Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wizardman 2

Wizardman

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (100/0/1); 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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)

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)

General comments

RfBs for this user:

• Requests for bureaucratship/Wizardman
• Requests for bureaucratship/Wizardman 2

• Links for Wizardman: Wizardman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Wizardman can be found here.

---

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)
2. ZappaOMati 01:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
3. T. Canens (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Legoktm (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
6. Support Absolutely! Chock full of integrity and clue. PumpkinSky talk 02:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
7. Support without reservation. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
8. Support No concerns, great candidate. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
10. The amount of positives here are hard to overstate. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
14. Support --Rschen7754 02:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
15. NW (Talk) 02:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
17. Support, absolutely. Very trustworthy and reliable contributor. delldot ∇. 02:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
19. Support Yay. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
20. No concerns AIRcorn (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
21. Support - vast experience, lots of clue. Huon (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
23. I thought he was one already. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
24. Already has experience in making tough analyses. Risker (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

    psst. ... Yes, your you're one of those "precious few others Risker" — Ched :  ?  03:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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)
26. He wants to do more work? May as well let him. Courcelles 03:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
27. Absolutely  7  03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
30. Seems reasonable. Hasn't done anything questionable that I've noticed. -— Isarra ༆ 04:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
31. Secret ^account 04:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
32. Support per nom. Great candidate. INeverCry 04:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
33. Spencer^T♦C 05:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
34. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
35. Support - level-headed, been around forever, been an admin for six years with a great track record. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 06:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
36. Support - fantastic candidate. I've not got much new to add here. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
37. Osiris (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
38. Support, certainly an excellent choice.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
39. Support - no concerns at all. T4B (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
40. Support per above.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
41. Support - like what they all said up there ^ -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
43. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC) without question
44. Support No problems.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 09:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
45. Support Isn't it an electric floor polisher that 'crats get? No problems here. Peridon (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
46. Support - No problems, and more than qualified to work as a 'crat. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
47. Support. Absolutely. Can't see any issues at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
48. Support Wizardman is highly qualified to take on this role. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
49. Support Former arbcommer, who did not embarrass himself, apparently. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
51. Support - Per everyone else. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
52. Support - Exceptionally good candidate for the job, exceeds all the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
53. Support Very sound, calm, and clueful.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
54. Support --Rzuwig^► 12:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
58. Support Excellent candidate. Miniapolis 13:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
59. Support, looks like a perfectly qualified candidate. CaSJer (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
61. Support. Oh yes, absolutely. A very well qualified candidate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
62. Support - Definately. GamerPro64 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
63. Support. No problems, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
64. Support Easy decision, based on previous observations of this editor. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
65. Support No brainer. Capable, clueful and we could use more crats. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
66. Support - An easy decision, no concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
67. Support, obviously because its an easy decision. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
68. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
69. Absolutely. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
70. Support – Perfect candidate. Salih (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
71. Support. No concerns. Widr (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
72. Support. Experienced candidate with good judgement. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
74. Support TBrandley 17:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
75. per NW. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
76. Support plenty of excellent work on many areas. Hut 8.5 17:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
77. Support. Thank goodness, a willing and well qualified candidate at last! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
78. Support. Yes. — sparklism ^hey! 18:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
79. Support Yes, please. Webclient101^talk 19:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
80. Support Gold dust-esque combination of clue, thoughtfulness and judgement. No concerns. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
81. Obviously.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
84. Qualified, clueful. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
85. Jeez, where do I sign? Oh... here - Support — -dainomite   20:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
87. Support - I thought he was already a 'crat. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
88. Support - Very trustworthy admin who will make a great bureaucrat. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
89. Support Hand him the toolbox.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
90. Support. An easy decision for me, and an outstanding candidate for the position. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
94. Support - No reason to object.--Slon02 (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
95. Support Mediran (t • c) 02:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
97. Why not? Ray^Talk 03:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
99. Support --I am One of Many (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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)

Neutral

1. Okay so I have two points on which I stand Neutral. The first is that in my few months of being here I've not seen Wizardman around and I only found his RfB because I was browsing through Yunshui (talk · contribs)'s mentions. I admit however the size of EN WP means that this is easily possible. My second reason should not be taken so lightly though. Am I the only one who hasn't seen question 5 or further answered? As an optimist I believe even the most valued contributor can have their RfB considerably be turned by mistakes, let me know via my talk page as soon as he has answered up to Question 9 and I shall re-review and impose a Support if I see it necessary. Until then I stand Neutral. (not to mention i'm probably about to get majorly criticised for being the first not to Support.) MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 23:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

   Not heavily criticized but generally when someone doesn't know a candidate, they review the candidate's contribs. In this case, most everyone does know him and is familiar with his work. Not knowing someone is actually a failure on the part of the !voter to get to know the candidate through careful research and review. Common items to review for an RfB candidate are RfA contributions, BRFA contributions, rename requests, arbitration requests, ANI, and dispute resolution. As far as Q5 and on, this is only day 1 and the candidate has 7 days to answer them. We don't require candidates to be online 24/7 to be responsive. It's a 7 day process, no rush to answer.--v/r - TP 00:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)