Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wizardman

Wizardman

Voice your opinion (talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 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:

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.

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.

General comments

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support

1. First Support Sane sysop who would make a great 'crat Somitho (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)