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

Wizardman[edit]

Final (175/5/1); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 02:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Wizardman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – I am very pleased to nominate Wizardman to be a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia. I have been trying for a while to find a good candidate that is willing to run and I could not have found a much better one to nominate. Wizardman is a respected administrator that has been here for over seven years and has accumulated over 180,000 edits in that time. He has numerous Featured Articles, Featured Lists and Good Articles to his credit, as well as over 70 DYKs. Furthermore, he has plenty of experience at RfA, having made over 50 nominations. Wizardman, who is also very respected for his work with copyright investigations, has expressed an interest in doing the Bureaucrat tasks. A lack of interest in these tasks is often a reason why other possible candidates do not run. In short, Wizardman is a rare find these days, a quality candidate for cratship who is actually willing to run. I hope that you can support him. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 00:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gladly accept the nomination. Wizardman 02:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following 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. It's really quite simple, as the criteria for promotion is that a consensus has been reached. The discretionary range for judgment is generally 70-80%, though this isn't necessarily set in stone; we have seen requests that have closed outside of this range differently than what the numbers would tell us. That's why consensus is drawn beyond the scope of the numbers. You have to look for any possible sockpuppetry or canvassing, the rationales for the oppose, as well as whether or not there was a significant late shift that pushed it into or out of the discretionary range. RfA would not be the cusp of the work as a bureaucrat in any case, that would be username changes. Wizardman 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. When there's a very tough close to make, the best thing that any user can do is explain it to the best of their ability, especially if it's a close that, on the surface, may not make sense. Usually if a candidacy is high traffic and ends up in the discretionary zone, it's going to go to a crat chat anyway, and that's generally for the best, since in those contentious cases a handful of eyes are better than one set. As long as I explain my decision appropriately, I don't foresee any issues. Wizardman 01:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 know that I have no issue meeting these standards. You need to know policy to be an admin, and that I have no trouble with. As for fairness, that's what I strived to do when I served on ArbCom. It's a tough job, and I always considered myself to be fair in my votes and drafts, though I know I was quite law-and-order as well. As for engaging, the point of the encyclopedia is that it is not one person, and you can't stay in a bubble. I work with others to the best of my ability, and if we disagree on something, I don't let it cloud future judgment on the user. I try and be pithy as well, since we all have lives outside of the site, so that conversations and disputes can continue to move along towards a resolution. Wizardman 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. Yes. Wizardman 01:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Sven Manguard
5. In your opinion, do bureaucrats currently have either the community or policy backing to intervene in ongoing RfAs and close discussions or ask people to leave RfA pages when discussions turn nasty or off topic? If so, is this ability a responsibility? If not, should they have this ability?
A: Last I checked, WP:NPA was still a policy, so bureaucrats have to keep an eye on RfAs for that. To avoid further attacks and problems on an RfA that's turning nasty, it should be a bureaucrat step in rather than a regular user or an admin. Anything that is too off-topic I would ask the users to move the discussion to the RfA talk page if the users really want to continue it (assuming it's tangentially related to RfA), or if it's completely off-topic, to just go to a user talk page. Personal attack violations and warring, though, should be hatted and the users asked to disengage. Knowing that fine line between letting a necessary discussion run its course and nipping a problem in the bud is precisely what bureaucrats need to be aware of and keep their eye on; so to answer the questions in short, yes and yes. Wizardman 00:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. In your opinion, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the current RfA system? How would these play into the way you would close RfAs as a 'crat?
A: To answer the second question first, I don't let any personal biases I may have with the RfA system get in the way of any closes I make. If there's clearly no consensus to promote, then there's no consensus, simple as that. Once you start closing you how want to close rather than going by community consensus, that's when trust goes out the window. As for strengths and weaknesses, I don't think the system itself is an issue, but I'm someone who believes adminship should be given out rather freely as long as the user has a good track record, so seeing users torpedoed for one minor mistake does sadden me at times. Again, those are the opinions of those users and they are entitled to them, so as long as they aren't getting nasty, everyone's entitled to their opinion and I will weigh it properly. Wizardman 00:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from SilkTork
7. Should the decision on emergency desysopping be moved from ArbCom to 'crats?
A: This is actually a good question, and not one I've given thought to before. There are pros and cons to both situations. ArbCom has a mailing list where if an emergency desysop is needed, they can quickly talk everything over and make a decision. With bureaucrats, there are more of them so a decision could be reached quicker, but they don't have an overarching area aside from the Bureaucrat Noticeboard where a discussion could be reached. It would be fine if those discussions could be placed on-wiki, and if we go by Level I permissions (as Level II is not an emergency), then none of the noted guidelines sound like something that requires offwiki discussion (wheel-warring or compromised accounts would be very clear to everyone that it's happening). To answer the question, it's something that should go to community discussion, since Arbs are chosen knowing that this is one of their responsibilities, and while bureaucrats do have trust, that's not directly listed. I would be okay with bureaucrats handling emergency desysops personally, though for the reasons mentioned above I could see how that would be an issue. Wizardman 01:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from PinkAmpersand
8. Somewhat in the spirit of SilkTork's question... it's an important internationally celebrated holiday and you stumble on a textbook rogue admin account – vandalizes the main page, unblocks xemself and blocks whoever blocked xem, etc. There's no room for AGF: This is clearly premeditated, and would meet the criteria for a level-1 desysop. You check IRC to see if you can find 3 arbs, but there are only a handful of users holding down the fort – no arbs, no other 'crats. It's now been 10 minutes since the spree started, and the stuff they keep putting on the main page is severely offensive. Do you desysop or not?
(There's no "right" or "wrong" answer to this from a policy perspective, and I'll probably wind up supporting either way. I'm just curious.) — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 19:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an admin that was going that crazy and rogue and I couldn't find anyone online (I'd do a quick contribution check to see if they had just edited), then I would just desysop and block the user myself as an emergency desysop. I would, of course, send an e-mail to arbcom as well as note the situation (there's a 99% chance it would be at one of the administrators noticeboards already). In that case I can't imagine anyone would find a problem with the desysop itself, though it's possible someone would complain that the rules weren't perfectly followed. Yes it's not the textbook way to do it, but sometimes common sense has to take over. Wizardman 00:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a further addendum, there was an RfC on the question of when bureaucrats can do that about a year and a half ago, so consensus is for arbs to handle that, though of course the situation you note above is not a typical troubled admin situation, but a severe one where action needs to be taken swiftly. Wizardman 00:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Guðsþegn
9. Username changes are a fundamental part of bureaucratship. Why do you like the idea of handling username changes? What makes you want to do this work?
A: I like the idea of handling it because sometimes people feel like they need a change fr whatever reason, whether it's due to privacy concerns or maturing and realize having a username that brings off an immature aura probably isn't the best way to continue editing. Helping out with those instances would be nice.
10. Usurpations are a key part of WP:CHU. What is your philosophical take on WP:USURP? Is it a good thing? .. bad thing?
A: Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites on the internet, so as a result there are a lot of usernames taken, and usernames without numbers in particular are tough to find. If there's a registered name that was never touched, then it shouldn't automatically be a barrier. I know I would've been annoyed is Wizardman was registered in 2002 but never had a single edit. As long as we're not getting rid of a name actually in use, there's not really an issue, hence why we allow usurpations.
11. Test usurp case: Say a long time user (8 years, 8000 edits) wants to change his username, usurping a little used username. It is discernible that there is no question regarding the motivation of the user, and the user seems to have good reason for the change. The user does not have an SUL on his current name, and the target username has no SUL. The target username has 11 accounts, one of which is owned by the user in question on a different wiki. Half of the accounts have no edits. The rest of the accounts (those not owned by the user in question) have no more than 4 edits. The target English Wikipedia account has only 3 edits (none of any consequence), the last of which was 5 years ago. The most recently used account with the same username was the German Wikipedia account with one significant edit 1 year ago (previous edit 4 years prior). Another account (Japanese Wikipedia) with no edits was created 1 year ago. Again, no SUL, no big contributors. Do you allow the usurp? What are your questions in the case?
A: This is a very borderline situation going by the username change guidelines. My first and biggest question would be whether or not the name owned by him had any edits, and if so the significance of them. I would also check The SUL guidelines to see if the request meets those. The only one of the five bullet points that might be an issue is the fourth one. We have no way of knowing if the other 10 accounts are owned by the same person. More to the point, the German wiki has a significant edit from a year back, and as a result that is likely to be a GFDL problem. What I would do is see if there's a way to contact the German user on the off chance we actually get a response, and if not, I would lean towards declining it. I can't make a final decision because of that second account, since if it has a decent number of edits, with at least something recent, the user would have a solid claim to it, and I would feel more comfortable approving that request. Wizardman 03:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Bbb23
12. Following up to Q1, first, a quibble, isn't the standard 85% (WP:RFB)? Second, I'd like to hear more about the qualities a candidate should have to be promoted, not how consensus is achieved, and why you think you have them.
A: The discretionary range I noted above was for RfAs. As you noted, the range for RfBs is higher than that. It used to be even higher (90% or so) but it was brought down to its current range some years back, though memory escapes me when exactly when it was. Wizardman 00:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. It was a long time ago, but why do you think you weren't promoted in 2008? And, as a corollary, what do you think has changed (besides the lapse of time)?
A: The reasoning for that was twofold. I misfired on the first question, not noting consensus correctly, and the timing was horrendous; I took a three-week break and ran right when I returned; doesn't take a bureaucrat to know why that might've been a problem. Wizardman 00:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Crazynas
14. What is your general opinion of automated editing?
A. Bots generally are designed to do routine tasks that 99% of humans either won't do or don't have the patience to do as a result of their incredibly tedious and repetitive nature. As such I'm all for it, especially since getting these tasks done through a bot frees up users from that and allows them to do other things, like article writing or more general cleanup.
15 Why do you think the bot flag is granted by bureaucrats and not by sysops? Do you think this is appropriate?
A. A bot can do a lot of damage if it goes awry due to a problem with the code or another reason, so keeping that tool in the hands of a select few is better. There's always the chance of an admin not understanding the bot policy and just approving all bots for the heck of it, which could do a good deal of damage (and we ask admins to know a lot of policies to begin with). There are plenty of sysops who are part of the bot approvals group, so it's not like sysops don't have a day, it's simply a safety measure, which I feel is appropriate given their nature. Wizardman 03:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16. Under what circumstances would you flag an admin bot?
A. An admin bot would have to not only meet bot approval criteria, but it would have to be something where admin tools are required, and there would have to be a compelling reason for why an admin could not do the task. The two current adminbots, Cydebot and DYKUpdateBot, both fit all three criteria. Generally, most bot work does not need the admin tools, so it's not an issue that would come up often. Wizardman 05:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Keepscases
17. Would you have allowed recently deceased politician Hardin Cox to have an account in his name? Would you allow someone to have that username now? Why or why not?
A: I'd be okay with it, given that it is in fact his name, and as long as someone wasn't doing it purposely to impersonate or attack the guy, it'd be okay. We're alright with User:David Fuchs, after all. Wizardman 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Tazerdadog
18 Have you read the information page on account security and followed the basic recommendations there? A rogue admin account can probably be dealt with; a rogue crat account would be a nightmare. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: I have. If my password was actually password then I'd deserve to get my stuff taken away :) Wizardman 03:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Questions from MONGO
19 What in your mind constitutes a viable oppose comment at an Rfa? Is the simple comment of "Never" a viable oppose? Please expand if possible as to why this sort of comment in an Rfa might be construed as incivil, rude or similar.
A:
20 Lets say you still (as you did at your last Rfb) support the promotion of some admin candidates based on a 68% support threshold. A candidate has 100 total votes cast, with 67 in support and 33 in opposition. 3 of the opposes are simply comments like "Never", "No way" or "I'd never support this troll"...do you count those three and therefore fail the candidate, or what do you do?
A:
Additional questions from Tyrol5
Note: As I'm sure you're busy, please take your time in answering these questions. I won't hold any delay (or not answering at all) against you nor, I hope, will any others. Thanks.
21. As I'm certain you know, changing usernames is one of the primary functions of the bureaucrat toolkit. Here's some (optional, of course) hypothetical scenarios you might handle at WP:CHU to test your knowledge of the username policy. Would you grant the following requests? Why or why not?
a. An editor with an acceptable username wishes to change to "Wikikiller2013". Editor's prior edits are constructive and he has a an interest in video games, including First-person shooter games.
A:
b. An editor named "Larry's Lumber" wishes to change to "Lumber Larry". Only edits thus far are to a (now deleted) page, Larry's Lumber.
A:
22. What, in your opinion, is the role of the "Neutral" section in assessing and closing an RFX in the discretionary zone? How much of a role (if any at all) would the comments in that section play in your decision-making process?
A:

General comments[edit]

RfBs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

  1. Support He looks good to me :)I especially liked his description (the top paragraph) and his answer to question #1. He looks like he would be very helpful to others.
Support[edit]
  1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have only seen Wizardman act responsibly and wisely. Some of his RfC closes have impressed with respect to reading and summarising consensus, which I consider the most important test for a bureaucrat. Bishonen’s oppose seems to reflect a non-appreciation of weak humour, and I think Wizardman should take that under advisement, given the custom for bureacrats be straight, humourless bureacrats, at least with their hats on. On the other hand, I appreciated Wizardman’s humour (in addressing an extremely weak and and extremely strong ArbCom candidate), and hope that Wikipedia may continue to be a not-so-heavy place where people may have some fun while working. With respect to hat collecting, I also don’t support multi-hat wearing, at the same time. I don’t see a problem with an ex-Arb Bureaucrat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  2. ZappaOMati 01:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. T. Canens (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Legoktm (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support - Outstanding candidate with whom I have worked and whose work I have admired for a long time. Hand him the (insert whatever cliche is equivalent to a mop for a crat) Go Phightins! 02:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Absolutely! Chock full of integrity and clue. PumpkinSky talk 02:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support without reservation. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support No concerns, great candidate. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support - a hard-working knowledgeable editor, been around, lots of institutional knowledge. I trust him. -- Dianna (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The amount of positives here are hard to overstate. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Lots of content work, a clueful admin and former arb - add his level-headed and calm attitude and he fits all that we should be looking for in a 'crat. --RexxS (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Never really come across him before, but based on desriptions and the Wikipedia community's trust, should have no concerns. :)
    Arctic Kangaroo 02:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I look for clue and RfA experience, and Wizardman has a lot of both. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Rschen7754 02:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. NW (Talk) 02:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Over 180,000 edits, seven years on the project, trusted administrator, participated in a massive number of RfAs. Why would we not trust him? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, absolutely. Very trustworthy and reliable contributor. delldot ∇. 02:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - I've seen some good RfA nominations by him . Seems like a great candidate. Hoping though that Wizardman continues to seek out prospective admins even after getting keys to the mop closet. ( Is that the right cliché? ) I also glance over the previous RfB and don't see any opposes there that seem to sway me at this time. PaleAqua (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Yay. — ΛΧΣ21 03:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No concerns AIRcorn (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - vast experience, lots of clue. Huon (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Really? This is a guy that exists in the rare area that few exist: NYB, Deskena, 28bytes, WJBscribe, Dank, Cas, ... and a precious few others. Yea - I'd even support Wiz for the "founder" flag. — Ched :  ?  03:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I thought he was one already. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Already has experience in making tough analyses. Risker (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    psst. ... Yes, your you're one of those "precious few others Risker" — Ched :  ?  03:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  25. Support. Per nom, per answers to the questions, per some great overall contributions to this project. — Cirt (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. He wants to do more work? May as well let him. Courcelles 03:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Absolutely  7  03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Based on his past work on the project, I'm sure he'd make a fine 'crat. Mike V • Talk 04:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support – The candidate is both able and willing, which is what is needed to be a good bureaucrat. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Seems reasonable. Hasn't done anything questionable that I've noticed. -— Isarra ༆ 04:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Secret account 04:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per nom. Great candidate. INeverCry 04:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. SpencerT♦C 05:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - level-headed, been around forever, been an admin for six years with a great track record. —Torchiest talkedits 06:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - fantastic candidate. I've not got much new to add here. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 06:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Osiris (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, certainly an excellent choice.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - no concerns at all. T4B (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per above.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - like what they all said up there ^ -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support As per Dirtlawyer,Rexx and Risker. Outstanding candidate to put in simple words and very active user has been editing since March 2006 without a break.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC) without question[reply]
  44. Support No problems.--Pratyya (Hello!) 09:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Isn't it an electric floor polisher that 'crats get? No problems here. Peridon (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - No problems, and more than qualified to work as a 'crat. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Absolutely. Can't see any issues at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Wizardman is highly qualified to take on this role. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Former arbcommer, who did not embarrass himself, apparently. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC) That was a weak endorsement (sorry), and I am glad that others have written more informative and just endorsements. 16:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I reviewed Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wizardman, to see if Wizardman addressed the concerns expressed at that time. That request was in 2008, so the timing concerns are pretty much nailed. Most of the other questions have been answered with the solid work done in the subsequent five years.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Per everyone else. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Exceptionally good candidate for the job, exceeds all the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Very sound, calm, and clueful.  Roger Davies talk 12:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support --Rzuwig► 12:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Easy decision. Lots of experience at RfA, has a proven track record of making tough decisions and contributes significantly to article space. Most importantly for me, when he does make a mistake he's always quick to put his hand up and look to see how things can be fixed/improved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - I'm interested in answers to questions asked but I don't think it will have any impact on my opinion. Happy to support. Stalwart111 13:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support as nom and I've never seen this much happen in one night! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 13:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Excellent candidate. Miniapolis 13:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, looks like a perfectly qualified candidate. CaSJer (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, Never heard about or from him, so I've checked a few random things (contributions, talk page history etc) and this seems like a very good move to me Sitethief~talk to me~ 14:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Oh yes, absolutely. A very well qualified candidate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - Definately. GamerPro64 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. No problems, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Easy decision, based on previous observations of this editor. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC) In fact, let's call it "Strong" support following review of NewYorkBrad's evidence.  ;-) --j⚛e deckertalk 16:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support No brainer. Capable, clueful and we could use more crats. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - An easy decision, no concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, obviously because its an easy decision. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Absolutely. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support – Perfect candidate. Salih (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. No concerns. Widr (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Experienced candidate with good judgement. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Well-suited. I'm grateful for the candidate's willingness to continue contributing to the project at a high level. -- Scray (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support TBrandley 17:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. per NW. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support plenty of excellent work on many areas. Hut 8.5 17:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Thank goodness, a willing and well qualified candidate at last! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Yes. — sparklism hey! 18:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Yes, please. Webclient101talk 19:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Gold dust-esque combination of clue, thoughtfulness and judgement. No concerns. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, I am confident that Wizardman will make a marvelous 'crat.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose per Ched mixing up "your" and "you're" and Wizardman's failure to block him for it.--v/r - TP 19:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. I know this is a cliche, but I honestly did think you already were a bureaucrat. --B (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Qualified, clueful. NativeForeigner Talk 20:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Jeez, where do I sign? Oh... here - Support — -dainomite   20:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. With the exception of ArbCom, I think bureaucrats require the most trust from the community. I have nothing but respect for Wizardman, and I trust him wholly. ceranthor 20:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - I thought he was already a 'crat. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - Very trustworthy admin who will make a great bureaucrat. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Hand him the toolbox.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. An easy decision for me, and an outstanding candidate for the position. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Pile-on support Being a crat is really not that big of a deal, and Wizardman obviously is a sufficiently trustworthy user to handle it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Yes, please. I would support this a million times over due to his competence and overall skills as an editor. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. You are far overqualified for this job, Wizardman, and I thought you were done with this sort of things, but if you want to do it, by all means! :) Snowolf How can I help? 01:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - No reason to object.--Slon02 (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Mediran (t • c) 02:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support: Strong and able user who I wouldn't mind letting have a few more tools. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 03:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Why not? RayTalk 03:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support content creator and reviewer - familiar with more aspects of wikipedia than many. net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support --I am One of Many (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Having seen Wizardman all over WP/WT:RFA, I actually thought he had become a crat in the time I was away. An excellent candidate - personable, exhibits good judgement, experienced and clueful. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Side comment - I notice I hadn't supported his last RfB, I have no idea why - Wizardman has been ready for this position for a long time now. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support -- amazing work at CCI and no drama. --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - per above...Modernist (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - Not sure if I have enough mainspace edits to count, but if so, please consider my support of this very worthy candidate. Lettik (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Came over to the Support bandwagon as soon as I saw that he'd gone through the bother of locating an old RfC, and believe me that's just the tip of the iceberg on why I now Support, from what I see this Sysop's got a boatload of FA and GA. Doesn't look like he'll Screw up. I would however have liked Question 11 to have been answered before I changed my vote but I don't want to be a WikiTroll in an RfB. Plus it's surprising that a guy that used to be with ArbCom wasn't already a Bureaucrat. Hang in there Wizard, even my optimistic view agrees those tools are on the way! MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 13:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Graham87 15:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Level headed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - Even though I see RfB as prima facia evidence of {Insert Conspiracy Theory Here}. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - No research necessary; a committed CCI volunteer. I'm baffled that he has been working there without buttons, it's pretty essential for the job to be able to read deleted files. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC) /// (ec)Whoops, sorry, this is RfB. That explains that. Absolutely first rate candidate in any event. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehm, Carrite, He already can see deleted files. He's now asking to change names and give out mops :) — ΛΧΣ21 16:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case you certainly don't need to be able to see deleted pages in order to do CCI work. Hut 8.5 19:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support upstateNYer 17:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Of course; no concerns Jebus989✰ 17:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support per Hiberniantears. PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. He is just about as qualified as one can be for the position, and I see no reason to be concerned about his promotion. Ducknish (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support no concerns. Pichpich (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Excellent candidate. I like the realisation that IAR means that a crat should be prepared to deflag an obviously compromised admin account. ϢereSpielChequers 19:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Strong support per Stephen Colbert. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Indubitable support. – SJ + 19:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support 6 years of good admin work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Absolutely. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. Happily.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Per what I said to him last year. Seriously, this is so long overdue, it's not even funny. Kurtis (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support: Over 6 years of good admin work. More than 180,000 edits, trusted, participated in a massive number of RfAs...Looks good! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support trusted user. no concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 22:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support 100%, there is no one better. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - jumping on the bandwagon / a very solid Admin, no concerns, I am sure they will excel as a Crat. GiantSnowman 22:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support No concerns with this one.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support heck yes --Guerillero | My Talk 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Strong support - Couldn't think of a better user to go through RfB at this point in time than Wizardman. A very capable administrator who would really help the bureaucrat team. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Seems like an extremely strong crat. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Noting Mongo's difference, but deciding that that is not enough to oppose a user who seems to be an exceptionally strong candidate for b'crat. Horologium (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Like the answers to the questions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Good candidate for this.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support based on answers to my questions, and other answers given. Seems like a good candidate. Guðsþegn (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support based on question answers and my interactions with the user. Good luck. - Shudde talk 10:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support - Wizardman's first edit was 9 March 2006 and he has demonstrated judgement that has earned him trust by many since that time. He can be trusted with the keys to the mop closet. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - I come into contact with Wizardman in his role as an Admin (occassionally) and on WP:Good Articles (most often) although I know that he does lots of other work on wikipedia, such as a copyright. I have no hesitations in respect his suitability for bureaucratship. Pyrotec (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Will make a fine addition to the cabal, cough, cough, bureaucrat corps. -- Avi (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Boring; perfect material. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support. Having opposed him four years ago due to a somewhat overly lenient view of consensus at that time, I believe Wizardman is now a fine candidate for bureaucrat. He performed admirably as an arbitrator, and his understanding of policies and consensus have proven themselves to be very solid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Easy. Collect (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - I trust this user to make appropriate decisions. James086Talk 16:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support - Trusted long-time editor. Excellent choice for the job, and I thank AS for the nomination work. Jusdafax 23:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Stephen 00:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support per all of the above. Have read the opposes by MONGO and Bishonen and am unpersuaded. While one might counsel Wizardman to be more circumspect in voicing his opposition when he does become a bureaucrat, I don't find the diffs re MONGO or Yolo Swag, taken in context, outside the norm of calling a spade a spade. And the one re Newyorkbrad is merely groan-worthy. Martinp (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support No more rusty screwdrivers though. Rich Farmbrough, 07:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  145. Support - I feel enough confidence to support. Deb (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support, trustworthy user. Jafeluv (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  147. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 13:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support - No concerns at all. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support - No reservations. Great user. Vacation9 16:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support - Keeper | 76 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  151. mabdul 20:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Everything looks great! Crazynas t 20:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. I've worked with Wizardman a lot over the years. He's an excellent editor and administator and will make an excellent bureaucrat. He's knowledgeable of policy, a polite editor, and I trust his judgment. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support. All things considered, I trust Wizardman to be a sound and reliable bureaucrat. AGK [•] 23:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support - Looks good. Michael (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support - Answers to the questions and general demeanor give me no cause for concern and make this an easy support - Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support. Yes please. He should make an excellent bureaucrat. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support I trust Wizardman. I have read the opposes and don't find them compelling. --John (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Pile on support. —stay (sic)! 15:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support as per the above. For my part, I believe we need more humor and hyperbole from the Bureaucrat corps - but for God's sake reign it in when the true drama begins, or else you might hurt someone's feelings. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support - No worries. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support - More than meets the standards for bureaucratship and is someone I think we can trust with the added responsibility. - MrX 00:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support Many great contributions.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support Opposes not convincing. Cheers, LindsayHello 07:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support - Had a lot of intereactions with Wizardman, I don't see anything to make me think he wouldn't make a good Crat. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Swaha (read Support): I have seen Wizardman's works and edits many times in Wikipedia. He is an excellent contributor. I specially like his detailed and well-thought rationales. And in my opinion, his experience in RFA will be a plus point for him! Good wishes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 12:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support. Experienced and trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support per my standards for 'Crats and my support the last time. A good copyvio-fighter. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Andrevan@ 01:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support. NTox · talk 06:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support. Clearly should be respected, especially for his work on articles.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 08:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support Why not? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support Great candidate. Skilled with Adminship. Adding a few extras to his name can improve his workflow and bring a positive impact on the 'pedia John F. Lewis (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  174. What I said five years ago about Wizardman stands today. I'm pleased to have the chance to support him again. Acalamari 22:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support. With respect to those opposing, none of us are perfect. I think Wizardman's more than qualified for the job and would be a good addition to the team. WJBscribe (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose ...no one should ever be promoted to this position with the kind of spiteful vote!...as was done here...regardless of the sentiments behind such a vote, I sure as hell don't want this person serving in the position of bureaucrat if that is the kind of insulting garbage he is capable of. Oh, in case anyone things this is just pure revenge, since his vote at that Rfa, I have supported one of Wizardman's articles to FA...but my position on this matter stands..if a never vote at an Rfa is all he has to offer, then under no circumstances should this editor be promoted to crat.--MONGO 02:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC) I have withdrawn my oppose...--MONGO 04:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been a lot of discussion at Rfa as to how best to make improvements and a couple issues that continue to pop up include the lack of civility as well as what constitutes a viable comment. As has been said many times over the years, adminship is "no big deal"...while I don't agree with that exactly, I do in spirit and in my opinion, viable arguments against promoting someone to administrator are up to the opposition providing mature rationale, including evidence that clearly backs up their case. I would expect other opposers to at least say they agree with the evidence provided by earlier opposition. The problems with Rfa are not alleviated by provocative, perhaps even insulting or snide comments. Comments of a demeaning nature might be expected by non-admins, raise an eyebrow when done by an administrator, but should draw disapproval from an arbitrator or especially a bureaucrat. Making a demeaning comment at an Rfa against a candidate is especially unbecoming since the candidate is expected to "eat it", since any effort by said candidate to respond is greatly hampered unless they are able to do so with extreme civility. Wizardman seems to avoid drama exceptionally well...but there are times when people need answers, and I am concerned that his drama avoidance could be easily construed as a deliberate effort to ignore. I find it necessary to go on record as opposing this candidate.--MONGO 14:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (side discussion moved to talk)
  2. Oppose. I understand that Wizardman is a highly respected user, and it's in many ways deserved, but I'm not sure he needs still more hats/more power. I found his attitude in some of the comments in his arbitration election guide in November to be lacking in a sense of the responsibilities of power. By "power" in that context, I mean that his guide was one that many voters would be likely to pay attention to. See his "My thoughts" in the table of candidates, re User:YOLO_Swag ("I'd sooner stab myself in the hand with a rusty screwdriver than even remotely consider supporting this troll for anything") and User:Newyorkbrad (a panegyric in intentionally (one hopes) bad verse). To be facetious at the expense of weak or already-piled-on users is not really funny. Especially not in a context where it can be contrasted with flattery of the most powerful of the candidates, NYB. When I tried to argue this to Wizardman on the talkpage during the election, he didn't reply.[1][2] That doesn't seem really promising either. I don't think this is a "revenge oppose" for having my opinion on the candidate's poetry and his sense of humour slighted in November, but feel free to consider it so. Bishonen | talk 14:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    I have no comment on the Yolo/NYB material, but I confess I'm surprised that Wizardman would maintain such a page in his user space at all. At best, it is off-putting, and that goes for the compliments as well as the jabs. It feels like I'm reading an insider investigative journalist's piece. Apparently, he also has similar pages for 2010 and 2011. Is this something others do? What would stop him, for example, from creating a page where he gives his opinions on all admins? Perhaps I'm in a minority as to what is appropriate and what is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The guides are standard for arbcom elections; see Template:ACE 2008 guides, Template:ACE2012, etc. Wizardman 15:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the link, although it took some poking around for me to find how all of this is connected, and the nomenclature has changed over the years, but I was able to find other guides from other editors besides yours. Over the few years I've been at Wikipedia, I've become accustomed to certain things I never would have thought I would initially. Perhaps over time I'll get used to this, too. I suppose in some sense it's no different from offering your opinion on each candidate on their discussion page, but it feels different, perhaps because it's all in one place and the gestalt is greater, or perhaps because it's so unilateral as opposed to within the context of an exchange of views.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While adminiship may arguably not be a big deal, arb-ship certainly is, and it's vital that people writing guides be allowed to express their full opinion without dumbing it down or sugarcoating it. (It is made fully clear that guides represent the opinions of those writing them, and do not need to be read or followed). People who run for arb surely know that their record will be scrutinised and they are opening themselves up to criticism, just like a candidate for public office. And lest anyone forget, YOLO Swag is the editor whose activities at Wikipedia are almost entirely limited to popping up each year, running for arb on a silly platform, and coming in last. Analysis of such behaviour as trollish is hardly unreasonable and certainly not unique to Wizardman. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect Wizardman's right to have an opinion, but that isn't the issue. The issue is how that opinion is delivered. Each level of higher trust should equate with a higher level of discipline and I for one would generally prefer that anyone running for this position or arbcom show considerable restraint, especially towards those with few if any powers. I expect a certain level of decency from those placed in the highest positions of trust.--MONGO 17:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What should he have said? "I have an opinion on this candidate but choose not to give it as it isn't entirely warm and fuzzy.", perhaps on a sparkly rainbow background with some unicorn and teddy bear GIFs to make it more sweet and gentle? Keep in mind the entire purpose of a voter guide is to give honest and forthright opinions of the candidates, whatever they may be. It isn't an article or a talk page, strong opinions are part of its very nature and purpose. I support Wizardman all the more for having the courage to honestly speak his mind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have taken his guide more seriously had he simply avoided name calling. But I will confess that unless the guides have a lot of diffs showing a candidates strengths or weaknesses, they are useless except as a place to take potshots.--MONGO 17:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not written a guide myself (and don't plan to; I doubt that anyone really cares about my opinions), but I don't think that anyone really needs a guide to analyze YoloSwag or any of the other usernames he has used. Wizardman was entirely correct to identify the editor's contributions as trolling (at least for ArbCom elections; I have no comment on his other contributions). Opposing for that reason seems to me to be irrelevant. Horologium (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (weak) oppose I find Bishonen's objection convincing and wonder why not more Wikipedians see it this way. But it's not a strong oppose, and if Wizardman had not answered well to all the questions, my opposition would be more forceful.--Razionale (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've tried to fix the oppose numbering, but it's beyond my skill. Maybe the collapse templates are messing it up? Bishonen | talk 01:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Done. We can always cite WP:DENY as grounds for completely removing the sockpuppet !vote. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 01:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
    Thank you. But it seems you had to remove the collapse to make the numbering work? Is that the only way? I'm afraid the oppose count is now again out of whack. There are currently four opposes, since MONGO has reinstated his oppose, above the other collapse box... please fix! Bishonen | talk 14:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC). [reply]
    I'm not sure if it was the collapse or MONGO's formatting, but moving the collapsed discussion to the talk page and removing the hard return after MONGO's "oppose" (before his rationale) fixed the numbering. Horologium (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
    I was trying to do the same thing, but got an edit conflict with you. But I saw that it definitely is the collapse boxes that do it. Everybody, please do not use collapse in RFAs. Bishonen | talk 14:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC). [reply]
    Come now, we're being silly. It shouldn't matter this much what the automatic numbering is doing, should it? Surely the closing bureaucrat will look down here and actually read this discussion. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose crats need to be impartial judges. The name calling turns me off. --rogerd (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Bishonen's points. Intothatdarkness 16:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a general comment to the opposes above rather than to this one specifically, though I guess it is primarily to Bishonen's oppose. The NYB diff was meant to add a bit of lighthardedness to an otherwise serious process. I'm fully aware that I'm not a poet :) and am of course am fully aware that the crux of the oppose was not that one, but the other one, which I will answer in two parts. I admit adding the troll comment was uncalled for. I thought I removed it shortly afterward but it was apparently still there; for what it's worth I cut that part out now. As for the analogy, while I understand that it's harsh to a lay reader, there is backstory to it. I've seen the user around for six years now, and nearly every time I have some across an edit of his, it's either disruptive or meant to cause a rise. He was also the subject of an arbcom case six years back, and he has not really improved since, which was the reason for my commenting more than anything, as six years is an awfully long time. Granted I should have provided diffs for my opposition and I didn't need to be as forceful as I did, but at the same time for a position as major as an Arbitration Committee appointment, I would be doing a disservice to anyone reading my guide if I were to sugarcoat everything. I reiterate that I would be entirely impartial as a bureaucrat, and would never put preconceived notions over consensus. This is a bit long-winded, my apologies, but after re-reading my guide comments and noting the opposes I felt it necessary to explain myself in that situation. Wizardman 16:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While your oppose was the most graphic, a look at every other guide (except for the guide from Casliber, who only addressed the candidates he endorsed), reveals negative impressions, including at least one other editor who called him a troll, and several others who felt that a handful of words adequately conveyed their views of this candidate (while dedicating a paragraph or more to each of the other candidates). His previous ArbCom bid (under his previous username) was met with the same disdain. I respect Bishonen and MONGO, but I disagree with them on this issue, and see no reason for you to figuratively fall on your sword over this. Horologium (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's true. My guide was distinctly negative toward YOLO Swag as well. But do note that my guide indicted him on his actions. That's not what Wizardman's did. Forgive me an offence against humility as I say that I believe my guide not only showed better decorum, but also made a much better case for the stance against YOLO Swag's candidacy! I'm not interested in opposing Wizardman over this, but I do think it's something to take on board for the future. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. The relevance to bureaucratship is limited, but I do think both MONGO (despite his withdrawn oppose) and Bishonen, in the section above, have a point; Wizardman has a habit of using humor or hyperbole in ways that can be abrasive, and I'm particularly disappointed in both cases with a kick-'em-while-they're-down approach. I expect this RfB will pass, but I would urge Wizardman, in his dealings with admin candidates, bot operators, and username changers to recognize that his humor will not always come through and moderate his tone accordingly, even if the result might seem bland to his own eye. Chick Bowen 01:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category