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

Nomination withdrawn Mr.Z-man 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final (36/14/2); Ended 21:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Hello all, I've been an active Wikipedian for a little over a year now, and an admin for 8 months. I feel that I have ample experience to handle a couple extra tools, and I certainly have the time to help in all the bureaucrat places. I like to think that I haven't been too controversial and still retain a deal of respect from the community and I hope that you feel the same way. I like to think I know how consensus on Wikipedia works, having closed numerous deletion debates and participated in dozens more as well as numerous RFAs. I haven't been as active with RFA as some might like, at least lately, but I hope that people will evaluate me on my merits. I won't be too disappointed if this fails, and as with my RFA, I somewhat expect it to. Mr.Z-man 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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. I've read and participated in a few discussions about this and know its not the most uncontroversial thing. While the job of the bureaucrats isn't to count votes, there aren't really any rules as to what constitutes a valid opinion when determining a consensus. Barring any extraordinary circumstances, anything over 80% would result in a promotion (closer to 90% for an RFB). Anything lower than 70% would most likely not result in a promotion, though again, extraordinary circumstances may arise. Anything between 70-80% is where bureaucrat discretion comes into play and the arguments for and against the candidate are weighed against each other to determine the community's consensus.

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

A. It would depend on the reason for contention, really. If the contention was based solely on the candidate, for being "controversial" or involved with too much drama, I would try to put all that out of my mind and close it as if it were a normal debate, exercising discretion (carefully) if needed without worrying too much about who might be offended. If I still wasn't sure, I would ask the other bureaucrats their opinion. If its contentious because of events that have unfolded on the discussion itself and things spiral out of control, this might be a situation where putting the RFA on hold and discussing with other bureaucrats might be necessary to determine the seriousness of the events.

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 always try to do everything fairly and if I don't think I can be fair, I generally won't even get involved. I certainly hope that I have a pretty good knowledge of policy having been around for a while and participating in various policy discussions and discussions on the admins' noticeboard and the Village Pumps. I'm always open to questions and comments on my talk page, through email, and on IRC and I try to be as helpful as possible as often as possible.

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 I do. I certainly have lots of free time and I don't think I'd be putting myself through this process if I didn't have any desire to help in those areas :-)

Questions from Majorly:

5. How would you have closed this RfA?

A. That was certainly a tough one, my personal view is that, barring any major developments that may arise on the RFA that weren't evident previously, reconfirmation RFAs don't need quite as high a support ratio for closing as successful. However, if I had to close it, I probably would have extended it a few days until activity died down a little more and then judged the consensus that resulted from that, as it appeared to be shifting somewhat toward the end of the normal period.

6. Why did you oppose my steward election? No hard feelings at all, just wondering! :)

A. For one, I prefer to see stewards who can speak multiple languages well (and probably wouldn't support myself for the same reason) if they didn't have any checkuser/oversight experience.

Question from Friday:

7 Your descriptions of when to promote or not sound very traditional. Is it your stance that, if promoted, you'll do pretty much what crats have always done? Why do you think this would help? Is it your belief that more crat time is what's needed?

A. While I'm definitely a proponent of being bold, ignoring rules, and avoiding process, the rules should be followed in most cases and there are some situations where consensus is critical and shouldn't be totally overridden by one person's discretion. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "time," if you mean we need more people putting in more time, while I don't think its necessary (Wikipedia isn't going to die if it doesn't happen) but it can certainly help.

Optional question from Sunny910910:

8 Asuming that you pass this RFB, what would you do after it?--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A I don't really see myself changing my Wikipedia habits significantly, just a couple more pages to watchlist. Immediately after, I would probably see if there are any bots that need flagging or RFAs ready for close. I'd like to get back to doing more significant article work, though I'd do that if not promoted as well.

(Not really optional) questions from User:Twooars

9.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
      • Perfectly valid
    • Not enough time spent
      • Also valid, as long as time is reasonable (3 years, probably not so much)
    • Uses automated tools
      • Just for using them, probably kind of silly, almost exclusively using them, perfectly valid
    • No participation at XFD / AIV / RFPP
      • Valid
    • No need for tools
      • Valid, but vague
    • Not enough mainspace contributions
      • Depends on what "enough" is
    • Not enough wikipedia space contributions
      • Same as above
    • Low mainspace:wikipedia space ratio (or any other ratio)
      • Again, depends on what "low" is
    • Unfriendly / curt when communicating with fellow editors
      • Valid, but should have evidence
    • "I'll oppose all self nominations"
      • I think all blanket opposes without any review of the candidate whatsoever are inappropriate
    • "Weak answers to questions" / "did not bother to answer the questions"
      • Valid
    • Weak vs. strong oppose
      • Would probably give them some weight, after reviewing the weight of the arguments themselves, in a "discretion" area
    • <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 ;) >
    • <no oppose reason given>
      • Any oppose should be accompanied by some reason

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?

A. As long as the person didn't resign under controversial circumstances or was desysopped by ArbCom/Jimbo, knowing people's strong feelings about the idea of reconfirmation, I would be more inclined to use discretion in closing. As for what I think, while I think they are usually unnecessary, I don't someone wanting to verify that they still have the community trust is necessarily a bad thing.

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?

A. Neither, Wikipedia is not on a deadline. I'd ask for and wait for more bureaucrat input, and put the RFA on hold if necessary.

• See Mr.Z-man's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

• Just as some don't support admin candidacies from users who have been here for less than a couple of months, I don't support bureaucrats who have been administrators for less than a year. And no rumbling will change my opinion, since it is one of the pillars I chose for myself when started to spend time with Wikipedia politics. I have never seen Mr.Z-man in action, but a quick review of his actions demonstrate he is a sound candidate, and I wish him the best of lucks. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support. Finally someone grew the balls to step up (although that's not my sole reason for supporting, of course). bibliomaniac15 00:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mr.Z-man is an excellent administrator. I would trust him as a bureaucrat. Acalamari 00:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Absolutely. Not a nutter. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dlohcierekim 00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Why would i care if you've been active on RfA? Solid contributions, no recent civility issues I can see, support. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Unless you butcher the extra questions. Malinaccier (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support (double editconflict) I see no problems with him being a beaurocrat. (Yay! I'm 1st non-admin).--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. BOLD. Awesome. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Z-man to the rescue (second non admin voter :-P ). Avruch ^T 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Naturally A strong asset to the community. I have absolute trust that Mr. Z Man will use the extra tools responsibly. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 01:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - Large number of sensible deletes and blocks (and unblocks). No tarnish. Bearian (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sane, responsible, and willing to be bold instead of process-bound. Despite these handicaps I must support. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support per Mr. Z-man's gift at being the rational, cool head in the midst of any wiki-drama storm. Any latent limbo skills would be considered a definite plus. --jonny-mt 02:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Absolutely. Understands adminship better than most users. Is active in article areas. I believe that Z-man will do the role justice. My only concern, which may not be relevant or even true but is only based on my not having seen as much of him around RfA as others who were suggested recently at WT:RFA, is that he may shy away from controversial decisions, however, I think we need a new 'crat who will, if nothing else, be able to discuss and advise the others in RfX (as well as helping with renames/bots). I believe Z-man is exactly the right person to perform such a role, and have complete trust in his ability to give advice, or to be bold if necessary, with self-confidence in his actions. I disagree with Jeffery in oppose, and I love the quote on East718's userpage. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Certainly. Captain panda 02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support This user is a fine administrator, and I trust his judgment completely, and see no reason not to make him a crat. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Obviously, does quite a bit of hard work and is willing to take on more. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Obviously! :) SQL^{Query me!} 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Yes, yes and yes. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Per Master of Puppets. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Yes Great user. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support MoP took the words right out of my mouth/keyboard (I was about to say "yes, yes, and yes").   jj137 (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Has been a good sounding board. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Strongly. Spebi 05:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Mr Z man has my trust. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Z-Man has a good head on his shoulders, and is trusted on many projects. Good luck! GlassCobra 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support, an excellent editor and administrator, and I have every confidence that some extra tools would be placed in competent hands here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, I've not run into Mr.Z often, but the opposes do not convince me. · AndonicO ^Hail! 11:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support, have only ever seen positive contributions from Z and opposes are not (yet) persuasive. Ronnotel (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - trustworthy admin. Addhoc (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Strong Support - One of the most reasonable and objective users in this project. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. A bold nomination. I trust that he will be a good crat. EJF (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. AGK (contact) 16:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - MrZ-man's a great, trustworthy admin, and I fully trust that he'd make a good crat. Not to mention he had the guts to start the current pile-on? :) krimpet✽ 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Why? Malinaccier (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed? Dlohcierekim 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   He thinks we don't need any more bureaucrats. Its standard for Jeffrey in RfB's, the RfB counterpart to Kurt. Avruch ^T 01:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I guess, all and all, it's just another brick in The Wall. Dlohcierekim 02:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, I am generally not willing to support someone for RfB who has been active for so much shorter then I have. I like the familiarity of those who have been here the whole time perhaps, I know they are dependable. I am not suggesting Mr.Z-man isn't, I simply would prefer a different user as a bureaucrat. Prodego ^talk 02:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmm... you created your account on September 2005... I created mine back in May 2005. Yes! Someone who would support me! Now I just need to fix my schedule, create some featured articles, comment on RfAs, stop being so sarcastic and ironic... Ugh, I prefer staying the way I am, a semi-retired wikignome admin ;-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Hardly my only criterion. :) Prodego ^talk 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Nonsense, ReyBrujo, in fact, you would be a nice crat if you stepped up... bibliomaniac15 03:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose per answer to question #5--Cube lurker (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Incorrectly believes policy to be normative when in fact it is merely descriptive. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Wait, weren't you supposed to support according to Avruch? The world is ending! :-D

   Now talking seriously, this is one of the best reasons I have ever read in a discussion. I can't say whether I share it or not (as I said, I didn't review the admin in depth), just wanted to point that out. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure how you got that opinion of me, but that's not what I think at all. In fact I believe I've said various things that indicate my view is the opposite, and it is. (I'm sure I've said that policies are descriptive, not proscriptive multiple times, though I don't remember where now). [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Mr.Z-man 05:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Mr.Z-man, I apologize if this is a stupid question, but I don't know what you mean by "thighs" in your comment above. Is this a colloquialism I don't know? A typo? Freudian slip :) ?--JayHenry (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Try "things". - auburnpilot talk 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, that is what I meant. (Changed above) Mr.Z-man 17:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah, things! That makes a bit more sense :) Though I've been known to ponder various thighs myself. --JayHenry (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. I do not believe we should have any more bureaucrats at the moment. Per the opposes above me, I do not feel this is a case where I can disregard my opinion on number of bureaucrats. Excellent administrator; sorry. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Too soon. I think admins need be more seasoned than just 8 months. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Eight months as an admin just isn't enough time. Guettarda (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Of the current batch, I have picked three more candidates that I feel are more suitable for this role. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Have I missed something, or, is there a limit to how many crats you can support, before you are required to oppose all the others? :) SQL^{Query me!} 13:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I dont like the idea of an influx of new people to the role. Two or three fresh faces is enough for the moment. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. Answer to question 5 (from Majorly) reveals a lack of depth of consideration, with the implication that he'd have handed the decision primarily to those that came along after the normal 7-day period, despite the vast number of people who were involved prior to that. The answer also implies that it his personal "lower threshold" for these things that would be his guide, rather than a 360-degree view of the situation. Further to this, 8 months as an admin coupled with the above answer isn't enough depth of experience for me to expect a smooth bureaucratship to result from promoting this editor. Splash - tk 13:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   No, the decision would have still be the community in general's. In cases where discussion is still ongoing, I think it makes perfect sense to let it continue. Mr.Z-man 17:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. Per judgement concerns. He supported an astoundingly bad block on Kmweber. I believe this indicates being guided more by personal annoyance than rational thinking. Friday (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So all the reasoning I provided was irrational? Mr.Z-man 17:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking again at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive108#User:Kmweber, yes, I call this bad reasoning. Friday (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not trying to restart the debate, but just to be clear, you see reasoning based on WP:AGF and the purpose of talk pages to be irrational? Mr.Z-man 17:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see you talking about assuming good faith, without apparently knowing what these words actually mean. The talk page is a straw man- yes, if he wanted to disallow self-noms, there is an appropriate place to discuss it. But that's not what he was after. I see oversimplification in your thinking there. Part of good judgement is the ability to split apart issues which are related, but not the same. Something went very wrong here, and I never even got a straight answer on how it happened. Perhaps my concerns are already best explained over at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber#Yet_another_outside_view_by_Friday.2C_after_Kmweber_was_indef_blocked. Friday (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest, I'm offended by the fact that you think 1) I would do anything on Wikipedia out of spite, I've never done it and never will and 2) I don't know what AGF means. If calling established users power hungry based (essentally) on one edit that's well within established consensus isn't assuming bad faith, I might seriously need to reconsider my involvement in the meta-aspects of the project. Mr.Z-man 18:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11. Per Splash. Rudget. 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose per his terrible judgement in RFA related activity in supporting the Kurt Weber block. He even ignored the RFC after it was explicitly mentioned. Anyone who is willing to ignore community consensus about RFA activity is not someone I want closing an RFA. GRBerry 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose. Needs more time, agree with per Prodego and FM. Sorry, R. Baley (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose. Sorry, your answers to questions 5 through 7 don't inspire my confidence. Majoreditor (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Just as some don't support admin candidacies from users who have been here for less than a couple of months, I don't support bureaucrats who have been administrators for less than a year. (Disclaimer: And no rumbling will change my opinion, since it is one of the pillars I chose for myself when started to spend time with Wikipedia politics). I have never seen Mr.Z-man in action, but a quick review of his actions demonstrate he is a sound candidate, and I wish him the best of luck. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Generally I trust Mr.Z-man, but the answer to the question about ^demon's reconfirmation left me with doubts as to your full understanding of the delicacy of the situation and the special problem it posed. If you might elaborate on your answer, I would be happy to support. VanTucky 20:33, 28 February 2008 (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.