MBisanz(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) – MBisanz has been a user since July 2005, and an administrator since since 16 February 2008. He is familiar with all the responsibilities of the bureaucrat role. As a member of the bot approvals group, he has worked actively with bots, and would be able to flag and deflag bots with confidence. He is equally experienced with RfA-related discussions, and is an active participant at RfA/B and WT:RFA. Among those RfXs are his own nominations, including eleven admin candidates (seven successful), two bureaucrat candidates (one successful), and five BAG nominations (all successful). He currently has 83153 edits, evenly distributed across the namespaces, 36544 logged admin actions, and 23128 patrollednew pages.
MBisanz has demonstrated his dedication to Wikipedia as an "all-round" admin, actively participating in nearly all areas. As a content builder, he has written 24 did you know?s, 1 good article, and 3 featured lists. Among the roles he has on Wikipedia, he is an arbitration committee clerk, which requires a high level of trust and clue. Around Wikimedia, he is a Wikimedia Commons administrator, and an OTRS volunteer. Bureaucratship is primarily about judging community consensus, which can be seen through his numerous and accurate AfD closures. His experience, dedication and trustworthiness, suggests that MBisanz would be a fine bureaucrat. PeterSymonds (talk)14:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Yes, I have read a good number of the discussions from back in the ol' days of 2004 through to the present. Speaking most broadly, the criteria for promotion are whether or not the community trusts the user at RFA. Over time we have developed the model that if 80% or more of the community supports a user, that is a near-certain indication they are trusted. In addition, we have developed the idea that if under 70% support a user, that is a near-certain indication they do not have community trust. Within the range of 70%-80% I like to use the model of the normal distribution (shown right), for how I believe the range is, and should be, handled. I think the curve represents the frequency a crat will need to use a high level of discretion to interpret community consensus. The centerpoint is probably a number such as a 74% or 75% and the S.D. is probably a number between 1 and 2. For each deviation, it shows that it is less and less likely that the event will occur. In this case, the right tail represents a crat not promoting an RFA at increasing percentages. To the left the chart shows that it is less and less likely a crat will promote as the percentage decreases. These would be the discernable instances of a crat interpreting community consensus, as it would be a deviation from the most likely outcome based on mathematics alone.
So, while there may be several times a crat would promote at 73% or fail at 75%, it is a near certainty that they would not fail at 79% or pass at 68%. In addition, the normal distribution seems to fit current practice, at least on the downside when using a one-tailed bellcurve. In my research when creating the current categorization schema for RFA at {{RFA-CAT}}, I found that 0.356% of RFAs that succeeded were in the range below 72% and 99.644% of RFAs that succeeded were at or above that level. That seems to be within a reasonable approximation assuming 75% is the midpoint and the S.D. is 1.
Now, as to how to handle those situations where a crat must use a high level of discretion to interpret comments, I think that is fairly straightforward. First, a crat should assume good faith that all comments are valid unless shown otherwise. Things that a crat might take into account would be sockpuppetry, a factual misunderstanding (such as a comment of support based on FA-authorship when the candidate has never submitted an FA or a comment of opposition based on the candidate being an American, when it is established that that candidate is actually German), or established canvassing.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A.One clear thing comes to mind here: We work together to solve our problems. If I saw a contentious nomination, I would call a bureaucrat discussion to get input from other crats. And when I say “we” in my first sentence, I mean the entire community. The community’s comments at the RFA as the guiding words for crat discussion and the community’s further comments at the discussion talk page should be taken into account.
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 will break it down into the three components for convenience:
high standards of fairness: There are several themes that one might notice in my editing. One major theme that has been brought to my attention several times is that I adhere to policies with a strong degree of compliance. I have closed several thousand AFDs and generally gotten good reviews from both sides of the debates (you can see more detail here). In addition, in my work with sockpuppetry enforcement, I have shown that it does not matter who is socking, I will always object to the policy violation. Several times as an clerk I have recused even when it was not required by practice or policy, simply to ensure whatever action happened would be valid in fact and appearance. This concept of looking past the individual and at the greater principle is something I believe is important.
Another concept is that none of us are perfect. We all make errors and bad judgment calls, I have made them in the past and I think any user who is honest with themselves will admit the same. The important thing is that we learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them in the future, while mitigating their current effect.
I further believe that I have shown through my varied work on the wiki in consensus-based areas such as AFD and FL and in several crat related fields such as WP:CHU, WP:RFBAG, WP:BRFA, and through several nominations at WP:RFA/RFB, that I meet the standards required.
ability to engage others in the community: While I have been active on the wiki since August 2007, with something like 130,000 total actions, I still see value in welcoming new users when I see a redlinked talk page pop up on my watchlist. It is important that new users are engaged and converted into long-term contributors. One project I have undertaken is Wikiproject Editing Trends to help understand what factors promote or discourage editing of the encyclopedia at a macro-level.
Further, it is necessary to the continued functioning of the project that long-term contributors are introduced to new fields to maintain their level of interest. In my time, I have introduced people to writing DYKs and FLs, to applying for adminship and BAG, and to participating in community discussions by changing the bot policy to require better notification of WP:RFBAGs and with pages such as Other Options . While the userright of crat does not explicitly promote community engagement, as much of cratting is simply button pushing to a far greater degree than even adminship, I do believe there is a role for crats to engage new users seeking rename at CHU, to encourage productive discussion in forums such as WT:RFA and WP:BN, and to ensure the community is involved in decisions occurring at WP:BRFA.
4. Assuming you had not !voted in them, how would you have closed each of these RfX's?
Davemeistermoab RfA (closed as successful at 67% by Rdsmith4): Well at first I thought I would extend this RFA a few days, then I realized there were no comments near the time of close, so that looked less appealing. One issue appears to be that Peter Damian may have misunderstood the plagiarism policy in his oppose and that discounting that oppose, it might tip towards a pass. But that is the sort of thing I would want to discuss in a crat chat.
FlyingToaster 2 RfA (closed as successful at 80% by Anonymous Dissident): There were a flurry of comments and new evidence introduced near the end of this RFA that would probably have resulted in me extending the close date. If it was the same at the close date, I probably would have passed. It is important to remember that crats do not decide if a person should be an admin, but if the community thinks they should be one. If a crat believes someone should or should not be an admin, they should not be closing the RFA.
Ryulong 3 RfA (closed as successful at 69% by Raul654): Given this was the third RFA and there were issues that carried over from the earlier RFAs that had apparently not been answered. I will note that some of the opposes are weak, but I do not think based on the comments at the RFA that I could promote. I probably would crat-chat or fail.
Riana RfB (closed as unsuccessful at 86% by WjBScribe): It is important to remember that standards change over time. I believe that on a % basis Riana's ended up identical to Quadell's, both of which fit the standard at the time. It appears the standard has moved a bit since that time and I would probably go into a crat chat on it with an inclination to promote.
Please, take your time with these questions. I would rather get a detailed answer in three days time than receive a rushed one this afternoon.
5. Interestingly, when I first looked at your RfB, I did not expect you to be the kind of person who focused on percentages instead of arguments. However, your answer to question one was rather interesting; you focused on a statistical analysis of the percentages that RfAs have, and at the end, you seemed to tack on various types of "!"votes that you would discount. This didn't exactly fill me with confidence; the first two paragraphs of that seemed like they would be more suited for a WT:RfA post about what RfA is generally like. However, here are a series of oppose votes, some asked about at Bibliomaniac15's RfB, some that you will recognize from RfA history, and some that I just made up. Assume that the RfA is somewhere in the low 70%s, but a good portion of the votes are these (ie, if these votes were discounted, the percentage would jump to about 85%). Also assume that the rest of the oppose and support votes were valid. Please "close" each RfA as "promote", "don't promote", or "not enough information, but I would...". (Possibly more to come later; I will ask those in a supplemental question if I think of more that I feel are relevant enough to need to be asked.
Just a preface comment that it is highly unlikely that a comment held by one editor of the nature below would move the percentage 10 points and therefore would have a very marginal impact on the final outcome (since we are looking at the consensus of the community, not of the individuals), but for the purposes of the hypothetical, I am assuming it is possible.
"Oppose: Candidate is 11"
Your evaluation: Not enough information, but I would look at why they are saying an 11 year old should not be a crat, is it because they are immature as a person or just because they are 11. If the oppose is short-hand for an immaturity comment, that would be a stronger position than simply age alone. Also, if they cited factors such as a candidate being legally culpable for their actions, having to take tough actions such as block pedophiles, or not understanding laws such as copyright/libel that they are enforcing, that would create a stronger comment than simply an age comment.
"Oppose: Candidate is 15"
Your evaluation: Not enough information, but I would look at why they are saying an 15 year old should not be a crat, is it because they are immature as a person or just because they are 15. If the oppose is short-hand for an immaturity comment, that would be a stronger position than simply age alone. Also, if they cited factors such as a candidate being legally culpable for their actions, having to take tough actions such as block pedophiles, or not understanding laws such as copyright/libel that they are enforcing, that would create a stronger comment than simply an age comment.
"Oppose: Candidate is 17"
Your evaluation: Not enough information, but I would look at why they are saying an 17 year old should not be a crat, is it because they are immature as a person or just because they are 17. If the oppose is short-hand for an immaturity comment, that would being a stronger position than simply age alone. Also, if they cited factors such as a candidate be legally culpable for their actions, having to take tough actions such as block pedophiles, or not understanding laws such as copyright/libel that they are enforcing, that would create a stronger comment than simply an age comment.
"Oppose: Candidate is 23"
Your evaluation: Not enough information, I am 23 and have never run into age issues, I would need to know why 23 is considered different than say 18 or 30 to the commentor to understand the comment.
"Oppose: Had >3 RfAs"
Your evaluation: Not enough information. What were the result of the third 3 RFAs? Were they recent? We any of them SNOW/NOTNOW closes? If issues were cited at the first 3 RFAs as opposes, are they still cited by other opposers? Failure to improve the attributes cited over 3 RFAs or the documented correction of those attributes would appear to be more significant.
"Oppose: Had >3 RfAs" (most recent one was over 12 months ago)
Your evaluation: I would take it as a good faith comment. The belief that someone cannot change over time is one that I do not hold, but understand that others could hold it. If the RFA was already in the low range (say 68%), I probably would either crat-chat it or close as no consensus depending on the other comments.
"Oppose: Too many administrators currently"
Your evaluation: Rarely would this be a strong oppose on its own and I would likely pass an otherwise marginal candidate if this was the only tipping point matter. However, I could see how this would be valid if the candidate intended to specialize in an area that was already well stocked with users (if they wanted it to only update DYK for instance), however I still must admit it would be weak in the given form.
"Oppose: Self-nomination"
Your evaluation: The position that someone nominating themselves for administrator shows a lack of judgment may or may not be the strongest comment. For instance if someone has nominated themselves 3 times and failed by a large margin each time, it may indicate they are not a good judge of when they will be ready for RFA and should wait for someone to nominate them. Other times it is a quality that does not apply to the candidate and would not be the strongest position. If it was a marginal RFA, I would look to see what reasoning applies to comment and if it was a weak reasoning, pass or crat-chat and if it was a strong reasoning, fail or crat chat.
"Oppose: All of the candidate's GA/FAs belong to X & Y WikiProjects"
Your evaluation: The idea that an editor may be too narrowly focused to understand the role of administrator is another potentially valid POV. If there is corroborating evidence that the editor is so inexperienced with other types of content that they would fail to apply CSD principles correctly, be unable to judge basic source reliability issues, etc, then the comment could be a valid one and would result in a failure of the RFA at the marginal level. If the corroborating evidence indicates they simply like a certain topic and otherwise understand policy (I would look at the support comments, the responses to the oppose, etc to determine this), then the RFA would likely pass or result in a crat-chat. Like I have said higher up, we need to work as a team and not be afraid to take things to crat-chats when it can improve the quality of the decision.
6. As a BAG member, would you flag a bot immediately after approving it? What about an adminbot?
A.No, BAG and Crats serve as a check and balance on each other. The idea of having at least two eyes on every bot (the approving BAG member and the flagging crat) is a good idea an ensures the bot is technically sound and operates with community consensus. If approved I would not flag bot/adminbots I approve as a BAG member or flag my own bots that may go through the BAG process.
7. Here is a question I adapted from you, though I don't know if I ever saw your answer to it. How would you close these RfA/Bs? If you opine for a 'crat chat, please express what you would have said there as to the final determination of the outcome.
Carnildo 3 61%: Failure (or crat chat), based on current standards I do not believe this shows a consensus to promote.
Krimpet 67%: Crat chat with an opinion of non-promote, mainly because the opposes all appear to be in good faith and it is far enough from the discretionary range that even removing one or two of the shorter opposes would not show a strong consensus.
Danny 68%: Crat chat with an opinion of non-promote. I think standards have changed over time and while I can see the reasoning the crats at the time used for promoting, but I do not think that consensus was demonstrated by the comments.
Gracenotes 74%: Crat-chat with an opinion of promote. It appears this RFA became entangled in the larger debate over WP:Attack sites and led to a rather philosophical discussion on the role of crats. Given that attack sites was eventually rejected, this situation would not repeat itself, but assuming it could repeat itself, I think it is important for crats to focus on the evidence provided at RFA and not look to applying their own opinion of candidate.
DHMO 3 (at this point in time) 79%: Well if I could change it, I would say extend 3 days given the flux of the arb case, canvassing, etc. but since I am pinned down, unsuccessful as there was too much controversy for there to be a demonstration of consensus.
8. As a BAG member and a 'crat would you close RfBAGs? Are there any other possible conflicts that may arise due to your BAG membership? (apart from obviously the ones already covered in question 6)
A. Well this is a bit tricky. You could say crats have the same COI to closing RFBs, yet they do that without issue. If I commented at an RfBAG, I would not close it. If an RfBAG looked controversial in some way, I probably would defer closing it merely to avoid the appearance of bias. But if an RfBAG had been open 9 days, was unanimous in support, and no one else had gotten around to closing it, I probably would close it. As far as other COIs, I imagine there is some COI to deflagging inactive bots, but as long as I was not the person who did the periodic listing/notification for the deflagging process, I don't see a COI issue.
9: I would like to present two hypothetical opposes, and ask which of those you feel may be discounted by a bureaucrat at her disgression.
Oppose: Candidate has systematically violated WP:NOR by inserting completely unsourced plot summaries into film articles. MovieBuff123 (talk)
A: I suppose this question is touching on WP:PLOT/WP:FICT, which have been in dispute for the last year or so. I don't work in fiction areas that much, so I am unsure of the exact state of rules for plot summaries, but from the tone of your question, I take it that inserting unsourced plot summaries does not violate NOR (at least for this experiment). Assuming that is true and a person commented as above, I would expect to see few if any other opposes citing the same reason and several responses to the oppose citing the mistake in policy. If it was a truly marginal case and it seemed like the person was totally mistaken, I probably would promote. Flip a couple of factors, and I would probably not promote.
Strong Oppose per [1], [2], [3], where the candidate removed other's comments from an article's talk page. While the comments where not about the improvement of the article, they were placed in good faith, and should not have been removed. Talkpagelawyer (talk)
A: Well this involves a different set of rules, that are in less dispute I think, but what I said above could be applied pretty much to the same extent here.
10: I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. Do you think that an oppose could ever be valid if it based on a misinterpretation of policy / guidelines? How would you assess an RfA where such a ¬vote garnered a significant number of blanket pile-ons ("per Talkpagelawyer"), causing the percentage to be far outside the regular discretionary range?
A: Well I remember that old tale of an exclusive club that kept letting in friends of friends, and pretty soon everyone was a member of the exclusive club and it was therefore no longer exclusive. If several people were stating a view interpreting policy and appeared to be acting in good faith, at some point it stops being a misinterpretation of policy and instead becomes a dispute over the policy. I don't know where the point is, but I think it is sufficient to say that if it is unclear that a viewpoint is a "fringe" viewpoint, then it shouldn't be discounted and I would end up not passing the RFA. Remember that crats do not judge if a person is a good candidate or if the comments are the best for the encyclopedia. I have seen RFAs fail because someone is opposed by users known to be deletionists or inclusionists. That sort of failure is part of the process and is not something crats can or should adjust for as it is still a valid opinion of policy that causes the RFA to not succeed.
11: An addendum to NuclearWarfare's question (from User:Triplestop)
"Oppose: Candidate has an inappropriate userpage/userbox"
Your evaluation: Possibly valid, possibly invalid. I was neutraled at my own RFA for my signature. At the time I would have said I disagreed with it, but after learning more about how some .js scripts format signatures, I can see his point. I would need to know why it is considered inappropriate (is it a copyvio?, does it impersonate another user?, is it a substitution of something deleted at MFD?) to make a better judgment.
12: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Please answer any question from User:MBisanz/Qs#Crats that you haven't already answered above ;) ....
A: See below
12A. One of of the crats elected in 2004 has yet to use any of the crat tools and others have used them very rarely. Do you think the crat position should have a minimum level of activity? Would you trust a crat who hasn't looked at RFA in four years to close one?
A. I would like to see a minimum activity level as I would not trust a crat who has not looked at RFA in four years to close an RFA. It is simply an issue that community norms have changed over time and crats need to be aware of those norms when acting. I did propose Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal at one point, but even with the truncated poll on its talk page, I do not think it was near enough to consensus to ever be implemented. I think the community gradually is moving towards supporting such a concept, as evidenced in other discussions over time, but I do not think the crats have a special role in these discussions since they do not deflag and it is a community decision on how to handle user access levels.
12B. Not too long ago the first Bot-RFC was filed. How do you reconcile this process with the WT:BRFA process? How would you as a crat interpret a Bot-RFC in deciding whether or not to involuntarily deflag a bot?
A. RFCs generally are non-binding and unless there was an imminent threat to the wiki (such as a admin unblocking his bot), I do not think a crat would need to involuntarily deflag a bot simply per an RFC. If the bot op was indef blocked, if arbcom ordered a bot deflagged, etc, then a crat should deflag, but asking crats to interpret RFCs moves them too much into the DR process when they don't need to be there.
12C. Currently, no editor has ever passed RfB with a % less than 85%. At the same time, four of the six Arbcommers elected in December 2007 had support %s below 80%. Do you see any potential role for crats, with their high level of community trust, in the Dispute Resolution processes? Would you accept or feel it appropriate to ask the crats as a group to assist in DR?
A. No, crats have a well defined community role and while individual crats have shown aptitude for dispute resolution, I do not think the RFB process has historically vetted them to the degree that they could be assigned further tasks of that nature.
12D. Of the 3,500+ prior RFAs, only eight have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime; of over 100 prior RFBs, only two have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime. Which of the below would you have extended and under what circumstances and by what process would you extend an RFA in general?
Grunt by Cecropia: No, Cecropia had opposed it and should not have extended it. Assuming I was handling it and had not commented, I probably would have extended it.
12E.Francs2000, Optim, Eloquence, Danny, Ugen64, and WJBscribe were decratted at their own requests between 2004 and 2008. Of them all, the only controversial decrattings could be considered Ugen64 who resigned after a dispute over the promotion % for RFBs and Francs2000 who resigned after a dispute over tallying RFA results. Danny's remains the unusual case of him resigning both crat and sysop rights and later being re-RFA'd, all in connection with his ceasing employment at the Wikimedia Foundation. Which of these users would you re-crat if they asked at WP:BN and which would you require to re-run RfB?
13A. In your opinion, what makes some administrators "go bad"? Are there clear warning signs at RfA that a candidate will end up doing something stupid that will end, for example, in a desysopping by ArbCom? If an RfA is in the discretion zone, and you see what you consider clear warning signs for a potentially troublesome administrator, would you promote? What if the RfA is at 85% support, but you see what you believe are unmistakable signs that the candidate will be a problem admin?
A.Yes, I have seen clear warning signs at RFAs that a candidate will end up doing something that will get them desysopped/sanctioned. Since I am his mentor, I suppose I can point at the Betacommand RFA as an example where people raised concerns over his communication and he was subsequently desysopped by arbcom for reasons relating to communication of admin actions. On the other hand his RFA passed (73/3/3), so I cannot imagine how a crat could have been prescient to know that was one of the rare times the community was wrong. One of the warning signs I have seen are extensive participation in controversial topics, since that can be a sign of someone looking to gain administrative powers to further push a POV. Another is when a candidate fails to show evidence of communication skills, as many desysoppings have been related to poor communication. As to what makes an administrator "go bad", I simply don't know. I imagine that the anonymity of the Internet, the lack of consequences for actions, and the informal governance structure of Wikipedia all contribute to the situation of an individual violating cultural norms and values on Wikipedia, when they would never do so in a real life situation. The Stanford prison experiment and the Milgram experiment are interesting examples of how depersonalization can result in otherwise normal people acting in irrational manners.
Now as to the more specific question of how a crat should respond to such situations, I will be a bit less philosophical. The crats' job is to interpret community consensus. They are not a safety valve on community consensus, a reviewer of the community's decision, or a joint decision maker with the community. If the community believes someone has the trust required to be an administrator, a crat should never overrule it, regardless of the crat's personal view of the candidate. In a marginal RFA, the crat should not be looking at the candidate, but rather at the comments. In your specific example of an 85% RFA, the crat should not even be considering a failure, regardless of personal views, as the community has made it clear over the course of 4,000 RFAs that such a percentage indicates consensus of trust.
13B. Some regulars at RfA have very exacting standards and support almost no RfAs (I do no refer here to the "Oppose. Too many admins currently" sort of opposition, but rather to good-faith !votes by contributors who happen to have much higher standards than the community in general). As opposition from some such editors is nearly a given, should it be given less weight? On the other hand, some regulars support all or nearly all requests for adminship. Should their !votes be given less weight?
A.I think it is possible to apply the theory of strong emergence to Wikipedia and RFA to answer this question. RFA is a melting pot of different view points which, while imperfect, at least permits the operation of the system of selecting administrators. It is not possible to reduce the continued operation of RFA to a certain viewpoint such as strong opposition to nearly all candidates or strong support for nearly all candidates. Further, once we go down the road of saying "this constructive viewpoint held in good faith is less worthy than the opposite viewpoint", we risk creating a confirmation bias through groupthink that would have a downward spiral effect on the operation of the RFA process. For that reason I would avoid looking at these kinds of systemic trends in individual comments as a reason to discount the comment, preferring instead to look at the factual accuracy, intent, and applicability of the individual comments.
14. If you were a bureaucrat, how would you close User:Cool3/RfA Hypothetical 1? If your answer is that you would initiate a 'crat chat or something similar, what would you say in that crat chat? (Also, anyone who wants to is free to reuse this hypothetical in other RfBs as it took quite a lot of time to make and I hate to see it go to waste)
A.Well first let me start off by explaining that I doubt such an RFA would actually occur. Among other points, his answer to question four, where he indicates he may use the tools in situations he is involved in, would generally result in a high level of opposition. Also, he left some questions blank, which while permitted, tends to generate a significant level of opposition. Another point is that he declares an interest in image copyright issues, yet has never uploaded or edited an image; such claims generally given little weight by RFA commentors and would have led to opposes. Lastly, he edits in an area that by the tone of the discussion is rather controversial and has been warned for edit warring, so I am somewhat surprised at the low turnout.
Now, as to how I would handle it. The evidence of canvassing is very compelling. The forum post, combined with the SPA accounts, show that clearly it has affected the RFA. Assuming I would not be outing his real life identity, I would place a note on the talk page of the RFA stating "the crats have received evidence of probable canvassing at [LINK X] and I have therefore extended the RFA for a period of three days" and then placed an inline note next to the changed close date, linking to that talk page post. Assuming it would lead to outing to reveal the forum site, I probably would close as a promotion and sent the email the crats received to arbcom, since they are the ones who handle such privacy-related conduct matters.
15. Your answer to Q1 seemed to focus mainly on numbers; while I don't see this as a huge concern, I'm hoping you can clear this up a bit. How important are the percentages in your opinion, and what bearing do they have on the final result? What is your definition of "consensus"? –Juliancolton | Talk02:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A.Percentages are simply that, a numerical summary of data. They fail to capture the reasons individuals placed their comments in a specific section of the page. Sometimes, when consensus is very clear, a summary can serve as the primary evidence of consensus, such as with WP:PROD where a lack of action by the opposition equal consensus to delete. Most of the time, such as with RFA, where good faith differences occur, it is more important to understand the reasons behind the location of the comments, instead of simply the summary data. As I say up higher, at RFA, consensus is the expression by the community that it trusts the person to be an administrator. This means examining the comments to see if an expression of trust exists. So while there is a role for statistics, mainly in a retrospective trends manner like I showed in Q1, when closing individual RFAs it is far more important to examine the substance of the comments than the raw percentages. MBisanztalk03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A.After going through this, that, and the other thing, I have come away with two thoughts. First, the community doesn't see crats, past, current, or future, as universally competent to take on new roles. Second, things such as here, here, and here, show that some crats (and stewards since the function is similar), do have community trust for additional roles and some do not. Therefore, I have since changed my position from your RFB from the idea that the crat corp is naturally inclined to serve in a DR capacity to one that individual crats may be competent at DR, but should participate in DR outside of their crat duties.
Per the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.10, judges should never make a public comment that might affect the outcome or the fairness of a case that hasn't been heard yet. (This particular recommendation has been largely adopted in the 50 states.) The thinking is, it prejudices the case if the judge gives the impression that their mind (or any judge's mind) is made up, or gives the impression that they will listen to some arguments and not to others before the evidence has been laid out. Anyone who has failed an RfA or RfB might run again, so these are cases that Matt might be either making the call on, or jointly discussing with other crats. The vote so far in this RfB is 57-0, so Matt certainly has some wiggle-room here to say or not say whatever he wants. The "How would you vote" questions above are customary in RfBs, but personally, I'd prefer to see shorter and more general and policy-based, less case-based, answers than some candidates have given. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first I thought you were spouting some legal jargon, to which I was going to respond likewise with some arbitrary tax code. However, you actually make one hell of a point. There are certainly circumstances, especially those that may not be obvious, in which actual editors mentioned may run again, may have to run again, etc. I think it would be best to stick to policy and hypotheticals. Lawtype!snype?02:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree in this case. There is nothing quite like judging RfAs on Wikipedia. AfD closures come close, but even they revolve around a strict set of policies and guidelines that "!votes" have to judge the article upon. RfA has no such restriction, and so I feel like the only way to get to know what a potential bureaucrat thinks about RfAs is through multiple, detailed, specific questions. NW(Talk)02:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concede your point, NW, but I'd like to explore the separate question of what is and isn't fair to a future candidate whose RfA is decided by a crat who has already taken a position on that candidate's former failed RfA. An analogy: say you were convicted of a minor criminal charge a year ago, and a reporter asks Judge X for his opinion, and he says he would have given you a harsher sentence. A month later, you wind up in Judge X's court on the very same charge with similar facts in the case, and the jury says that they all read his opinion in the newspaper. (This would generally lead to consequences for the judge and the trial in the U.S. ... but just pretend.) Do you think knowing what the judge said about you before might affect how this jury votes? Would the judge be likely to impose a sentence this time that seemed to contradict what he said in the newspaper? - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, reject the analogy as completely meaningless. If a judge says "I don't believe the third amendment applies to a tank parking in your driveway" then we know how he feels about tanks in driveways. If a bureaucrat says "I would not have promoted Riana because of issues X, Y, and Z" there's no particular prejudgment because we can state with an enormous degree of certainty that WP:RFB/Riana_2 will look virtually nothing like WP:RFB/Riana and there's not any sort of stare decisis. It would be unprecedent and magical for issues X, Y and Z to be the same between requests. RFA is an environment where "you cannot step twice into the same river" -- it has virtually nothing in common with common law. --JayHenry (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) RAWR (right answer, wrong reason). I agree weakly that we should avoid asking questions about past RfA/RfB candidates, but not for the reasons Dan offers. While it would be wholly inappropriate to ask MBisanz "would you promote Protonk to crat", it is much more appropriate to ask "would you have passed protonk in this RfA. The first question poses a hypothetical about the future and the second poses a counterfactual about the past. If we ask whether or not MBisanz would have passed Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo_3 as successful we attempt to tease out information about the candidate's feelings by offering a contingent event--if we do not do so, we are left with questions like "what do you feel a crat's role is?" Despite that advantage, the questions' usefulness is quickly exhausted. Two things occur. First, candidates learn to simply dodge the question (or more charitably, argue that they shouldn't prejudge similar cases) by offering caveats about the situation or by focusing on the idiosyncrasies of the original decision. Second, we don't have a whole lot of controversial cases to pick from. Someone with aspirations of becoming a crat will likely have seen these scant examples talked to death already; the answer they give may not be fruitful as a peek into the soul. As for the related question of "how would you weight votes a, b and c?", it is totally worthless. No candidate which will eventually be promoted will offer anything but reassuring statements about discounting votes (this is not to say that the candidates dissemble, rather that the community has an odd vision of when votes should be discounted which isn't shared by the crats) and most cases where an RfA/RfB is borderline, the status of individual votes will probably not be the deciding factor. Protonk (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always open for discussion, and I want to be sensitive to the fact that when you have a candidate this strong at RfB with a lot of supporters, any discussion in the oppose section can feel like badgering ... and sometimes it is. But I know Matt's work well ... how can I not when he's all over the place? ... and he has my highest respect. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meets my standardseasily. We have not always been the best of friends, but I know MBisanz definitely has our best interests in mind, so I know he will be a fair and excellent bureaucrat. Majorlytalk15:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - no concerns whatsoever. Matt is one of the most knowledgable people we have in regards to our policies, governance and procedures and having him as a bureaucrat would be a major bonus. He's extremely active and has done thousands of admin actions which are almost always 100% spot on. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter15:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Matthew has very good experience as an administrator and Wikimedian editor, and clearly knows about our procedures and has good judgement/sense. I believe he has what it takes to be a bureaucrat. Also, his answers to the first 3 questions are well-thought out and very good, further convincing me to support. JamieS93be kind to newcomers15:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had-this-pre-watchlisted-Support Matt is one of those admins who show their competence and cluefulness time and time again but do not seek to earn attention for it and who has demonstrated that he can be trusted to be calm, friendly and welcoming towards everyone, even in heated situations. Matt has also an excellent track record of reading discussions and judging consensus and has shown skill in almost all admin- and all crat-related areas (see the nomination for all the glorious details ;-). TLDR: Matt is an excellent admin and he will surely be an excellent crat as well. Regards SoWhy16:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support So happy I found a computer while away. MBisanz has a great name, is one of WP's best editors, and most qualified candidates for bureaucratship that I've seen in a while. Yes, yes, YES! iMatthewtalk at 16:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's about time: MBisanz is a fair and reasonable person and administrator. He is also familiar with all aspects of bureaucratship, and as such, is more than qualified for the role. Acalamari16:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I often get the impression that MBisanz is a crat already. At least he has the perfect degree of temperament and level-headedness. Wisdom89(T / C)17:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. I can find nothing which concerns me in MBisanz's edit history or logs. He is an excellent editor and admin, and I think he'll make a fine bureaucrat. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe17:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Support One of the best candidates in recent times and like the fact and most of his admins actions have been non controversial and fact that he lays emphasis on We rather than I explains why I am supporting him strongly.He has experience in all aspects of cratship and track both as Editor and Admin are excellent and MBisanz is a very active editor with great commitment and outstanding track both in technical and non techinal areas of Wikipedia which not many editors possess.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm thinking he'll do a fine job here. Previously I've had some concerns with MBisanz's administrative style, but not recently, and besides, the concerns were in areas that aren't too germane to the bureaucrat tools. His record of successful XfD closes also suggests he'll judge consensus well. Heimstern Läufer(talk)18:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support One of the most knowledgeable and trustworthy editors that I've ever encountered. Will make a fine bureaucrat! Dreadstar†19:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My only concern is that as a super-admin and bureaucrat I worry that you may have a tendency to lose touch with the common, mere mortal, editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildofMidnight (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure if we've met or not, but I've seen his name around. MBisanz's reputation has come to precede him. Need I really say any more? Master&Expert (Talk) 20:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted to be able to support Matt, I've long hoped this page would materialise and I've always known I would support. Nick (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Two days ago, I honestly talked to him thinking that he was one already. Yeah, I must be pretty stupid or he must be pretty qualified. Either way. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious answer. MBisanz is one of the the model Wikipedians in my eye. He is not only extremely rational, clueful, and intelligent, but he also knows how to judge consensus. I've admired how he closes AfD decisions according to consensus rather than votes. It shows that he reads the arguments and weighs them appropriately. He has made his fair share of errors, but every single time, I have seen him resolve the issue without losing his integrity. I am truly ecstatic that this RfB is taking place, and I wish MBisanz the best of luck. (X! · talk) · @147 · 02:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mbiz is one of the four or five people who asked me about his chances were he to run for 'crat this fall... So far his RfB is going as I'd hoped and better than I expected. (I anticipated a few opposes based upon a criterion I disagree with.)---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!03:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The candidate's achievements in real life and on Wikipedia are undeniable; however, there's a fine line between healthy and unhealthy narcissism, and the candidate's user page makes it a bit unclear which side he is on. There's no reason to deny bureaucratship now, but I'd suggest some monitoring going forward. Keepscases (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Switching to oppose. Keepscases (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support MBisanz' contributions in consensus areas are impeccable, leaving him highly over-qualified. X! said it best, but MBisanz understands the full ramifications of the word consensus. Moreover, I think the statistical analyses here and in userspace are excellent and indicative of a true desire to be as accurate as possible in closures. This would be a welcome promotion to the ranks, although ChildofMidnight's (unsigned) concerns should be noted. :P ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)05:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Highly skilled and knowledgeable on matters concerning process, protocol and everything else a crat needs; I can't think of a better candidate. In addition, I see a definite upward trajectory over the past year that continues. I'll be delighted to see Matt as a crat (rhyme just slipped out unintentionally). Tony(talk)07:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support. I have seen his work.yousaf465'
Support I think MBisanz will be thoroughly trustworthy and from what I've long seen, has the knowledge needed to do this helpfully. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate's user page shows clear signs of malignant narcissism. There is no reason we should not feed that by giving him yet more goals to reach. (btw, this does NOT mean you're off the hook on your other duties, I hope you know.) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice11:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Without a doubt, MBisanz would make a most excellent addition to the current bureaucrat team. He is exceedingly knowledgeable about policy, guidelines, and procedure, he is willing to ask if he doesn't know something, and always willing to help those who ask for his assistance. I have absolutely no doubt that he would make a great Bureaucrat, just as he's made a wonderful Administrator. Ariel♥Gold14:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with a recommendation to focus more on the content and substance of the arguments rather then just the numbers. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The question 1 answer is a puzzlement, as the question called for a normative answer, and the answer is descriptive. That said, I've run across Matt many times and found him exceedingly helpful.--SPhilbrickT18:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best RfB candidates I have seen, very good, thoughtful answers. One quibble - seems like he would go to crat chats quite often. We do elect crats to make decisions. Still he will probably gain confidence over time. Congrats in advance and thanks for your service to the community. Dean B (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Way overdue. I have complete trust in MBisanz and his skills. And I recuse from closing this RFB since I !voted in it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The various promotional referendums (RfA, CU, OS, etc.) are about trust, temperament, and judgment for the job, and the ability to lean from mistakes and the knowledge needed. I know Matt from the NYC Chapter, as well as from his record here, and I have no hesitation in supporting him, believing he has all those requirements in spades. — Becksguy (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a competent, respected and dedicated admin with a sound knowledge of the bureaucrat areas and some thoughtful question answers. No concerns here. ~ mazcatalk07:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matt has changed this project for the better, most notability in the areas of administration and governance. He has not achieved progress by making "decisions" against the consensus to suit his own ideals, but by noticing problems, and then putting his shoulder to the plow to fix them, or promoting alternatives that will prevent them, so that the community arrives at a better consensus the next time around. John Vandenberg(chat)12:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite comfortable with the majority of the assessments he's made at AfD, which of course also requires one to judge consensus. Considered AD's oppose below, but viewed against the other work I've observed, I think MBisanz has the discernment and judgment required. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done13:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-conflicted Support MBisanz has always been incredibly helpful to me. He's a great admin, and he will make a great 'crat. It's about time that we give him the tools. hmwitht15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His answers to Question 5 show that he will examine rationales from every direction, which will greatly help him to separate valid concerns—even if written in shorthand—from illogic. —Animum (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just about as logical of a choice for 'crat as we could possibly make. Above all else bureaucrats (like admins) should possess excellent judgment and good communication skills. From what I've seen MBisanz possesses both of those qualities in ample quantities. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great and detailed answers and the fact that I've seen him around and interacted with him positively leads me to support. Valley2city‽03:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Though I don't always agree with his rationale, he is a very active user who has demonstrated their knowledge of wikipedia guidelines and policies through their enforcement. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bulk of question 1 concentrating on numbers made me think of him as a bean-counter at first, but the rest of the candidate's answers were good and I've seen examples of level-headed thinking in his contributions. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Support Very much yes. I have the utmost trust in MBisanz, and his record on-wiki is exemplary. His work with bots will be a great benefit to the crat corps, and I can think of no reason why he shouldn't have the extra tools. Hersfold(t/a/c)20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seen as MBisanz is showing signs of malignant narcissism we better give them some power or we never know what sadistic behaviour they will get up too. BigDunc22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually I was in the middle of doing this support thing when power went out a couple days ago. Almost forgot to come back to it. I've seen MB doing a lot of clerking around, and definitely support this nom. — Ched : ? 04:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The answer to question 14, while not what I would do, seems reasonable, though I must disagree with what he says he would do in the event of a privacy violation. The scenario, as pointed out, is not entirely realistic, and I was a bit disappointed that he only dealt with the canvassing issue; I would have hoped to see some consideration of the fact that the Opposes did bring up some very strong points, but as I said I am satisfied. Cool3 (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very experienced and thoughtful user. The answers to the questions were excellent. Ironically, the "too obsessed with the rules grip" in some of the opposes is a reason to support, IMO. I certainly don't want a bureaucrat who thinks his opinion overrules everyone else's. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I can't support you, I don't know who I could support. The opposers here seem to be nitpicking and your answer to question 1 is great. ThemFromSpace22:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The concerns listed below don't really bother me and I like his answer to 12D :) (Taxman, IMO you got played on my RfA). Seriously folks, we need more 'crats. It's a thankless, time consuming, often stressful job. He's dedicated, able, and willing. He doesn't push POV and he tries to do a good job with his admin duties. I don't know if any of you have noticed, but dedicated editors and admins are abandoning Wikipedia in droves, tired of the drama, gamesmanship, lawlessness, and lack of an effective governance structure to fix it all. MBisanz is one of the good guys who is doing more than his share keeping this shindig lurching along. Someone notified me by email of this RfB but did not ask me to vote a certain way. I decided on my own after reading the questions, answers, and everyone's comments and I have the RfA page on my watchlist so I would have found this eventually anyway. Cla68 (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support AD makes a good point below, but practice eventually becomes policy, and this seems to be the case for RFA, and has at least plurality support from the community.--chaser (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MBisanz is trustworthy. He has more than enough knowledge and experience.
There are many sound points made in opposition. MBisanz does have a weakness at explaining himself. I believe his lack of warm and fuzzy interactivity has lead others to believe that he relies excessively on the rules. His judgement can come across as autocratic, but fortunately, he is polite and forthcoming when challenged. His answer to question 1 definitely comes across as odd, despite not being factually at fault in any way. I suspect his colleagues find him a little odd, and he probably spends too much time on websites like wikipedia.
I trust that MBisanz will grow to fit the new position, and will learn to make sensitive decisions and communicate with clarity and good judgement when situations outside the scope of the rulebook come along. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - reliable, and took the trouble in Q1 to find out what the community is actually saying, instead of assuming the guidelines reflected reality. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole bell curve thing is over blown a little I think. In fact, any 'crat that promotes or declines outside that range had better pack a lunch because they will automatically start a huge pie fight. It's a pretty accurate description of reality. MBisanz scores well above the trust level needed here. RxS (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I believe that he understands that not all comments are created equal, and that determining consensus is not solely a matter of counting !votes. I read his answer to Q1 as a) determining what the community considers an acceptable level of support, and b) demonstrating that he has done significant research into what other Bureaucrats consider to be consensus. PGWG (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been carefully reading this RfB for a few days now, and nothing raised a concern. Good luck with being a bureaucrat. SparksBoy (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I must admit I don't find the narcissistic userpage themes very endearing, but I otherwise like and trust Matthew and I feel comfortable supporting his RfB. Sarah08:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The candidate's user page shows clear signs of malignant narcissism. There is absolutely not any positive reason why the candidate should be bragging about his standardized test scores, or providing numerous pictures of himself that were conveniently taken each time he achieved another goal. Being successful is something to be admired; bragging about it is a huge red flag. I have seen too many disasters in real life when egotistical individuals are promoted to positions of power to support this user. I concede the candidate's conduct has been exemplary up to this point, but I've got a bad bad feeling of where it probably goes from here. Keepscases (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. The candidate's user page is way over and above what it's appropriate to advertise. If you disagree, kindly show me another user page that is so egotistical/self-important. Keepscases (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be a good idea to argue against my point, if you can, and not me as an individual. Surely you know that to do otherwise is a logical fallacy. Keepscases (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell you how angry I get in my arguments when someone mentions a ban for me or says I have no constructive use here. I've learned all I need to know about King of Hearts. Pzrmd (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a more valid reason for someone who is not qualified. If Matt can serve Wikipedia effectively as a bureaucrat, then that is more important than his personality flaws. Besides, I take personal pleasure in seeing my bots running smoothly and to the benefit of Wikipedia, and that does not mean they run poorly or that I am an incompetent bot operator. —harej (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that the promotion from administrator to bureaucrat is unbelievably small. Really, it should just be called administrator-plus, because that's all it is. —harej (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes or no. Are you stating that MBisanz is incapable of holding a position of power due to a mental personality disorder? —Darktalk10:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was unnecessarily rude to use a psychological term to describe someone. If you honestly think someone has a psychological problem, you should know it can't be diagnosed by looking at a user page. If you want to make a valid point about your concerns, you don't have to use terms from psychology. Candidates for office need thick skins, but this was over the top, and it distracts us when you should want us all thinking more and doing it calmly. I'm the guy who labeled his vote "Strong oppose", and I've been offended by the candidate in the past, but his efforts entitle him to more respect than you're giving him. It would be a good idea to redact. -- Noroton (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you seem to equate the use of psychological terminology with rudeness. Of course an accurate and complete psychological diagnosis can't be done solely based on what someone has posted online...but I posted my oppose, and we can all sit here and argue the appropriateness of it and/or the relevance of it, but I haven't yet heard anyone suggest my suspicions are unfounded. Keepscases (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your suspicions are unfounded. I'll post the rest of my response on your talk page rather than bore everybody else with what they already know. -- Noroton (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read through your response, and I have no idea how you can claim my suspicions are unfounded. The candidate's userpage is a textbook example of malignant narcissism, no matter how offended that may make any of our voters. Keepscases (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL. You are afraid of where it goes from here but you have no evidence of any past troubles that would indicate future troubles. This is the craziest of all your opposes. The editor obviously takes great pride in his accomplishments!There is nothing wrong with that.--Gordonrox24 | Talk02:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now Gordon, surely you know that WP:CRYSTALBALL is about the appropriateness of articles, and has nothing to do with candidates at RfB. And I think you may be a bit naive if you really believe that "great pride" is not a cause for concern. Keepscases (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I agree that that policy is in regard to articles, but I often find that our article guidelines often can be interpreted and be useful in many other aspects on and off Wiki. In this case, You say that you are not sure where the editor will go from here without any history showing him to be disruptive. You are predicting what will happen without any reason to predict what you are predicting. Phew, that was confusing. How in the hell can great pride in yourself, your accomplishments, and what you do be a concern? Great pride in yourself and your work indicates somebody with confidence. if you have great pride in what you do, will that not push you to do what you do to the best of your ability? I think that if an editor has great pride in their work on Wiki, they are going to try to keep their work up at a high caliber. If you don't have pride, you will slack off, procrastinate. With pride comes great work ethics and an eagerness to do great work, and get everything right the first time around.--Gordonrox24 | Talk18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm an atheist and don't care for your sins. Pride is pride and religion has nothing to do with this at all.(Note I'm not an atheists, I just find it hilarious how Keepscases opposes other users because they are part of the Atheism Wikiproject, and then justifies this oppose by linking me to a christian belief)--Gordonrox24 | Talk21:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A quality by which a person considering his own defects has a humble opinion of himself" I don't know about you, but having enough pride in my own actions to be happy with the work I have done sure makes me humble as defined by that article.--Gordonrox24 | Talk21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I guess it isn't. I would just have to assume that if this editor wasn't humbled by his great achievements he wouldn't have posted those pictures there. Why do you never Asume good faith? You always look for the negative in a person even when the good is slapping you in the face.--Gordonrox24 | Talk21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not making any sense; a person can be humble notwithstanding his own great achievements, not because of them. This exchange is pointless and tedious, and finished as far as I'm concerned. Keepscases (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I had not achieved anything I would not be humble. I assume the same from this editor. Yes this is very tedious as I know that the crat reading this will only discount this oppose anyway.--Gordonrox24 | Talk22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take this position with great hesitancy and only after deep consideration. Though MBisanz does a lot of good work and possesses an admirable knowledge of policy, his answer to Question 1 really strikes me as off-mark and contrary to the atmosphere we have always tried to cultivate at RfX. Bell curves and standard deviations have nothing to do with consensus, and I get the feeling that the candidate's demonstrated reliance on statistics would inhibit his ability to make the difficult decision. This is not an indirect (and therefore potentially unfair) inference, either. MBisanz states that he would indeed resort to the normal distribution graph when faced with the 70–80% discretionary range: "Within the range of 70%-80% I like to use the model of the normal distribution (shown right) , for how I believe the range is, and should be, handled. I think the curve represents the frequency a crat will need to use a high level of discretion to interpret community consensus." In truth, the first answer almost entirely focuses on percentages; discussion of non-numerical evaluation at RfX is a footnote. To me, all of this is indicative of an undesirable fixation with the mathematics of what should be a judgement-centred process. My statement might have little effect – this looks headed for an easy pass – but I really felt the need to put it out there. Best of luck. —Anonymous DissidentTalk11:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AD - as long as there are questions about old RfAs with percentage marks, and as long as votes are kept as a tally and made public, percentage will always figure into this. The system as of now favors the percentage approach. Good or bad, I don't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OR essentially beat me to the punch. I don't much understand the criticism of relying on or referring to numbers and statistics when that's the reality of the process. It's integral to RfA. Why pretend otherwise? Wisdom89(T / C)18:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone can agree that it is, but a sizable chunk of people disagree that it should be. Anonymous Dissident has assumed—pardon the pun—the dissenting opinion. —Animum (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually got the exact opposite from his response to question one! The way I read it, MBisanz analyzed the closures and noted that all in all, there wasn't much variability - that is, voting (not !voting) ends up working a fair portion of the time - and that a 'crat's job is usually easy enough. The last paragraph of the answer, though, speaks directly to how he would make a difficult decision and what he would take into consideration. The numbers just to point out that those are rare moments. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But doesn't facts and statistics have bearings on judgement? If you didn't know that administrators would be promoted at (roughly) around the 70-80% mark, I would make a guess that RfAs would be closed differently. And I should note, MBisanz has indicated in the last paragraph of his statement that his focus will be on using "a high level of discretion to interpret comments". —Darktalk10:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(response to Amorymeltzer) The problem is MBisanz only talks about normal distributions but doesn't actually seem to have done the analysis, so it sounds a lot more impressive than it is. He postulates that there is a normal distribution with mean 74 or 75 and a standard deviation of 1 or 2. However, it's not 100% clear exactly what it means and doubtful whether the statistical analysis would back up his claim. I agree with Anonymous Dissident and was halfway tempted to oppose due to statistical abuse and mumbo-jumbo, but have decided it is not worth it. Martinp (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC). Now have come back and opposed due to broader concerns - see below. Martinp (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I have had no negative interactions with MBisanz, my interactions have generally left a negative impression. Not in a personal sense, I hasten to add: I consider him (as evidently many do) to be an exemplary Wikipedian, whose heart is in the project and is contributing for the right reasons. I simply doubt his judgement (and his own confidence in it) when it comes to taking a leadership role, assessing situations and making decisions. I think this is illustrated by some of the answers to the questions, where he wants to find a formula for a decision so that he doesn't have to make it. There are two particular instances where I have found his judgement questionable. The first is the infamous RfA of Giggy/DHMO, where he made this dubious comment on the role of BAG (my response is here). In short, when approving bots, it does not suffice to check they are technically sound: the interaction with policy and community consensus is vital. The second example is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Solar_energy. Here we have an editor with possible ownership issues (Mrshaba) in conflict with a point of view pusher (Apteva and his IP addresses and possible socks). The mediation failed to get to the heart of the problem and Solar energy continues to have NPOV issues which would require effort and determination to resolve. Geometry guy21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share the concerns of AD, Geometry Guy and even Keepscases to some extent. For too many users bureaucratship has been just another hat to collect, another bullet point on the resume, and although the community is for some reason comfortable with this, I continue to believe the community is mistaken. --JayHenry (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share some of the concerns expressed by you and the other opposers. I think some of it may just be a different personality type. MBisanz does seem very taken with statistics and statistical analysis. But sometimes numbers don't tell the whole story and I worry a little bit about the human touch and what I see as a need for discretion and outside the box thinking to resolve some situations that arise here where the typical approach might not be best. But my concerns are small in comparison to my overwhelming sense and experiences that show he cares about Wikipedia and working in its best interests cooperatively and collaboratively with other editors. Maybe I need to start doing things more by the book, rather than he needs to do so less. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree - it does seem like this is another 'notch on the WP bedpost', a collection of hats. As mentioned, too, by Martinp below, there is a certain 'oddness' to the Userpage. Apropos of anything else, I found myself amused by the belief that his graduation from Georgetown is apparently such a moot point, a fait accompli that he lists it as "Expected", not "In progress" or similar. Achromatic (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the motivation is nowhere near as important than whether the editor would use the tools properly and in a manner to assist the community. By the way, "Expected" is standard usage for matriculated students who are not failing. Bongomatic18:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Anonymous Dissident and Taxman (the latter in the neutral section), and also per the points raised by Keepscases above though I would state them less stridently. While I have the greatest respect for all I have seen of MBisanz' actions, what one needs in a bureaucrat is (among other things) confidence that this guy will make sensitive decisions and communicate with clarity and good judgement when the unexpected comes along. Unfortunately, the combined picture I get from MBisanz' answers to questions (re Cla68 RFA and the somewhat bizarre excursion into statistics in particular) and the persona he presents on his user page have lessened this confidence enough to oppose. To put it bluntly, the reason we have bureaucrats rather than robots is that we want them to have the judgement to throw away the rule book (and quantitative rules) when necessary. I'm afraid I don't have that confidence in someone who opines about fitting specific probability distributions to RFA scores and has chosen to spend his free time typing in all his associate degrees and standardized test scores on his user page. Sorry. Martinp (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I draw the line. There's a long, honorable tradition of allowing opposes for all kinds of reasons at RFA/RFB, but diagnosing narcissistic personality disorder (and backing that up with links that have been blocked as spam links) is in no sense fighting fair. Is this what you're agreeing with (but "less stridently")? - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That the link is blocked is inconsequential; the article is written by a qualified individual, and was the best way that I found to answer the question in a nonpartisan manner. As for "fighting fair", let's be honest: anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of narcissism can understand what we're talking about regarding the userpage. Keepscases (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(to Dank). I agree with Keepscases starting with the 2nd sentence of his original oppose !vote. The rest of my statement above explains why that, together with AD and Taxman's arguments, are in my opinion relevant. Since you ask, I think Keepscases' 1st sentence was unfortunate and unhelpful, and as a result I discounted the rest of his rationale when his oppose stood alone. But when I re-visited and saw others remarking on similar themes in a less strident manner, I took a harder look (including visiting his user page for the 1st time). For the reasons I have stated, the combined impression leads me to oppose at this time. I am doing it regretfully, since I tremendously respect some of what MBisanz has done and in fact some of the (other) thoughtful answers he has given (e.g. to question 13B). However, 4 out of 5 times I have hired an employee due to outstanding achievement in some areas but with a niggling concern about communication skills and approach to solving problems, I have come to regret it. I will say that a ratio of over 140:5 support:oppose at this time is quite impressive. Martinp (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I've run across MBisanz twice and found strong reason to question his judgment each time. When I was blocked after this travesty of a discussion at AN/I, [2] MBisanz had the nerve to say I believe that based on this community discussion, this is a fair block to ensure a peaceful editing environment at Wikipedia's political articles and am therefore declining your request for unblock. While you may believe you are editing differently as of today, it appears you have thoroughly exhausted the patience of the community and that they do not believe you should edit for an extended period of time.,[3] which has got to be one of the more foolish ways of characterizing an AN/I pitchfork-and-torches mob scene. When a bunch of left-wing editors, many with histories of partisanship (including the admin who blocked me), continue to argue with an editor they disagreee with, an uninvolved admin should have the decency to consider whether or not the evidence actually holds up under scrutiny. I specifically asked that an admin do this in my unblock request. MBisanz did not display that kind of decency and instead characterized the actions of that roiling mob as the patience of the community. In short, MBisanz did some world-class bullshit shoveling when exercising admin functions. (Wikidemon, the alleged victim, went on to get his knuckles rapped at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles, where his whining about me was ignored by the arbs. [4] SarekOfVulcan, the blocking admin, recently had a questionable block of ChildofMidnight lifted -- if I were a left-wing blogger, I'd be prudent and avoid questionable blocks of editors on the right when the matter involves political arguments, but apparently Sarek has other ideas.) That kind of statement indicates to me that either the person making it has an ax to grind (and I have no reason to suppose that from MBisanz), or that MBisanz had a negligent attitude about looking into the conflict, or that MBisanz worships consensus so highly that he won't let his judgment get in the way of it -- which would be itself a display of poor judgment. At an AfD, I found MBisanz making a mockery of deletion policy, as described at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. In his defense he cited his (slavish) following of consensus.[5] Policy is supposed to restrict what consensus can do, at least in the short term, and judgment is supposed to be used to figure out where policy does that restricting. In the AfD case, his poor judgment to delete African Americans in Davenport, Iowa, despite the fact that there was, in fact, neither consensus nor a policy justification to do so, led to a discussion [6] which I forced to effectively overturn his deletion because I announced I'd rewrite the article with new sourcing (not that that should have been necessary -- there was enough sourcing presented during the AfD to demolish the previous arguments based on notability, and all you need to do under deletion policy is present the new sources). A lot of bother could have been avoided had MBisanz used his head. MBisanz also should have explained himself better, something important to do especially when your decisions may confuse and annoy other editors, a point I made [7] at a recall procedure that an editor brought against MBisanz. I expect MBisanz to win this, and then I expect Wikipedia will be subject to more foolishness from him. I have no reason to question his sincerity, just his judgment. His unblock response statement on my talk page caused me to decide to leave Wikipedia before other editors persuaded me to return. But his glaring lack of judgment and offensive comment on my talk page is a good part of the reason I despise so much about this website. -- Noroton (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, in a shorter way that's easier to quickly understand than my explanation above, with MBisanz as a 'crat, or even as an admin, small, committed, angry groups of editors (sometimes called cabals, although under-the-table conspiring isn't really needed, and I won't say anyone was actually trying to be deceptive here) can get into confrontations with other editors, bring that editor to AN/I with trumped up allegations, have a very sympathetic admin block the editor, and then hope and pray that MBisanz will be the one who looks at the unblock request, because, based on past experience, he (1) won't look into whether or not the allegations are phony baseless in his rush to put another notch on his admin-actions belt and (2) will give editors the added satisfaction of delivering an additional kick (in the form of an uninformed, preachy, pompous condemnation) to the editor who's been abused and is asking for fair treatment. I'm not familiar enough with RfA or other 'crat functions to know how they might be affected by this kind of behavior, but in unblock requests it'll be an extra cherry on the dessert when the final kick comes from not just an admin, but someone with the added title of bureaucrat. Congratulations, pov-pushing "cabalists" -- you're about to have a higher-ranking, if unwitting, ally. -- Noroton (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't have any personal beefs with MBisanz, and I don't have a problem with statistical analysis per se (I'm the daughter of a statistician with a PhD in operations research and I was a math major myself for a few years). However, the evidently obsessive preoccupation with the accumulation and display of prestige notches/hats/brags on his userpage does bother me, as well as other specific concerns which have been raised (e.g. GeometryGuy, Martinp). I don't believe that giving this candidate bureaucrat tools would be a net drama-free benefit to the project. — Athaenara ✉ 10:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too much of a stickler for formalistic rules, too much of a tendency of being a "career wikipedian" collecting hats for the sake of it; don't trust his maturity and clue level in judging difficult situations. Fut.Perf.☼10:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The words bell curve should never be used in the same breath as consensus, and I disagree with his views on the nature of consensus. I get the sense that MBisanz is enormously wrapped up in himself, his own achievements, and tacking on gold stars to his list of accomplishments. Such self-absorption does not inspire confidence. ÷seresin11:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose his answers to questions here don't strike me as likely to give clear, satisfying answers when the peasants are marching with those pitchforks and torches against a cratic action. Will continue to watch this RfB, but I apply a very high standard. Also share with some opposers the feeling he's trying to touch all the bases.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose many of the comments here are "great editor, but..." I agree. Having two bureaucrats comment fairly negatively here (how often does that happen) gives me serious pause for concern. I too feel he is rules bound, and would not analyze consensus properly. Seresin said it well, "bell curve" and "consensus" should never be mentioned together. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per numerous valid concerns listed above. Future Perfect said it well. He seems to be too into going through the motions, rather than using individual judgement and doing the right thing. This may be a function of his young age, so maybe in a few more years he'll be a better candidate. Friday(talk)21:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Any person who desires authority as strongly as I suspect this person does (based on viewing his User page; I may be wrong about him, but that's the impression I get), should not be granted it. Ever. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly per Future Prefect. I remember him popping up on Jimbo's talk page to complain about former Wikimedia employees that were made administrators and had not had the bit removed when their employment ended. Something about a user going through all of our administrators to find any former employees seems unbelievably anal retentive and overly bureaucratic. That's not the type of bureaucrat we need here. There are subtleties required of the role, and this "100% by the rules" attitude makes me uneasy about his ability to be anything other than an RfA vote counter. AniMatedraw06:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
checking, this is unfair. It was rather a matter of noticing a few people from among the former staff, not prowling thru the admin list. His proposals, furthermore, was endorsed by both Jimbo and the community. I consider it an example of good and flexible handling of unanticipated situations relevant to the the b'crat role. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly per Hammersoft, but I even agree with Keepscases to a certain extent. It is actually not only two 'crats, if you look at some of the utterly unconvincing support votes - can it be that a number of 'crats get involved in order to not having to close this RfB? Great admin, great editor, but trust? No. --Pgallert (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I feel very bad about this, as I have worked with MBisanz on and around the wiki for a long time and have a great appreciation of his value to the project. However, I am in complete agreement with Anonymous Dissident that MBisanz has grievously misunderstood the discretionary zone by imposing a bell curve on it. To the extent that the job of a bureaucrat is 'statisticized', it becomes less discretionary and more automatic - and nothing could be more disastrous for RFA, the ritual center of the English Wikipedia, than for it to be automatized. The correctness of RFA closures does not depend on their conforming to a statistical model of how RFAs have been closed in the past. Not only does this effectively eliminate any genuine discretion - it also prohibits change in RFA-closing norms over time, which has been occurring ever since the project began, and the continuation of which is vital to the effectiveness of the RFA process. With regret, I must oppose. — Dan | talk04:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, have you checked with Mat to clarify what he meant ? I read his answer as implying he'd use stats to provide a red flag if he himself started deviating significantly from statistical norms. Past experience is that Mat is comfortable going against the numbers on individual cases – the first time I encountered him is when he closed a bilateral relations AfD as delete when most had voted to keep – I thought about going to his talk page to have a word but a quick scan of his contribs suggested hes a very fair and productive admin he didn't need the criticism. Anyway i really dont think he means to impose compliance with the bell curve on anyone else. That said i couldn't agree more with your general point. As someone whos done a little quanitative analyses i understand the attraction of using numbers to augment the human element of decision making. But when it comes to social situations stats are a siren. The late great whiz kid Mcnamara fell under their spell a youth, and one of his innovations was to replace emotional factors used to motivate US soldiers like tradition and patriotism with a maths based system of incentives. One of the results was deliberate killings of civilians in Vietnamn as a means to inflate body counts and qualify for the rewards. I read in an obituary that he admitted he was wrong to rely so much on maths near the end of his life. There are scores of other examples. Specifically with RfA, signalling a firmer cut off point at 70% would encourage sock masters to stack the votes so that the sort of friendly and helpful candidate they seem to despise never pass. My perception is this already happens to some extent , so im very glad there are crats like yourself who will go by concensus and not votes! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I'm quite puzzled by this issue. My read of Matt's analysis was he did it to find out what it is the community actually wants. The community, frankly, sends conflicting messages. RfA is not a vote, and yet there are percentage guidelines. We want 'crats to have clue, but we don't want them to actually use their judgement about outcomes, we expect them to hew closely to the numbers. But we argue about what the numbers actually are. And about who can vote. And about whether votes should be discounted. Matt's background as an accountant (and a good one to boot, remember he just got appointed to the WMF audit committee, where he's going to be reviewing multimillion dollar foundation expenditures and future plans... talk about the high level of trust the board needed for that!) no doubt led him to want to look at the numbers and see for himself. So he did. And guess what he found? Despite all the talk about !votes and judgment and discretion and some comments being discounted, the crats are pretty closely hewing to specific numbers... with very few exceptions (and these exceptions he examined in detail, confirming what we know... those exceptions are controversial outliers) there's a pretty sharp line at 75%... get even 2% above it and you almost certainly pass. Go even 2 percent below it and you almost certainly fail.
That's good information to have developed, worth the considerable work it took to get it. It's not a judgment about what's right or wrong, it's an analysis of how things are. Remember, policy here is mostly descriptive. This analysis says: "As things are, there's a bright line. Very rarely are there exceptions. And the community, given the lack of controversy for 78% passes and 72% fails for the most part... the community wants it that way". NOT "MBisanz wants it this way" but "this is the way it is". Matt is saying "well if that's what the community wants, and I've confirmed it is by this analysis, I pledge to do just that". So tell me again what's wrong with that? Isn't that what we want? ++Lar: t/c13:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For God's sake. Has history taught you nothing? You cannot simply ask for a sandwich, you have to get in their faces and demand it! Pop Gandhi into your DVD player, watch it until you're charged up, then make the damn Committee give you your damn sandwiches!
Oppose I've seen some mean comments from this man. Looking at his contributions from just before he ran for RFB, I don't see much article writing so how can he be a bureaucrat over the bureaucracy? I don't think his administrator position should be removed but I don't think he should be promoted. I've seem some better administrators on ANI and they are not bureaucrats. Sorry. I am not opposing you. Just try to be the best administrator you can be and don't bite off more than you can chew. Acme Plumbing (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The points in opposition raise some valid concerns. Reading consensus in gray area situations need non-numerical evaluation. Bureaucrats need to interpret data, not just re-express it. I also have concerns about MBisanz's harshness toward others. Kingturtle (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The photo gallery is rather self-indulgent, but irrelevant to bureaucratship. I am concerned by this comment in the answer to question 1: "a crat might take into account a factual misunderstanding such as ... opposition based on the candidate being an American, when it is established that that candidate is actually German". Does Matt imply that opposition based on the candidate being American (where the candidate is indeed American) is a valid reason to oppose? Axl¤[Talk]16:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant it merely as an example where an oppose is materially incorrect. Perhaps a better example would be if MBisanz ran for RFB and someone said "Oppose, he deleted the main page on 5 different occasions and is thus not fit to be a bureaucrat". As MBisanz did no such thing, would this be a valid oppose? --JayHenry (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a protest !vote intended to voice my disappointment at the answers to Question 5, especially copy/pasting the same thing for 11, 15, and 17, which in my opinion are not the same situation at all, but don't take it too seriously as I think you will make a great bureaucrat and I have been wanting to support you since I first heard the rumor that you were running. -- SoapTalk/Contributions03:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yikes, I was going to give the benefit of the doubt on question 12d that it wasn't that important that Matt was able to figure out the details of each of those RfA's, but then I realized that's his question and Will is just asking it of him as well. The Cla68 case jumped out at me because I was involved and knew that there was no chance a checkuser or Arb could handle the issue quickly. There were 3 hours until the end of the RfA and it wasn't an issue for a checkuser at all anyway. It was clearly some information that the community needed a chance to be able to consider. Still I would have considered missing that a really small issue except Matt considered it important enough to make it one of the questions he asks of other candidates, but not important enough to look into the situation to evaluate it. The userpage also gives me pause, maybe just because I would never tell people my test scores, etc like that, but also because it tends to fit with my perception of a user that does a really good job on the whole, but misses more often than most where it comes to judging how words and actions will affect others. I think that ties in a bit with the focusing too much on the numbers that Geometry guy notes. Overall though it's not enough to outweigh the excellent contributions and overall trustworthiness in my mind, so I won't oppose. I thought of even not writing this since I didn't want to create hard feelings but from the standpoint of feedback being good and ideally that being a benefit to the community since this will most likely pass and Matt will be able to take it into account, I decided to. - TaxmanTalk10:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it tends to fit with my perception of a user that does a really good job on the whole, but misses more often than most where it comes to judging how words and actions will affect others I think all or just about all of the criticism on this page is summed up by those words. MBisanz does have an impressive number of editors (and an impressive number of impressive editors) who think highly of him, but when you get right down to it, it's a question of whether or not he's a good fit for this position. I think 'crats need "people skills" -- the abilities to figure out what concerns others are raising and to communicate clearly, adequately and diplomatically with them, especially when ruling against them. And also to value the concerns of others enough to spend the time looking into the questions they've raised (whether it's answer 12d or the concerns I mentioned in my Oppose vote). MBisanz seems to spend an unusual amount of effort listing the numbers of his accomplishments, whether it's numbers of AfDs or numbers of academic achievements (scores or degrees), but answer 12d and his AfD close of African Americans in Davenport, Iowa hint that his responses may not always be careful enough or even considerate enough of others. Those are problems I want to see less of in admins and crats, not more. Having spent so much time racking up academic and Wikipedic accomplishments in his high school and college years, I hope he devotes more time in the future in noncompetitive socializing off Wikipedia and especially offline (although it's really not my place to give him personal advice -- consider it advice on being a better admin and bureaucrat). -- Noroton (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral They say that being an admin is "no big deal" but that is false, admins wield immense power over editors and often abuse it. A bureaucrat, however, is not some form of "super admin". He is like a notary public – someone who looks at something pushed in front of him and if formal requirements are satisfied, signs and stamps it. It takes much less skill and intelligence to be a bureaucrat than to be an admin. Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I won't be around to close this RfB (note to self - check someone will be, we're short on Crats right now) so will (unusually) weigh in because I feel passionately about this. Very unusually, because the passionate desire is pushing me to, erm, neutral. I really, really want to support. This is an outstanding Wikipedian, who does masses and masses of top-quality work. Taxman says very well much of what I feel. Several answers gave me pause for thought, but 12d really surprised me. Might rethink this, and will watch the discussion carefully until I go offwiki on Friday. Good luck to the candidate either way. --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When two crats (Taxman and Dweller) are outlining their concerns in the neutral section during a lopsided vote for someone they will likely have to work with, that's a sign that participants here need to look harder at the candidate. This vote is about what MBisanz will do for Wikipedia, not the other way around, so whether or not it hurts him, we need to vote for Wikipedia's best interests. -- Noroton (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2009 (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.
