias ^talk 18:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Moved here from Neutral, per my comments there. I want my comment here to be understood as only a sort-of oppose, and I would not have come here if I actually thought it would result in an unsuccessful RfB (now how's that for IAR!). I actually think that Xaosflux will make a very good crat, and I could easily have said "support per HJ Mitchell". But I figure if I were to join the otherwise-unanimous crowd, my comments would be less noticeable, and I want Xaosflux to think seriously about what I am saying. Editors are real people, and users with advanced permissions need to treat editors with flexibility, not like algorithms. After all, just below when I asked about IAR, your reply was about when you used it to make your own tasks simpler, as opposed to showing understanding to someone else. But, that said, I do recognize that crats primarily do what they do "by the book", and I wish the candidate all the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

   What's wrong with the comments section for commenting? It's good enough for the other commenters. And the candidate already replied to your earlier neutral !vote, why do you have doubts about whether they will "think seriously" about your concerns? Also, I find opposing when you actually think the "candidate would make a very good crat" a questionable practice. Gap9551 (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

   Didn't we just have a very public example of why voting something to send a message is a bad idea? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

   Both of you: that's just silly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Do we even need Bureaucrats anymore?...--Stemoc 00:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   Did you read what Omni said in their support? Short answer is yes. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 00:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   Sure, but the current bureaucrats have been very active and can handle those bot requests and random desysops..I'm sure we don't need more crats at this point so i'll remain neutral..I won't oppose either cause Xaosflux is a good admin..--Stemoc 00:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   Fair enough. I took your question to be asking if we needed them at all. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 00:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   Ha, yeah it did sound that way now that i read it. I personally think that we should get more of something when there is a need for it...surely we could use more admins (certain types i.e) but I think the bureaucrat section was smooth flowing and maybe we could have used a new one or 2 crats in the next few years, but not yet...anyways I have no issues with Xaos, just the fact that we currently have no need for a new crat..--Stemoc 01:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   It's always possible that active crats become less active for any reason. It won't hurt to have more qualified people with those tools and give them the opportunity to gain experience in this role. That either reduces the current workload or allows them to step in/up when really needed. Gap9551 (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   Definitely possible; only about a year or two ago there were concerns that most of the then-extant crats were only semi-active.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   I think I vaguely remember that scare. It was early in my time here. Basically crats seem to be the sort of thing where if everything goes smoothly, you hardly need any but if things start getting weird we may need lots. There haven't been any terribly close RfAs in the past few months, but when things go to a crat chat after a nasty RfA, you'll probably have a crat or two who are at least perceived to be involved (due to clerking, or previous interractions with the candidate, the nom or prominent opposers) and will wisely abstain. They'll likely be among the most active crats. After all the drama, the community wants a rapid resolution, but won't settle for a chat between too few crats. So you need at least half a dozen visibly totally uninvolved crats ready to weigh in on short notice. Crats hopefully have personal lives and so may not always all be available. That means we do need a few dozen crats, minimum. Additionally, having more crats allows them to participate in RfA more freely which is great because they have lots of experience. They can be very thourough noms and !voters. However, if they feel obliged to stay aloof to be able to act as crats, we loose that ability. Anyhow, that's how I see things. There are lots of good arguments in favor of not having too many crats, especially given the push to ever higher activity requirements. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(Moved) As the candidate noted, they have been taken to DRV only a few times, and it turns out that I was the instigator of one of those few times. In that experience, and in some interactions since, I've gotten the feeling of a strict go-by-the-rules approach to things, as opposed to an IAR flexibility. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and I suppose one could make the case that it actually matches well with what we ask Crats to do. But I figured I would put myself here for the time being, and see whether or not my comment brings any discussion. I'll likely move later. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Trypofish, I rarely employ WP:IAR - but I understand it has utility. I have recently used IAR when snowball-speedy deleting some pages at MFD that did not meet strict criteria for speedy deletion - but based on recent full discussions would have no chance at being kept. This did lead to a little confusion with other editors-reinforcing the importance of using good closing statements. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

General comments

Without any kind of comment about the candidate, but to those suggesting an efficiency would be available as an active BAG member bureaucrat: it's probably best that the two-person concept be maintained (that is, the BAG member approving the bot should not be the one to flag it). Once in a while, the bureaucrat attending to the flagging will notice something that wasn't considered by the Bot Approvals Group that requires their further attention. –xeno^talk 18:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with xeno here, especially for any high volume type of bots. Periodically BAG arranges for a clean up of old bots (normally who have editors that have left the project) so being able to flip the bot flag off would also help on those clean ups. To put in a shameless plug here - we are in need of more "active" members on BAG, interested editors (especially experienced administrators and bot operators) should stop by WT:BAG to find out how to contribute! — xaosflux ^Talk 19:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you convinced me about this a while back when I had the same view ("why not give BAGers the ability to flag bots directly?" was the discussion topic, I recall). While we've never had a serious issue with BAG approving bots inappropriately and then having 'crats intervene, as you say, there have been some moments where they've raised important questions, and the simple fact that neutral 'crats can look over approvals likely encourages us to be more careful. So, there's that. Also, I've never had issues with delays in bot flagging when waiting for a neutral 'crat; it typically takes a few hours, which is a few hours we could eliminate, but it's uncommon enough to not make much of a difference in practice. I am happy with the current system. — Earwig ^talk 06:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux has been active, and an asset, in the BAG field for around 10 years. As far as that goes I think they would make a decent 'crat. I am not sure that this is sufficient knowledge of the candidate to endorse the application, but I will think on it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC).

• Comment Without intending to diminish the nominee, but not being overturned at deletion discussions is hardly a feat. Almost no deletion discussion ever gets overturned, even when the closing was questionable. Just too much bureaucracy and people don't have the will to fight it. Last time I overturned one was by stupidly reverting and explaining to the closing admin he was wrong. Debresser (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The above bureaucratship 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.