Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wizardman

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

[edit] Wizardman

Final (89/27/5); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 05:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - Ah, where to start.. I'm not one to talk about myself. I have over 30k edits, and have been an admin for 12+ months, yes, but the things I'm proud of accomplishing as an admin happen to be things that do apply to be a bureaucrat. I have nominated 36 users for adminship (though technically 2 rfas i nommed were one user). Most of the admin candidates that did not gain adminship on my attempt actually got it on the 2nd attempt, so I like to consider my nomination "ahead of the curve" rather than in error. Having the record for most successful nominations (28.. i think it's a record anyway) does make me feel like I've really contributed to Wikipedia. I have clerked with WP:CHU for a while and participated in RfA discussions, so I know the areas very well. I prefer to let my contributions speak for themselves, though feel free to ask questions, I welcome them and will answer them to the best of my ability. Wizardman 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I respectfully decline this nomination I accept. Wizardman 04:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Of course I have read the discussions on when to promote. The one thing a bureaucrat looks for is, of course, consensus. Consensus is based partially on the percentages, with 70%-75% generally being a "discretionary zone" though this is not exclusive, certainly an rfa at 68% could have consensus to pass and an rfa at 76% could have no consensus depending on the second factor, the weight of the supports, and especially the opposes. For example, if a candidate finishes 57/19/3 with opposes being nothing other than article writing stuff, I would most likely pass. If a candidate finishes 57/19/3 with opposes regarding the user's block log, bad afd calls, and civility issues, then I would most likely fail. I do plan on really looking at neutral votes though, since they could give insight as to whether or not there really is consensus in an rfa. Note that this does not mean that I would dismiss article writing opposes, I would just look at them more closely to see if the issues are serious enough to fail.

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

A. In situations where there are extenuating circumstances that need to be looked at, I will turn to my fellow bureaucrats and we will try and come to a consensus. The cases of Danny's RfA, Gracenotes' RfA, etc. are prime examples of cases where a bureaucrat really has to look carefully at each comment, see what the issue is that has caused the controversy, and most importantly, accept that other bureaucrats might see the decision the other way. Remember, we're doing what's best not for us, not for the candidate, but for Wikipedia. If you want my opinion on specific cases, by all means ask and I'll gladly offer it.

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 have never had issues raised against me regarding fairness, knowledge, and engagement in my year of adminship. When a user questions my AfD call, which happens once in a while, I explain why i made the call I did, and we've always come to an agreement one way or the other.

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

A. Absolutely - I wouldn't be running if I didn't desire to help with this.

5. Can you explain your inactivity this month?

A. Of course. Yup, I asked this myself since I know this will be brought up. By the start of February, my health was getting bad, and my stress was at the point where to get better I knew I had to force myself off of Wikipedia. I waited until I knew I was back at 100%, and came back, feeling more willing to edit and more willing to contribute than I've felt in a long time. Hopefully this won't count against me, as I only did it because I felt if I continued editing, it would have been a net loss for Wikipedia, since my editing would've been subpar.

6 Could you explain a little more about how you feel about opposes based around lack of article writing ("opposes being nothing other than article writing stuff"). Does this mean that you'd discount editors opposing in an RFA because they feel article writing is important? Would this mean you'd consider (and give more weight to) your own RFA standards when judging consensus in an RFA?

A. To make my position clearer on that, I was using that more as an example than anything else. However, someone who opposes due to "a lack of featured articles" compared to a more serious problem does make the oppose seem weaker on the surface. I would not discount them at all, since there are times where that may actually be an issue. Each bureaucrat has its own feelings on specific opposes, else controversial RfAs would be solved instantly. What I see to consensus will be nearly identical to what other bureaucrats would see as consensus, so whether or not I'd use my own standards shouldn't be an issue, though in controversial RfA's, that is what a bureaucrat has to do in hopes of the rest of them seeing a new viewpoint on that case.

(Not really optional) questions from User:Twooars

7.It is obvious to me that when a 'crat closes a difficult RfA, a certain amount of personal bias does exist in the final decision and this can not be avoided. I would just like to choose 'crats knowing their biases and standards rather than someone who sidesteps the question saying "my opinion doesn't matter, I'll just determine whether there is consensus or not". Hence the following questions; unlike at an RfA, a refusal to answer may be sufficient reason for an automatic default oppose from me but answering them honestly will probably bring you more opposes, so.... :)

a)How do you feel about the following oppose reasons, assuming that they are the oppose rationales in their entirety (responses on a scale of "wtf?" to "well said!" :)

• • • Not enough experience - Understandable
    • Not enough time spent - Probably understandable, depends on time spent though (like 2 months is understandable, 6 not really)
    • Uses automated tools - Kinda petty
    • No participation at XFD / AIV / RFPP - If they state that they wish to help in these areas, then this is perfectly valid.
    • No need for tools - Meh, not a good rationale in and of itself, on the other hand we have more than enough admins who don't use the tools, on the third hand just because they don't have a need doesn't mean they won't use them.
    • Not enough mainspace contributions - Probably okay, but depends on what "not enough" is and what "enough" is.
    • Not enough wikipedia space contributions - See above
    • Low mainspace:wikipedia space ratio (or any other ratio) - Petty, since if one's a large problem it would fall under one of the other rationales.
    • Unfriendly / curt when communicating with fellow editors - Very valid
    • "I'll oppose all self nominations" - Very, very petty
    • "Weak answers to questions" / "did not bother to answer to questions" - Depends on what's meant by weak. If it's 2-3 word answers that don't give us an idea of who the candidate is, then it's understandable, as is not bothering to answer them.
    • Weak vs. strong oppose - I would use these modifiers in the cases where it's in the discretionary range, though if someone's at 97/0/0 and someone strong supports, it doesn't really matter.
    • <any other reason you think should have been mentioned here / feel strongly about... I may add more if I can think of some more or if you think these quesions aren't enough work for one day ;) > - There's a few more I'm thinking up, will add in when I have them all down.
    • <no oppose reason given> - one should definitely be given, even if "per someone"

b)How do you feel about reconfirmation RfA's? Do you think they should have a different yardstick? Do you plan to apply a different yardstick?

I personally don't have a problem with them. The way I see it, if an admin in good standing wants to risk losing their tools by going through a reconfirmation, then that's their choice. I know some are vehemently opposed to them, though I personally could care less about whether or not they happen. I think they should have a somewhat different yardstick, and the reason I say that is if they are using their tools frequently and in controversial settings, they are going to make enemies, there's no doubt about that. As for how different that yardstick should be, I'm not exactly sure at this time. Any other parts of the question I can probably answer better at the inevitable ^demon question.

c)When you are in doubt about an RfA closing and there are no other crats available to discuss with, what would you do, close as successful or unsuccessful?

I would put it on hold with a "provisionally successful/unsuccessful", and put it on the bureaucrats' noticeboard for review. This would be done on a case by case basis though, as some might go one way or another, but others I might be completely stumped on and would need time to think about it myself.

Question from SorryGuy:

8. You said it was inevitable, and so it is. If you would please explain your position on the closing of the ^demon reconfirmation and if you would have closed it as successful, it would be helpful. Thank you, SorryGuy  Talk  03:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, after thinking about it for a couple days after it happened (and watching the RfA from an outsider's view), I did eventually come to a personal, albeit difficult, decision on the matter. He was desysopped under uncontroversial circumstances, yes. When he went the route of reconfirmation, he became subject to the community's discretion, as would any other candidate. The question then becomes: were the opposes rated to his administrative actions, or were they smoke and mirrors? The opposes amounted to civility concerns as an admin, the speedy deletion of Mzoli's, and other problems in regards to images, most of which would not have occured had he been only an editor. While raw votes aren't always a huge indicator of consensus, if you look at ^demon's 63%, then that means that for every 2 that supported his RfA, at least 1 opposed. That's rather significant, I'd say. I respect WJB's decision, but had it been my choice, given each person's reason for voting the way they did, I personally could not find a consensus to promote him, and would have closed it as unsuccessful.

Questions fromMBisanz

9a. Crats flag Bots per WP:BAG consensus. They also interpret close elections of editors to the BAG. What is your standard for an editor passing a BAG election?

9b. BAG approves Bots in the WP:RBA process. How many BAGers supporting a Bot function would you require to flag a bot? What if there was opposition from non-BAGers?

9c Currently the process to involuntarily de-flag a bot is handled in an ad-hoc manner at WT:RFBA. Where, from whom, and in what form, would you require consensus to de-flag a bot against its owner's wishes? Against the BAG's wishes, but with the community's consensus?

When I first became an admin, I knew little of the image policy. After my rfa, I weaned my way into it little by little, and was eventually a frequent image handler. BAG's the same way, I'm not too familiar with it despite research on them, and would not immediately handle B/RFA tasks until I was confident in my abilities through watching the process and figuring out the bot community. Wizardman 03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from Dorftrottel

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

Well, the WP:NPA policy says "comment on the content, not the contributor", and that's what I plan to do. Would that be suspicious if they all came out of the woodwork? Possibly, but I would abide by what I stated above.

Followup AGF states that "Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." I believe it is possible to critically assess such a situation without making any personal attacks or assuming bad faith. Dorftrottel (criticise) 19:51, March 2, 2008

Questions from Seresin

I'm having a hard time deciding on yours, so I'll ask the same questions I asked TRM.

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

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

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

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

If this was a case where I thought it should be failed, I would discuss it with the closing bureaucrat. If I found the rationale for closing it to be sketchy at best, I'd ask the other bureaucrats to look at it as to why I believe it shouldn't have passed.

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

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

If there are inactive bureaucrats, then it would be dangerous for the account to be hacked into. As such I'd prefer the tools be removed after about 2 years of pure inactivity.

Questions from Tim Smith

17a. As an administrator, you are to be commended for making yourself open to recall. There is currently no analogous process for bureaucrats. Should bureaucrats be open to recall? Would you support a Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats open to recall?

17b. What level of support is required for a successful RfB?

17c. As a bureaucrat, would you close or participate in closing a discussion in which you had commented?

Another question from User:Dorftrottel / followup to Q2

18. So what is your opinion about Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes? Dorftrottel (criticise) 08:32, March 3, 2008

I never had a strong personal feeling as to how to rule on it, but I feel that the way the decision was made was correct.

[edit] General comments

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

1. First Support Sane sysop who would make a great 'crat Somitho (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Welcome back. You'll make a fine 'crat. Good luck! нмŵוτнτ 05:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Spebi 05:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Good decision maker. VegaDark (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. His wonderful work with adminship nominations will really make him a good crat. bibliomaniac15 05:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
6. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support: I'm glad you decided to join the fun. From what I've seen, the candidate is an excellent administrator who demonstrates superb judgment. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong support. The best of the current candidates, and one of the best candidates I could imagine. No reservations whatsoever. --JayHenry (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
9. The Easiest Decision in a Long Time « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Per nom, per answers to the questions, per some great overall contributions to this project. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Will ^(talk) 06:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Skilled user. MBisanz ^talk 06:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Yes. SQL^{Query me!} 07:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. like the percentages discussion above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Pops around everywhere that deals with RfA... —Dark ^(talk) 08:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - Per answers to questions and record with noms at RfA (I recognized 90% of them, and the ones I didn't were retired) which shows a great level of judgement. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Viridae^Talk 08:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 10:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support, an excellent candidate. I haven't the least idea what was going on through the opposer's heads (only two opposes so far, both should re-examine their vote, IMO). · AndonicO ^Hail! 11:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support per answers to questions. A good, level-headed, trustworthy candidate. --Coredesat 11:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. Knows RFA inside-out, and exhibits consistently good judgement. Exactly what is required. Neıl ☎ 11:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support, I was only intending to support two of the current batch of RfB, but Wizardman also looks like a superb candidate. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Strong Support - just as long as he keeps his witchcraft at a minimum :p ....--Cometstyles 11:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Avruch ^T 13:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
25. With all due respect, I do not find the (first three oppose arguments)_ convincing. May revisit later. Dlohcierekim 13:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support - Here's a rationale for you: Wizardman is one of the most clueful admins out there (a few of whom are up for RfB right now). He is extremely knowledgeable about RfA, spends time at CHU, and says he'll work there if given +crat. Therefore, it would be a net benefit to the project to promote Wizardman. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Trustworthy, I don't see why not. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support - trustworthy admin. Addhoc (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support As per Keilana and Impartial and trustworthy do not see any scope for misuse.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Strong support. Seems to have a good eye for what makes a terrrrrrific admin. Ok, my own hubris aside, Wizardman is a strong content editor, a consummate neutral voice, slow to anger, and bases decisions on sound policy and guidelines. He is consensus-driven and would be a wonderful bureaucrat. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Rudget. 16:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support (edit-conflict). Bureaucratship is below, rather than above, the difficultly level of adminship; if Wizardman can do that so well, I'm confident in his ability to be a bureaucrat. AGK (contact) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Support - excellent admin who's always civil. His dedication to the RfA process will make him a fine 'crat. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support - whenever I think of Wizardman, his activity at RfA is the first thing I think of. A dedicated natural candidate for 'crat. krimpet✽ 16:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Support - the opposes are poor, and have given no reasons not to support. EJF (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
37. Excellent user: will make a good bureaucrat. Acalamari 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
38. Support - I've ever only seen good things from Wizardman. He's a respected administrator who has always appeared to me to edit in the best interest of the project, and no opposers have raised any concerns. Lara❤Love 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. User has shown good judgement; he nominated me for adminship! JK, but seriously, Wizardman has proven himself to be a great editor time and time again. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
40. Support I can only see Wizardman with some extra tools as a gain for the project. :) GlassCobra 18:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
41. Support - I haven't run across this individual in a while, but I remember the interaction as a positive one. No concerns. ◄Zahakiel► 19:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
42. support —DerHexer (Talk) 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Well prepared. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
44. Support Definitely trustworthy. VanTucky 20:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Wizardman can be trusted as a bureaucrat. Captain panda 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. Majoreditor (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
47. Trustworthy Secret ^account 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
48. miranda 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
49. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Excellent candidate. Epbr123 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Great contributor. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
52. Aye. Obviously. Black Kite 00:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
53. Yep. A strong asset to the community, and a great admin. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - we may disagree once in a while, but he's a great admin, and will make a great crat. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
55. support JoshuaZ (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
56. Support Jmlk17 02:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
57. The answers to the questions leave me comfortable, and he's addressed the opposers very civilly and completely. In fact, even if he hadn't addressed them, their almost trivial nature would still lean me towards supporting. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
58. Support: Obviously! seicer | talk | contribs 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
59. Wizardman's a good contributor, clueful admin, great candidate and even greater guy. That night in Reno in '89? God, my left nostril still bleeds from to time to time! east.718 at 05:07, February 29, 2008
60. Support, excellent candidate, definitely. --MPerel 08:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
61. Support Candidate is well-versed in RfA, exceptionally so. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
62. Support -He always seemed fair to me. He's got a strong background. I'm —MJCdetroit ^(yak) and I approved this candidate at 13:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
63. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
64. Support - Your a good dude & we need you like cooked food. --Endless Dan 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
65. Support Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
66. Support Good admin. User:Krator (t c) 15:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
67. Support - very good administrator and will make a fine crat.   jj137 (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
68. Support - he picked me out of obscurity for a run at adminship =) Clearly of the quality needed to be a bureaucrat. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
69. Support - I see no reasons why I should object to this nomination. Level-headed admin. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
70. Ansell 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
71. Support - level-headed and has shown good judgment. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
72. support- Sounds like an excellent amount of experience in the relevant areas such as RfA. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 02:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
73. Support Some users seem to have problems with the candidate's recent wikistress and health issues, but I completely disagree because if a person is sick as hell (that is probably not a good analogy), they are not going to edit Wikipedia. I think the candidate would make a great 'crat. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 04:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
74. Support ---Charitwo ^talk 06:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
75. Support I cannot think of a good reason to oppose so I will have to add on to the support pile-on. Based on my own personal encounters with you I feel very confident you will do fine. --Ozgod (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
76. Yes. DS (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
77. Support. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
78. OpposeSupport Trustworthy and knows how to determine consensus. Did I write oppose, I mean support Alexfusco⁵ 17:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
79. Support - Overall, I think you have the correct experience and attitude. I have had positive interactions with you and I see you becoming a good bureaucrat. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
80. Support - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
81. Support ready for the next level. Royalbroil 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
82. Support. Trusted user and experienced admin.--TBC!?! 14:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
83. Hell yes. Really good spotter for potential admin candidates. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
84. --Kbdank71 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
85. We've had our quarrels, but yes, OK.--Doc^g 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
86. Support. MrPrada (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
87. Support The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
88. support - despite a few concerns mentioned by opposers, I believe Wizardman can be trusted to fairly evaluate consensus on RfA, and if he can be trusted on that, he can be trusted on the other b'crat tasks. Argyriou (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
89. Support I hope I'm not too late to the party. You'd make a great bureaucrat. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Per me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. "12+ months" is still too new. Guettarda (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Wow - I'd only been an admin for four months when I passed RfB. I know requirement have a tendency to grow, but this is quite a high requirement. Warofdreams talk 11:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Note that that means I've been an administrator for 12+ months. I've been a user on wikipedia for nearly 24 months. Not sure if that changes anything, just pointing that out in case there was confusion. Wizardman 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, I know, I looked at your history to see how long you'd been editing. I've seen too many people melt down or go nutty after a year or so as an admin. In an RfA, I'd say give people the benefit of the doubt. Having seen several b'crats crash and burn, I don't want to support anyone too soon. Guettarda (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Returns after a month, sees something interesting going spare, thinks "I fancy some of that". No thanks. And I note the enormous frivolousness of very many of the supporters, a significant proportion of whom have signally failed to explain themselves in any way at all. I should say that if Wizardman can explain why it's not just looking for something interesting to do, then I may or may not reconsider. Splash - tk 13:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Wizardman is one of our more trusted users: I'd support this RFA if he's been gone for one month or one year. · AndonicO ^Hail! 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   It probably looks like that on the surface, huh? I figured I'd get one of these opposes, but I'll do my best to explain the matter. If I had next to no bureaucratic experience, and hadn't been preparing myself for the job for some time (one can learn a lot about the position when not editing), then I would agree with you. However, the position of bureaucrat certainly is not a position to run for frivolously, thinking "this could be fun to do for a couple months and then stop". It's a responsibility, a great one at that, and this was not a decision I made lightly. Hopefully I was able to explain this better. Wizardman 16:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose--MONGO 14:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   May I ask for a reason why? I just want to know if it's something I could improve upon for next RfB, or if it's something that hasn't been put out there yet. I'll gladly offer an explanation should it be something that's not too big a deal. Wizardman 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   a three week break followed by nominating yourself here...the break was due to both illness (understandable and sorry to hear that) but also wikistress apparently [1], so I wonder how a controversial adminship bid you close will impact this stress. I also don't agree with your answer to question #1 because I see almost no reason to ever close a Rfa with less than 70%+ supports as successful.--MONGO 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Part of it was stress, yeah, but it was actually stress that i had been building up for some time. Instead of taking the occasional small wikibreak of a day of two, I kept editing. I learned not to let it get that bad again and to take a break for a day or two if I feel stressed. RfA in general doesn't stress me, so that's not really an issue imo. Wizardman 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

5. I'm not exactly the biggest fan RfA numbers, but since when has the discretionary zone been 70%-75%? Three-quarters support is the traditional cut-off line; anything below 80% is not a guaranteed pass, but anything below 75 % is rarely a pass. Maxim_(talk) 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry to interrupt, but, actually, you'll find that it usually is accepted that anything over 70 has a chance of passing, and the closer it gets to 75, the better chance there is. Most stuff over 75 is promoted fairly easily. That's my understanding anyway, I could be wrong... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Anything below 70 usually doesn't pass, but again it depends on the strength of arguments. Below 75, it usually doesn't pass but it has a decent-ish chance of doing so. I expand on that much more in my unsuccessful RfB. Maxim_(talk) 21:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose due to recent Wiki-stress and limited history.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

   When you say limited history, what do you mean by that exactly? Just checking to see if it's something I can improve on or explain to you. Wizardman 05:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose For example, if a candidate finishes 57/19/3 with opposes being nothing other than article writing stuff, I would most likely pass. If a candidate finishes 57/19/3 with opposes regarding the user's block log, bad afd calls, and civility issues, then I would most likely fail. As a bureaucrat, you will be expected to judge consensus, not evaluate the candidate on the merits. You may personally think "article writing stuff" isn't important for potential admins and that having been blocked is a big no-no for potential admins but you shouldn't close RFAs based on your personal views on these things. You should close them based on the views of the people who participated in the RFA. Haukur (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

   To reply to you and those below, note that I wouldn't be closing based on my personal views, I know that. I would be closing based on the views of the participants. I guess using "most likely" was too strong a modifier, because I would be looking at each discretionary RfA on a case by case basis. Just thought I'd clear that up, since I have zero plans to push any of my PoVs with the tools. Wizardman 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose per Haukur. So far, this RfB is a blatant popularity contest. I think that, if editors were to address the actual content of the candidate's expressed views, many current supporters would find them deficient. Xoloz (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
9. The numbers are merely advisory, I agree, but I think Wizardman's promoting a view that the community hasn't really supported yet -- nearly-automatic passing of RFAs in the 75-80 range, and discretionary dipping slightly below 70%. Promoting Wizardman as a bureaucrat would result in a dip in percentage that I just don't think is what the community has endorsed at this stage (it wasn't that long ago that the range was 75-80%, with anything under 75% controversial -- further changes need to be rationalized). I also find the dismissal of "article-writing stuff" as less important as highly questionable; while some comments may be given more weight than others, I find it tough to merely dismiss this rationale (even though I never use this rationale personally, I do find it a valid reason for opposition). Ral315 (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Sorry, I don't think this user has the experience or the temperament at this time. Andre (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Despite his response, I'm still very concerned about the anti-article-writing thing. We need more article writing admins, not yes. I disagree with Ral315 re. percentage ranges (I think we do have a consensus to shift them a bit, but that's just me) but I do agree with the article stuff he notes. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose per the article-writing stuff, and concerns about stress resistance - for crats we need people of exceptional quality. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 14:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose In my opinion, his standards for adminship are a little on the low side, and we need rather a little more stringency. DGG (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Concerned about his views regarding standards for adminship and who makes a good admin. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
15. I don't believe he would be a positive addition to the current pool of bureaucrats; unsatisfied with his responses to the questions. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Placeholder. May post a rationale if requested, but in short, I'm not convinced by the answers. Dorftrottel (criticise) 23:47, March 2, 2008
17. Oppose. His loose "discretionary zone" of 70-75% with which "certainly an rfa at 68% could have consensus to pass" is too lenient for me; I would prefer a strict 75-80%. I'm also uncomfortable with his view in 7b that reconfirmation RfAs "should have a somewhat different yardstick" than other RfAs; I think the yardstick should be just the same. Tim Smith (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Haukur I'm afraid. But let's make it clear that this vote is not a vote of no confidence in Wizardman's contributions as an administrator and community member. His work in locating and nominating good candidates for adminship, and his contributions in general are of immense value. His judgment is generally sound, and it is not without reason I supported him for the position of arbitrator, a position where I continue to believe he would do well in. A good person, and valuable contributor, but I think he is better at starting RFAs now than he would be at closing them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Sjakkalle. Dekimasuよ! 10:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
20. He has apparently refused to answer my questions, and therefore I have no reason to give him support, only to oppose. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

    C'mon, let's be fair - what about the other 9 questions he answered? And the masses of work he's done? :( ~ Riana ⁂ 12:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

    The questions he has answered do not give me reason to support. He seems to be cherry-picking his answers, and some of those he does answer he seems to be prevaricating; I see very little actual stance on issues; for instance, Q18. So since I am disposed to have no more bureaucrats at the moment, and the fact that he just came back from retirement, I can do nothing but oppose. seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

    I must say I fully agree that the Q18 answer is wholly insufficient. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

21. Oppose—if a RFA is controversial there is no consensus consensus consensus. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Not surprisingly, I disagree with discounting lack of article writing as a valid oppose. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Unfortunate oppose due to candidate's platform and answers to questions in running for this RfB. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose. A manipulative, untrustworthy, power-seeking gamester. If you make the mistake of electing this one, please don't turn your back on him.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

    Do you have any diffs? EJF (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

25. Oppose per Ral315's concerns about consensus, and I second his thoughts about it changing as well. Prodego ^talk 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Ral and I'm not comfortable with the Q and A section. Sarah 02:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose Haukur, Ral, and Xoloz put things more or less as I would (I do, though, join generally—if not ardently—in Sjakkalle's sentiments about that which speaks well of the candidate). Joe

[edit] Neutral

1. Splash makes a pretty good point. Even though you planned the wikibreak and returned before all this developed, I believe it is pretty bad timing (as I stated in the talk page, I don't like these "open season" times when many postulate together), just like when people created requests for bureaucratships just because Essjay left the project. It is not strong enough to oppose, though. But no requests for adminship would pass if the candidate had spent the last three weeks away from the project, and no administrator should be able to just "pull prestige" to become bureaucrat. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   I think his initial message for having taken a wikibreak was family health problems. If he took a three week break because he or someone else was hospitalized for some portion of that time, would it really effect our estimation of his trustworthiness in an RfA? Should it in an RfB? Did something during those three weeks change drastically about his history of contribuions? Avruch ^T 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

   You are right to a point: he could have waited for requesting bureaucratship, and instead decided to jump the wagon even though he was inactive for the last three weeks. If an administrator candidate were to be inactive for the previous three weeks to his request, would he be able to pass, even with Wizardman's credentials? It doesn't change drastically his history of contributions, no. But personally I consider it pretty bad timing. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Daniel (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Per Daniel. Majorly (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Weak Neutral Gut feeling. Spencer^T♦C 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral Great user, but answer to Q1 prevents me from supporting this time. Húsönd 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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