Meta:Requests for adminship/WizardOfOz 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

WizardOfOz edit

WizardOfOz (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Ending 6 March 2012 17:52 UTC

Following the criteria, I´m missing the first, because I´m not a sysop on any project by self removal or request. I was allready a sysop and a ´crat on this project for two years, and one of the most active beside those with steward flag. Also a sysop on bs.wiki, bs.wikisource and bs.wikinews for few years. I have been and still am one of those who have no fear to name issues as they are, and therefore I´ve maded some blocks which can be seen as wrong by ethical reasons, but never acted against any policy of the projects where I had flags. Still thinking that my work here was good and in the sense of the project, I´m requesting the sysop flag to continue where I stopped. Feel free to ask any kind of questions. Kind regards. --WizardOfOz ^talk 17:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Your temperament and hot-headed behaviour has destroyed any confidence I had in your abilities to be an administrator. I don't believe this is the right time to start requesting them back. Your work here is good but you need to rebuild the community's trust first, and that is going to take time. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I´m glad that you are the first. Yes I know about my temperament, and thats why I always (twice) asked for removal of my flags (once removed by my self) to have no posibility to misuse them in any way. You´ve been the steward who threated me by removing my flags, and I just handled it as you thought. I know that you have no confidence in me, like I have no confidence in a steward who threats others with his flags. But this is something that is between us, and not between me and my work on any project. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, as I have told you many times, I never intended to suggest that I would desysop you. You chose to hang on to that interpretation long after I'd clarified it. That's fine, but my comment still stands; it is my opinion that your temperament is unsuited to adminship at this time. Furthermore I'm not particularly happy that you thought it prudent to request your flags back non-controversially, when you must have known that such a request would be controversial. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can´t see any conversation of us where you have told me what you claim that you have done. Your clarification came after other steward requested it from you. And as I wrote on the request and have done it, I have no problem to run again and to let others decide, but your opinion still have no count in my eyes. Thats why I asked for other opinions, and realise it after THO and Pundit´s opinion. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I never saw a repentant WizardOfOz after the last ordeal and I don't see one now. Failure to admit that one has made a mistake is a poor quality of someone trusted with higher userrights. Killiondude (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I´still can´t see any failure in blocking someone who is a active contributor and sysop on other project because of calling someone asshole and his trollish behavior, therefore I don´t see any reason to apologize. Yes the block was to hard, but it was not against the policy. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I supported WizardOfOz in this one instance, there is far too much messiness and drama attached to requester. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, this RFA is not valid per the rules, as the candidate currently does not hold an admin, bureaucrat, or checkuser flag on any WMF wiki. The block of Beeblebrox was bad in the sense of indef and no talk page was dramatic overkill (though if I had seen his comments, I would have blocked Beeblebrox myself for a day), but whatever. My real issue is the way he stormed off after being challenged, desysopped himself, and then got a steward to lock his account under reasoning in the logs that he was a "Self proclaimed future vandal". Needs some time to rebuild trust, sorry to say. Courcelles (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have anything against posting the log of conversation between us on IRC after the block of Beeblebrox, which contains your intervention as member of en ArbCom? --WizardOfOz ^talk 22:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Publishing IRC logs is a terrible precedent. Anyway, I was speaking as one admin of this project to another admin of this project, nothing relating to en's arbcom at all. Courcelles (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, you answered my question in the best manner :D --WizardOfOz ^talk 22:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur with IRC release: I was going to request that myself. (There has been an attempt to create a precedent from extraordinary circumstances — this is a special case, and releasing the transcript of IRC communication which was part of those circumstances is reasonable, and perhaps required, in this case.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Speaking as someone who actually won a barnstar elsewhere for his comments at an RfA, which also received a "hear hear" from a future ArbCom member, and complete agreement from even someone who inaugurated and concluded my block log [ADDENDUM / DISCLOSURE: The administrator referred to in last phrase is also the subject of the recent contentious RfC/RfD], i.e., as someone who is capable of wisdom at an RfA, I say:-) A careful review of the situation, suggests the actions of WizardOfOz appear to have been an honorable (perhaps necessarily dramatic) response to the extraordinary circumstances initiated by a topic created at WP:AN/I on 11 February 2012. (But I cannot imagine an RfA is the proper venue/format to review those events in full. What the appropriate venue/format should be for such a review of events, I do not know at this time, but somewhere/somehow.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I am not impressed with how you handled criticism over the block, and would like to see more time before regaining the sysop flag here. Overall you are a great user and have been a good admin in the past, and I will have no issues supporting you after some time demonstrating good responses to criticism. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between criticism and threats. I have no problem with criticism if it´s constructive and in usual manner, but have something against if someone threats me. I never wrote that I´m the perfect one, nor I can promise to be one. What I have done, and what I can promise is to follow the policies of the projects where I am working on. In the whole issue, I informed the user on enwiki who was a target of the RfC. That was my involvement in the RfC. The second action I´ve done, was the same action like another sysop has done before: he declined the deletion request, the same as I done, and the same what has been done after me by a third sysop. Than the whole thing was canvassed on enwiki ANI. This was the start of the trolling behavior of "good standing" users from another project (nearly all of them are sysops, and should at least know how to communicate with others as they are also elected by the community and for the community). But that was not the case. Meta was called animal farm, there were request to block me ans some others for our behavior "against enwiki". So what those users have done, can be seen in their contributions: trolling on the animal farm, calling me asshole and so on. Every other vandal who write to anyone of us here that he is a asshole, would be blocked per infinite, but people who are blocking such vandals on other projects (sysops) can call others such names? There was no policy about a involved sysop acting in such cases, so I´ve done it. What I hate is when one project claims to be the whole Wikipedia. We are (or perhaps have been) here to distribute the free knowlage to all and in all languages. And this is a thing that is forgotten by much of us here. Every single project is Wikipedia for me and not only enwiki. Yes they have rules as the largest project, but those can´t be a reflection to all others. Breaking rules here is not breaking rules on enwiki or some other, but every sysop (even if he comes from enwiki) should know the five pillars, and one of those is civility. And if a sysop don´t knows those, and call others asshole in the discussion, there should be an example of a block like we would do to other vandals. But as it looks enwiki is untouchable because of it´s size and we should be prepered to accept that their sysops can arrange whatever they want without any punishment. And that is not the idea I´ve spended so much of my free time for, and to bring it forward. I allready wrote that the block was to hard, but the question is what would a other sysop do in the same case if the opponent is not so well known user? --WizardOfOz ^talk 22:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Courcelles's comment demonstrates he relies on a double standards in making decisions. He says he cannot trust Wizard because Wizard "stormed out", but apparently he has no problems with trusting User:Beeblebrox, who is not only an admin, but also an oversighter on English wikipedia. It was User:Beeblebrox whose reaction was absolutely inadequate because this things edit summary: "the lunatics are running the asylum";edit summary: "fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it." demonstrate that User:Beeblebrox is unstable, and cannot be trusted with the tools of a functionary. In the end Wizard's block was just right. After all the blocks should be preventative, and the quotes I listed above show that there definitely was something to prevent.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions, if I may ask:

your global lock entry said "self proclaimed future vandal" [1]. Can you clarify what you said you were going to do? (I've read the discussion here but it's not enlightening in that regard.)
I asked for a lock several stewards, but noone wanted to lock the account on request, because the lock is only for excesive vandalism. After some discussion with the locking steward and (as someone told me) on stewards-l, I asked if I realy need to go and vandalize to get locked (a account with few sysop flags that i didn´t want to use at that moment anymore), Jyothis told me that he is going to lock me. The summary was his work.--WizardOfOz ^talk 05:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, that is not true. You claimed several times – in the public #wikimedia-stewards IRC channel as well as privately – that you were going to become a cross-wiki vandal. Please don't imply that the summary was a misinterpretation on Jyothis's part, because that is a blatant misrepresentation of events. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be interesting to know how you can know what I wrote privately?!? And if so, why I wasn´t locked immidiatly? I´m not claiming that Jyothis has misinterpreted it, because my interpretation of someone asking me "do I really need to go as vandal" would be the same. I just wrote it is his work and have nothing against if he posts our conversation. --WizardOfOz ^talk 04:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that before the Beeblebrox incident you had "resigned" once before from meta-wiki by indef blocking yourself in March 2010 [2] and you were unblocked by another admin. Can you briefly summarize what that was about?
That was the result of my RfC, where a sysop who blocked me was desysoped by an steward and got the flag back by a local crat. --WizardOfOz ^talk 05:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you were blocked indef without talk page access on hr.wiki and the blocking admin there was desysoped by a steward? And when his bit was reinstated by a local hr.wiki crat you indef blocked yourself on meta-wiki? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he blocked me for a warning I gave him here on meta, and yes I´ve blocked myself because I´ve lost the trust and things happen that I thought they can´t happen (regaining of sysop tool if misused or used against policies). I´m the one who don´t want to have any kind of pressure posibility from above in a discussion. Thats why I asked for desysoping due that RfC, and thats why I desysoped my self this time, and why I asked for a lock of my account (to have no posibility to misuse a tool in an overheated discussion). I know my temperament, and know that I overreact in some situations like in the whole issue with Beeblebrox. As I wrote above, yes the block was too hard, but still think that the block was in place even if to long. --WizardOfOz ^talk 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion about the meta-wiki meta:proposal for a policy on involved administrators?
I´ve read it, and IMO it can and should be implemented as the wish of majority. --WizardOfOz ^talk 05:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Handled the initial Mbz drama poorly, handled criticism of his conduct in said drama even worse. Lacks the temperament to be a trusted with admin tools. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I am still missing an in-depth statement how you expect to move forward after issuing a bad block (blocking while being involved, infinite without previous warnings, no access of talk page), without any real response to the criticism of the block except by asking to get your tools removed, then insisting to get locked ("Do I really need to abuse my tools to get my account locked?"), reappearing shortly thereafter under a new account which continues to argue in the previous conflict, and now returning. It is great to see you back active under your old account. But I guess quite some would feel more comfortable to see a statement by you that explains how you see now that particular block and your reactions to the subsequent criticism. We all make mistakes but admins should be prepared for such cases and not be surprised by subsequent criticism even if some call for giving up the tools, allowing consensus to prevail without generating much drama, and return to work. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per this & PeterSymonds. Your attitude was unacceptable. Thompson.matthew (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As you yourself say, you're prone to overreaction, using your admin tools in the process of overreacting, and not dealing well with pressure. These are just not characteristics of a suitable admin candidate. Fluffernutter (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wondering why I was trusted for years with those tools on four projects. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously only the past voters in those projects can answer this definitively, but my guess would be either that these issues (overreaction, etc) are new to you, or that they had simply not been known of by the community at the point you last passed RFA. In any case, this RFA is intended to judge your suitability for Meta adminship based on the Meta community's current knowledge of you, not on the knowledge of you four communities had at points in the past. Fluffernutter (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much of what has been said above is correct, but I would be less inclined to judge WizardOfOz so harshly for it. He screwed things up trying to handle a situation which Meta-wiki was and remains completely unequipped to deal with; much of the blame for the precipitating incident (the RFC debate and the bad block) should rather lie with the systemic failures and underdeveloped policies at Meta-wiki. WizardOfOz's subsequent reaction to criticism (justified criticism, but again a largely systemic problem) was also less than ideal but this seems to have been atypical and not a part of a wider pattern; he sounded off and made a drama and a kerfuffle, but didn't actually do anything seriously disruptive.

Asking for contrition and reflection on mistakes is appropriate but a little hollow until Meta-wiki has its own house in order.

When I first started editing en.wiki back in 2005, Jimmy Wales' axiom that "becoming a sysop is not a big deal" was still true; that may no longer be the case at en.wiki but it does seem to hold here - that's a valuable thing that Meta-wiki ought to try to preserve. WizardOfOz has significant technical knowledge and we should seek to take advantage of that.

As for the matter of the criteria for adminship here, this is surely an unusual case and a good dose of Ignore All Rules seems called for, regardless of the other objections raised.

Ultimately, I trust WizardOfOz not to make a habit of misjudgement and believe that his prior record is sufficient surety of that. CIreland (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Strong agreement on the indictment of the system and poor policy on Meta. Whether that requires more or less from admins is perhaps another matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, sorry. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, sorry. --Aphaia (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soon, more time is needed. I strongly suggest you withdraw your candidacy for now rather than let this run for seven days creating a reenactment of the recent drama QU ^TalkQu 22:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly suggest you withdraw your candidacy... This is probably a good idea. Obviously we all need some more time. micki t 16:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I rarely oppose RfAs, because I believe that negative comments rarely serve a valid purpose. In this case, I believe that it's important to send a clear statement (to you and to others reading this) that the behavior in which you engaged was conduct unbecoming. We all get challenged on blocks. We all get challenged on decisions we make. The measure of a person is in their response to the challenge. There have been days that I get incredibly frustrated by being questioned and - yes - lose my cool. But I've tried to suck it up and deal with it, and to not create a stormy, dramatic scene. I'm probably not always successful at that. But I think I get it right more than I get it wrong. You probably do too - but in this case, your flame out was so spectacular that I find it difficult, after such a short time, to believe that you've grown or learned from it. At some later date, I have no doubt that I will support you - and I will do so happily - but not yet. It's too soon. In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. Addendum: For the record, in my staff capacity, I also scolded the other party in the dispute that was at hand. Neither of you covered yourself in glory that day. --Philippe (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Philippe you´re right. And per QU withdrawn. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed per withdrawal above. -Barras talk 20:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]