requests For Bureaucratship/Acalamari 2

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

Acalamari

Nomination

Acalamari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination by MBisanz

Today I would like to offer, for your consideration, Acalamari as a candidate for bureaucratship. I had approached him in the past to nominate him for the job and he recently approached me to ask if the offer still stood, to which I enthusiastically responded that it did.

Acalamari has been an editor since October 2006 and an administrator since July 2007. He is a content editor, mainly geared towards copyediting, general tidying and some vandal reversion, who is also one of the project's most active editors; an admirable three-quarters of his edits are in the mainspace. He has also logged over 13,000 admin actions; he is most active at the various permissions pages; at the usernames noticeboard and at page protections, and has clerked at changing usernames over the years. His gnomish work and long track record of consistent contributions make him an ideal candidate for bureaucratship.

As to Acalamari’s demeanor, he is an approachable and communicative user. He has over 12,000 edits to user talk pages and his own talk page, which is mostly complaint-free, shows evidence of a highly talkative admin and editor (when questioned on one of his admin actions, Acalamari’s response is reasonable and explanatory). Despite his long service as an administrator, Acalamari hasn't become too proud to ask for help when he needs it. Following a practice that I indulge in from time to time, he has put himself up for administrator review, to a positive response.

This is Acalamari’s second request for bureaucratship. His last RfB occurred nearly six years ago in February 2008 and he withdrew it after a few hours; other than that instance, he has been in no particular rush to obtain the userright. The main concerns raised were his then-short tenure as an administrator (just slightly under eight months) and the possibility that he would not be a neutral bureaucrat, mainly because he used to reply too much to opposition comments. The tenure concern no longer applies for obvious reasons, and as for the neutrality concern, Acalamari has not subsequently engaged in such activities and fully understands that a bureaucrat should remain absolutely neutral when closing an RfA/B.

As everyone knows, I am a cheerleader for the idea that we need more bureaucrats and administrators to prevent an us/them mentality from developing and because we have experienced a loss of six crats over the course of 2013. However, it would be foolish on my part to nominate any random person simply to fill an office because I know that the response to their subsequent failure as crat will be to raise the RFB bar even higher. With Acalamari’s sensible judgment and his effective long-term use of the tools, and for all the other aforementioned reasons I have listed, I know that Acalamari will be more than "any random person" and will make a fine bureaucrat.

All being said and done, I am therefore happy to put him forward today for bureaucratship. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination by Keilana

There's not much more to say after what MBisanz has elucidated above! Like MBisanz, I had offered to nominate Acalamari for the 'crat toolset ages ago and am pleased to finally get to do so. He is a sensible, even-keeled administrator with good judgment in determining consensus and a six-year track record of good policy knowledge. I personally feel that candidates for 'cratship should be focused on administrative tasks and Acalamari meets this requirement while not neglecting article space. He is low-controversy and always respectful whether he is conversing with a newbie or a longtime contributor. I agree wholeheartedly with MBisanz that we need more 'crats and I think Acalamari would be a great fit for the role. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, MBisanz and Keilana, for your nominations. I gratefully accept. Acalamari 11:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 had WT:RFA and WP:BN watchlisted for years, and I read almost every RfA that goes live. A bureaucrat's job at RfA is to judge consensus. A bureaucrat must carefully review a candidacy and listen to what people have said - what arguments have been made, how supporters and opposition acknowledge and address each other, which way the neutrals lean - then determine the consensus. On a numerical basis, below 70% support is almost always unsuccessful and above 80% is successful; the discretionary range of 70%-80% is why bureaucrats are needed at RfA. Again, both careful reading and listening are crucial; after all, unlike simpler userrights such as rollback, adminship is not as easy to give and take away.

While this should be default for any RfB candidate, a bureaucrat should remain neutral when closing a candidacy: the result of the RfA should reflect the consensus of the community, never the opinion of the bureaucrat. Bureaucrats should never base their closures on their own RfA standards or on how they might have participated in the candidacy, nor should they ever "give the benefit of the doubt" to a candidate, as that's something the community grants should it choose to. It should also go without saying that a bureaucrat should recuse themselves from any RfA that they've given an opinion in.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A: I have always strived to be as approachable an administrator as possible. As such, I would discuss my actions in a reasonable manner and would be happy to provide an explanation, or expand upon one if somebody ever thought it wasn't sufficient; this is what I have done as an editor and as an admin and I will continue to do so no matter the result of this nomination. I do like the practice of bureaucrats writing closing statements in narrow RfAs - it guarantees transparency and gives the community an immediate explanation - which is something that I would uphold; again, if further clarification were to be requested, my talk page would always be open. In the event that I felt the input of more bureaucrats would be needed, a bureaucrat chat is a valid option, as has been done in the past, although it is my preference that this be very rare and not something for me to constantly rely upon. To be willing to discuss is paramount.

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've been an admin for over six and a half years and there have been, as far as I can remember, few complaints about me. In fact, when I put myself up for administrator review, which I kept open for over a year, I was surprised by the lack of any complaints. I have always put a lot of thought into my admin actions, especially when using the block button, rather than make unnecessarily hasty decisions. There is no reason why I would change this if I became a bureaucrat; the role does not require snap decisions. The limited nature of bureaucratship would merely be a moderate extension of what I already do as an administrator, nothing more, nothing less.

I think I am easy to get along with. I take the time to listen, which I feel is something a person should do regardless of what userrights they hold or not. To repeat part of my answer to question two, I am always happy to explain myself. As for fairness, I treat everyone I interact with the same and will listen to a person whether or not they and I agree on something. Granted, I am not perfect: I do make mistakes but I strive to rectify them whenever and wherever possible, which is something that I have always done.

Finally, while it's been years since it happened, I'd like to mention my first RfB. The two major concerns, in my opinion, were how I had less than a year’s tenure as an admin (lack of experience was cited) and the worry that I would not be an impartial bureaucrat (I used to reply to opposition a lot back then, which I agree isn't appropriate for a bureaucrat). If I recall correctly, I thought that those reasons were significant enough to justify an early withdrawal. At any rate, I believe that these concerns have been addressed, for reasons which have been explained in both the nomination and in my answer to the first question.

Additional question from Ottawahitech
4. In regards to question 2: isn’t everyone equal on Wikipedia, so what does promote mean here? Does it mean that those who are promoted (and those who promote them) are more equal than others?
A: In this context, "promote" does not (or, at the very least, should not) mean that a user who is an admin or bureaucrat has been given a higher rank or a more prominent opinion than other users; rather, the definition here is that they have been trusted with some extra tools - not authority over others - to help with maintaining the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, to someone who misunderstands the nuanced term, they think that it literally means that admin/bureaucrat status is an actual promotion over other users, which it isn't.

As such, in my opinion, "promote" is a poor word choice and is one that has always bothered me, as it does give the impression that admins and bureaucrats are "in charge" of other users. While it's not perfect, I do prefer "grant", as at least it doesn't sound as though it puts admins and bureaucrats on a throne the same way that "promote" does. I consider your opinion to be every bit as important as mine and I dislike any impression that I'm somehow a "better" user than you are.

Thank you for your question, Ottawahitech. I hope my answer is satisfactory. Acalamari 22:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Hawkeye7
5. An admin resigns and later has an unsuccessful reconfirmation RfA. Is she still eligible to have her admin permissions restored under WP:RESYSOP?
A: My answer is no, as the community has explicitly denied restoring adminship to that user; I do not think it would be appropriate to resysop someone upon their request when the community has declined them. In this circumstance, resysopping would be overriding community consensus, which bureaucrats are expected to implement, not ignore.
Also, I'd like to quickly clarify that my answer assumes that the user has resigned under non-controversial circumstances, as someone who has resigned under a cloud is required to re-run RfA by default and thus, were never eligible to simply ask for the tools back via a bureaucrat in the first place. Acalamari 10:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6. What is the most controversial decision that you have made as an admin?
A: I've been thinking really hard about this one. I would say that the most controversial admin decision I've ever made was to carry out an inappropriate mass unprotection of templates back when I was still a relatively new admin; I made absolutely no effort into checking whether or not they should have unprotected and just went ahead regardless. Granted, it was settled between a few users, and didn't blow up into AN/i drama and there was no major community discussion, but it was a controversial - and erroneous - action and it was rightly criticized; yes, another user requested that the templates be unprotected, but I was the one who did the unprotecting and thus, the responsibility lay with me. Fortunately, I reversed my actions and apologized, which was accepted and resolved the situation. While this happened over six years ago - way too long ago to matter now - it does stick out in my mind as the biggest mistake I've ever made with the admin tools.
I have been fortunate that I haven't been taken to AN/i, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been the occasional complaint or query on my talk page, and once in a while a fellow admin has disagreed with a rollback granting of mine, but nothing I've ever done in regards to my use of the admin tools has ever generated massive controversy, a widespread community dispute or otherwise received heavy criticism. In all cases, I've always been willing to explain myself when questioned and I have no reason whatsoever to move from this approach, given how much it has helped me over the years.
I am not sure if this was the exact answer that you were looking for, Hawkeye7, but I do hope that it is sufficient. Your question certainly made me do some deep thinking, at the very minimum, so thank you for that. Acalamari 12:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Links for Acalamari: Acalamari (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Acalamari can be found here.
• I have added my editing stats and admin log counts to the talk page. Acalamari 10:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Discussion

• Given that the bot hasn’t been updating User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report, I would appreciate it if somebody would add this RfB to the list manually, please, similar to the manual edits that Ktr101 made here. While I don't think it would be a problem if I added it, as the list is a neutral way of letting the community know about RfAs/Bs, I thought I would ask, just in case. Thank you. Acalamari 11:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also like to declare, in the interests of transparency, that I was not influenced to undergo RfB again by the existing candidacy from Worm That Turned, nor is it an attempt to take advantage of him. MBisanz created my RfB before WTT made his; WTT was quicker to transclude and mine was delayed. Given the rarity of more than one RfB up at a time, I thought that this was worth mentioning. Thanks. Acalamari 11:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support for a very familiar admin whose work I appreciate. Happy to be the first here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support- A highly trusted editor. Acalamari's past administrative track record over the years has been impressive and there is no reason to doubt that they will do good job as a Bureaucrat too. Always helpful, takes time to explain things in a proper manner, asks questions if there is any reasonable doubt and having a good judgement which are the core things required for a crat. Clearly a net benefit to Wiki English. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support- Extremely helping, a quality I would like to see in a 'crat. Soham 11:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support Obviously. There is no reason for me to oppose Acalamari, as his editing work has been very sporadic, save for late 2010. I do agree that using users' talk pages to communicate with them is a good idea; however, I checked Acalamari's talk page and it was excessively long. The only problem I cite is archiving the talk page. Nevertheless, He is a great editor with one-tenth of the edit count of Koavf as of this edit. Three-quarters of his edits goes to the article namespace, while the next largest pie is the user talk namespace. He exceeded my expectations of a crat and an admin. A very active editor who is most needed in making decisions as wise as Solomon, so we need him as much as we need an Arb like WTT. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Support As per MBisanz .Long Term admin since 2007.User is fully well versed in policy his judgement as an admin including blocks,protects ,handing rollbacks over the years has been spot on and exemplary.One of the most experienced, dedicated,active and committed contributors to the Project.See no concerns and the last RFB was ages ago in Feb 2008.Feel the project will only gain immensely with the user becoming a crat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support per nom with little to add, but answers to the standard RfB questions show the candidate has his finger on the pulse of the community, knows what the role entails and has more than enough experience. Also lots of evidence of friendly interactions on their talk page. benmoore 12:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support As nom. MBisanz ^talk 13:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support — Geez, if I had a wishlist going, there'd be two ticks already.. first WTT and now Acalamari? Wikipedia's lucky week. Acalamari is a distinguished editor, who has an impressive skill and tenacity towards being a hard-working and extremely helpful administrator. I've seen their dealings around the Project with pure admiration. They are calm and collected, kind and well-mannered; equipped with years of knowledge and 100k edits of experience – wise in every sense, to be granted bureaucratship. Acalamari, all the very best to you & good luck! ——MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support – This is long overdue. --Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Possibly the most friendly and helpful admin around. This I say based solely on his actions, without ever having had any interaction with him personally. Widr (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Another fine candidate, with trustworthy noms. Will make a good addition to the crat corps. Miniapolis 14:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Sure. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 15:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. What a pleasant surprise... I have the utmost confidence in Acalamari's ability to do this job, and I'm glad he's decided to volunteer for it. 28bytes (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support very helpful, very kind, and very fit for this role - Gloss • talk 15:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. support Dlohcierekim 15:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support ///EuroCarGT 16:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Why not? Acalamari is an approachable and friendly administrator who's done plenty of good work over the years. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. My interactions with the candidate have left me with a very good impression, and I wish them the best of luck. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Can this be the strongest support that I ever gave to an bureaucratic candidate? I interacted with Acalamari going back for years and he is one of the friendliest and most honest administrators in this project. Secret ^account 17:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support No concerns and plenty of well respected people supporting you. Mkdw^talk 18:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support absolutely. smithers - talk 18:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. Andrevan@ 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support per noms, excellent answers to questions, and the admin review linked from Q3. --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25. Obviously. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 19:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Two great bureaucrat candidates in one week. It's Christmas in ... well January, but anyway, happy to support a fully qualified candidate. Go Phightins! 20:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support As highly skilled admin with a great track record and a friendly, helpful demeanor he should be a good crat. Regards SoWhy 20:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Fully qualified for this role. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Dan653 (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support as nom - better late than never... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support as nominated. I am One of Many (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Per the nominators. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Ha! I recall missing both his successful RfA and his prior RfB after having intended to support both, this time I made it under the wire. Nathan ^T 01:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - hardworking, dedicated, sincere...Modernist (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support --Andreas JN466 01:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
36. Strong Support, per Secret. Acalamari is one of the friendliest and most helpful administrators I've encountered, and I have absolute confidence that he'll be a fine bureaucrat. LittleMountain5 02:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support per noms. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 03:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support, great admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support does a great job, no concerns. Royalbroil 05:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support per nominators and precious help to people whenever you can and speaking up even when it is too late to help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support as others have said, Acalamari is a great admin - quite suitable for this role. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - no concerns that I can see / remember, and well-supported by editors I respect. GiantSnowman 09:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
44. Of course. Graham87 10:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Good contributions and good answers to questions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. Absolutely no reason not to. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. I see no issues here. Glad to support HalfGig talk 15:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support No problems I can see. Peridon (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Alan ^(talk) 16:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support One of the best admins I've interacted with—their willingness to assist others and careful exercise of admin tools means that extending their tools will only help the project. Best, —JennKR | ☎ 17:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
51. sounds good to me --Guerillero | My Talk 18:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support I have known Acalamari for many years; he has been an excellent and skillful admin, and I am certain that he will make a competent bureaucrat.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
53. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support -- Reading above my !vote will say it all. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 23:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. Strong candidate. Good all-around contributor. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Liked the answer to Question 6. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 03:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - Although I've never seen him around, by reading the Q/As above I think he is a very good admin and would make a great bureaucrat. United States Man (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support, no doubt. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. I have seen Acalamari around and he's a good admin. I liked his thoughtful, insightful answers to the questions. Will make a fine 'crat. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support - the user is very qualified and a great admin, and his answers to the questions are above satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Time to give the wrench and screwdriver (or whatever) to him. Enough with the mop. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 07:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support absolutely no issues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
64. Why of course! Acalamari is one of our most dedicated, uncontroversial admins. He has extensive experience in user rights issues, and he's widely regarded as a "safe pair of hands". I've worked closely with him in the past, and I'm not aware of him ever causing controversy. In fact, I'd wager that most people have never heard of him (unless he's grated them autopatrolled rights!), which is about the level of uncontroversiality that we look to our 'crats for. I've no doubt that Acalamari will do an excellent job as a 'crat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
65. Strong support Absolutely, and it's about time Mlpearc (open channel) 17:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support – a low-controversy and sensible admin. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. Wondering when this would happen. bibliomaniac15 19:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support per noms. Legoktm (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Sane and reasonable. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support per above. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. —Blurred Lines 13:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support No problems here, will make a good addition. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support per noms and history --DHeyward (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. Good answers. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support This is surreal: an admin for over 6 years and hasn't pissed off even one editor who cares enough to come here and drop a (by now only symbolic) oppose !vote? :-D --Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. Delighted to be able to support a second excellent bureaucrat candidate in such short order. Acalamari has demonstrated a great deal of sense and is well-suited for evaluating consensus on contentious issues such as RFA. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. No concerns whatsoever.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. Per Harry Mitchell. I've had the pleasure of chatting with him on several occasions and he's always impressed me with his thoughtful and level-headed temperament. --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support I see no issues with granting the bit to this user. --AdmrBoltz 23:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Great record and reputation. Reasonable and calm temperament is a key qualification. Unanimous support from many long-time and trustworthy editors so far. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. Never met him, never noticed him, but I trust the nominator, like the answers, and per everyone else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. Decent admin, strong nomination, good answers. No issues. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 08:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support buffbills7701 13:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support - Indubitably. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
85. Strongest possible support. Answers are more than satisfactory; more than enough experience and although I do not believe I have ever interacted with them, I have seen them around and they left a good impression on me: shows good judgement, is friendly and helpful. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. Acalamari is one of those people that I've known for a very long time. I've always known Acalamari to be very level-headed, quite knowledgeable, trustworthy, and more than helpful. A very well-suited candidate who, I'm sure, will make an excellent bureaucrat. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
87. <3 Cloudchased (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support I previously proposed to nominate him for this but he kindly rejected it. Good to see he has decided to go for it! ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 04:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
89. Yes.  7  08:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 15:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support: Will make a great bureaucrat. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
92. Stephen 01:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support I'm happy to support, he's been a great admin for 6 years already! No concerns at all. Good luck on bureaucratship! :) StevenD99 ^{Contribs Sign} 05:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support per the nominators. This editor gave great responses to the questions and has a strong history. Good luck with the new tools! - tucoxn\^talk 07:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support I'm familiar enough with the user to support this. — ChedZILLA 10:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support I have a very positive impression of Acalamari. No concerns whatsoever. decltype (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support Based on long standing positive interaction. A great Wikipedian who will sensibly use the extra couple of tools. Pedro :  Chat  13:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
98. NW (Talk) 14:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support - Should make a good crat. Happy to support.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  15:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support Uncontroversial candidate and one of the few nominees for this position that I trust unconditionally.--MONGO 15:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Since we first interacted in 2006, I have enjoyed witnessing Acalamari mature into a seasoned and trusted administrator. I am sure he will make an excellent bureaucrat and have no concerns about his candidacy. Sarah 15:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
102. My reservation is that I don't believe it is good for any candidate to be completely unopposed - but I can't think of anything credible to grumble about other than your apparently bland taste in music. Have to agree with much of what is said above and support. Ben MacDui 18:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support --Rzuwig^► 20:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support No reason to oppose and almost guaranteed to be helpful. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 20:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support Coming out of mini-retirement to offer my full support in the candidate. Acalamari is one of the closest, most loyal administrators I have known, ever since he granted my first rights back in January 2008. Good luck with the bureaucrat tools! Schfifty3 22:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. I'm late to get here, and there's really not much I can add, but I fully trust the candidate, and consider them fully qualified. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support - Good candidate. AlexiusHoratius 02:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
108. I've seen Acalamari around for years and he's always helping out in some way, shape or form. I've seen how he interacts with others, his knowledge of policy and general demeanor and all of them leave a positive impression. Managing to be as active as he is on Wikipedia while keeping drama to a minimum is no small feat. I'm confident that Acalamari will continue to be helpful with a few extra buttons and enthusiastically support his request to help out in another capacity. Good luck and thanks for stepping forward. Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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.