Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wizardman 2 - Wikipedia


Article Images

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (34/0/0); Scheduled to end 02:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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:
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:

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

Discussion

Support

  1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 22 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 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]

Oppose

Neutral