Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3

Wisdom89

Voice your opinion (talk page) (65/36/5); Scheduled to end 22:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• At this point I feel there is virtually no chance of this RfA succeeding and thus I am going to withdraw my nomination. I want to thank everybody who decided to participate and offer up helpful criticism. If one of my co-nominators would do the honors, or a crat, please close this RfA. An enormous thank you to my Co-nominators, and especially to User:Pedro for his wonderful mentorship.

Wisdom89 (talk · contribs) - Fellow editors, I am delighted to offer up for adminship Wisdom89 hereafter known simply as Wisdom. A long term user, Wisdom really became active in June of 2007. With over 14,000 edits plus about 1,800 deleted contributions both tenure and contribution level are not a concern. I opposed Wisdom's last RFA on the basis of concerns that Wisdom would be more hindernce than help. Those concerns are now gone. A review of Wisdom's contributions should show the following;

Article Work

• Well just look at Rush (band), Conservapedia and Neil Peart.
• A simple glance at the associated article talk pages as above, and their histories, shows evidence of Wisdom's desire to collaborate.

Project Work

• Active at our key areas (in terms of adminship) of WP:AIV, WP:XFD, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA etc. etc.
• Not only active but accurate and able to respond to occasional errors. A quick review of User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching#UAA shows how well Wisdom both responded and learnt from a minor error.

Development since last RFA

• I would urge commentators to review User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching.

Housekeeping Items

• Clean block log
• WP:HELPDESK contributions demonstrating a thorough policy / guideline knowledge.
• A civil manner
• Edit summary usage is spot on.
• Un-offensive user page
• Sensible Signature
• E-mail enabled

Summary

• Hard though it is to gauge via a text medium, I have personally found Wisdom to be friendly, thoughtful, and ready to adapt and learn. I believe he has come on enormously since his last RFA. He has accepted both my counsel and that of others in many areas; He has not requested admin tools until others felt he was ready - a stance that does him credit. In addition I see Wisdom's comments often across WP, and I feel he balances being WP:BOLD with being tactful and doing what is needed.

All, as ever I would never nominate unless I believed a candidate was both ready and will be a Net Positive to Wikipedia. I find that Wisdom will be that, and more, by granting admin rights. I hope the community will find themselves in agreeance with this course of action. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Tiptoety ^talk:

I have had the pleasure of working with Wisdom over my 11 months or so here, and have the pleasure of con-nominating him. Wisdom is an RfA regular who always ensures that candidates are well rounded in areas that require the mop, and I know that he by far excels his own admin requirements. I have seen Wisdom on almost every noticeboard ranging from ANI to AIV and always has proven to be helpful, and often wonder if there is ever a need to check the contributions of a user reported to AIV as I know I know the result. On noticeboards I always look for his comments as they always prove to be undoubtedly helpful. As well as great work in admin related areas Wisdom has also produced wonderful article contributions such as Rush (band) and Neil Peart (so users who like to oppose due to lack of article contributions, be prepared to support). Overall I feel this user is well rounded, responsible, thoughtful, helpful, and always willing to listen to complaints and learn from mistakes. I do not commonly nominate users for adminship, but there was no way I was going to pass this one up. Wisdom89 is ready for the mop, now lets give it to him. Tiptoety ^talk 22:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Rudget. Okay, maybe you've already got a good enough idea of how Wisdom operates from the two exquisite (co)nominations above. So, I'll try to be a little original here. I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my gratitude for Wisdom's work here on Wikipedia, which over this two-year period he has been contributing in, has been fantastic. I have been impressed by Wisdom's extended desire and willingness to be a part of this project, with a large proportion of his editing tenure being placed in the mainspace and various projectspaces. With a keen eye, a coherent adherance to policy (his recent contributions can be the supporting evidence for this) & general 'wiki-rules' and a delightful medium between quiet and outlandish, he has a calm and sincere enthusiasm for furthering the cause of the encyclopedia. Always explaining and expressing his ideas over the various project boards, he aids others (1, 2, 3), maximises his position without the use of administrative tools and makes comments which are relative to their target (4, 5). Most of all, however, Wisdom is consistent in his approach to the opinions of others and is willing to make sure that others voices are heard–in addition to this, his manner is persistently harmonious, with this being confirmed by his involvement in both the Kindness Campaign and Adopt-a-user program. He also takes time to reconsider his rationales and often re-writes his opinions (random example). With this in mind (and in light of the co-nominations above), I am pleased to offer Wisdom for the community's consideration which, I am hoping, will see there is a potential administrator in the user (and person) that is, Wisdom89. Rudget 17:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I graciously accept the nomination from Mr. Pedro. My appreciation goes out to the co-nominators as well. Let the process begin.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: If granted the tools, I plan on concentrating my administrator efforts initially in areas that I am comfortable with, and have sufficient experience in. Now, for those areas which I have ‘’not’’ yet versed myself in, I have absolutely no qualms or reservations about starting off patiently and slowly, deferring to more experienced administrators before any action is taken, checking up or leaving a notice at WP:ANI or a talk page for instance. When one becomes an administrator, they don't stop learning. The following is a brief enumeration of those areas where I feel I can be an immediate asset:

• WP:AIV: I think this admin-related area is excellent practice and preparation for properly understanding WP:BLOCK when it comes to IPs and registered users, and it has served me well didactically.
• WP:UAA: I tend to notice a backlog here. My apprehension of WP:UP is sound. You'll notice I've made hundreds of reports to UAA. There were a few slip ups I'm sure (I can be honest), but, I am constantly refining my understanding of the policy, as it seems to be kind of capricious. In other words, this area requires a judgment call a majority of the time, and not everyone agrees what constitutes a blatant offense. For those names which are ambiguous, I have taken the time to use the usernameconcern template.
• WP:RFPP: In addition to making numerous requests for both full and semi-protection, I have taken up a "clerking" role here, making notations/comments when and where I feel they are relevant/appropriate. This was done to aid administrators. Sometimes having two opinions (either conflicting or in concordance) can shed new light on a situation involving full scale edit warring or anon vandalism.
• WP:ANI: Like WP:RFPP, I have taken up a "clerking" role here, offering my advice, dropping comments and seeing if I can help diffuse situations neutrally.
• WP:CSD: It is a rarity not to see this page backlogged/overflowing with nominations that require careful analysis and a conscientious mind. I am confident in my ability to perform clearance/deletions tasks accurately and thoughtfully.
• WP:AFD: I tend to gravitate to AFD because my mainspace participation has focused on article building/maintenance, and, after-all, this is an encyclopedia. I feel that my activity in this area demonstrates a reasonable understanding of policy/guidelines. I strive to approach these discussions thoughtfully and eschew the infamous "per nom". Although, sometimes "per noms" are entirely correct.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Ok, well, I mentioned these in my previous two WP:RFAs. I was quite instrumental in helping the Rush article reach featured article status. I suppose this is what I am most known for, as it was my first major task on Wikipedia. I am still the primary contributor to the article, and to this day, along with a few other wonderful editors, still keep a watchful and vigilant eye on it, removing vandalism, fostering discussion involving minor content disputes, and maintaining its overall integrity without WP:OWN. I was also primarily responsible for getting Neil Peart promoted to Good Article standing not too long ago. An attempt was made to nominate it for FA status as well. Despite it failing, it likely represents my next editorial project and I'm looking forward to it. Another article I am particularly fond of is Phospholipase C (even though it reminds me of graduate school). While currently lacking sources, my scientific background encouraged me to work diligently to expand it to a fairly decent level. Apart from article building, I feel that I am a solid and meticulous vandal fighter as evidenced by my contributions. Yes, I primarily use WP:TWINKLE to perform my actions, but, I feel that I use it quite efficaciously. Lastly, I enjoy aiding users in basic Wikipedia operation, so my contributions to the help desk, the new contributor's help page and the Science reference desk have been fulfilling.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: There were a few spats on the Rush article in the past that I was involved in, along with other main editors of the page. We had to deal with some (I hate to use the term) "POV pushing" by obvious fans who wanted to positively contribute (WP:AGF at all costs), but, in their enthusiasm, ended up decorating the article with unencyclopedic content. It was a little frustrating, but, the situations were diffused quickly and without major incident with discussion on the talk page, a place I tend to immediately direct users to when a potential conflict arises. Hey, editing inevitably gets hot. Other than this, I cannot think of any other conflicts.

Question from Irpen

4. Do you plan to involve yourself in decisions that would significantly affect content editors? For example, do you plan to institute blocks for edit warring (discretion blocks, not 3RR ones), incivility, tendentious editing or other disruption that is clearly made by an opinionated rather than vandalizing editor? Do you plan to enforce WP:AE? WP:3RR?

A: As a general editor myself, and having encountered instances of content dispute, breaching of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:TROLL and WP:HARASS, I trust I can make an equitable judgment call on users who undermine the spirit of Wikipedia by , say, consistently gaming the system and abusing the above policies/guidelines. Do I plan to enforce WP:3RR? Yes, I do. I regularly patrol recent changes and see numerous instances of recalcitrant (or completely silent) reversions. Will I make the call without a report to 3RR? The short answer..yes. With respect to WP:AE, if I was involved in the Arbcom case, made a statement, or provided evidence, I would be willing to take action if probation was compromised.

5. Do you plan to invent and enforce extra-policy restrictions on the editors?

A: I feel that I could, with equity, decide upon and enforce restrictions on users who abuse Wikipedia or have a long history of persistent disruption. It is vital to preserving a smooth and non-abrasive editing process. I'm not sure precisely which policy restrictions I would invent, but, 1RR and 2RR are absolutely reasonable stipulations.

6. What's your opinion of IRC. Do you use it? Do you plan to use it? If yes, do you plan to join #admins and what do you think about this channel's past, present and, perhaps, future? What in your opinion would constitute the proper and improper use of the IRC channel.

A: IRC is a user-friendly means for communication that I have used in the past for various reasons, but, not specifically for discussions pertaining to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that means that I am unfamiliar with the channel you refer to. I have clients installed on my computer where I can easily access IRC, and if it would facilitate getting in contact with other administrators or editors who wish to correspond, then I will happily participate. Currently, I am best reached via Email and my talk page. With that said, and to answer the latter part of your questions, if the channel is "for administrators of Wikipedia only" then proper use would involve discussions about various Wikipedia essays, policy proposals and communication to preclude wheel warring. If the channel is open to all Wikipedians, then it's a terrific way for editors to contact administrators that were involved in a prior incident, perhaps an absent response to an unblock request. The improper utilization of said channel would be discussion of open Arbcom cases and WP:RFC on users when they, or other parties, are not present.

Optional Question from Balloonman

7. I am definitely leaning towards a support (possibly even a strong one), but I do have a question/comment that I'd like you to address before I cast my !vote. You, like me, are one of the more critical reviewers in the RfA process. Generally, when I see you supporting a candidate, it is a good sign for the candidate. My concern, however, is when you oppose some candidates. Sometimes I feel as if you are focusing more on your perception of what an Admin should be rather than upon the general/individual merits of the candidate themselves. This is particularly a concern when dealing with niche candidates who don't fit the traditional roles of admin. Can you address this concern of mine?

A Excellent comment. I'll do my best to address this. I'll start off by intimating about how I casted my !votes at RfA when I first began participating in the discussions. The balance criteria, for those of you who don't know. I felt, and to a degree still feel (albeit minorly), that editors who demonstrate/d a sheer disparity in their edits, one side extreme project, the other, extreme mainspace, might be somewhat unfit for adminship because it robs them of the opportunity to glean experience. I have since refined my judgment and have made an effort to !vote based on a user's skills in communication/deliberation, article building, trust, and sometimes just a gut feeling. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 5 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sabine's_Sunbird as examples. I have taken User:Pedro's advice of "net positive". I ask myself, "will the candidate abuse the tools?", is it likely that they will (at the present) hamper productivity. Please do not think that I simply click the edit count button and then cast my !vote. I make it a point to peruse the special contributions. I now see that niche candidates can make exceptional administrators. The process is about community trust, not numbers. I do, however, take special notice when I candidate flat out says "I wish to work at WP:AIV". If they have not done so, that's a warning flag. I hope that answers your question.

For the record, Balloonman's thoughts above have crossed my mind, too. Excellent response! Tan | 39 04:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Wisdom89's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Wisdom89
• Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 2
• Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3
• Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 4

• Links for Wisdom89: Wisdom89 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wisdom89 before commenting.

Discussion

• Erm this isn't transcluded yet, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:03 20th April 2008
• Six supports before the candidate accepted? I'm not too comfortable with that George The Dragon (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Seven--I apparently beat him by a minute--but my support was at least post-transclusion. Darkspots (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• It was last night and i believe it was four :-) TheProf - T / C 19:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• And don't you think if the community endorses him that much that just maybe he is just that well-known and trusted? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• I would like to submit this RfA as Exhibit A of Wikipedians vs. WP:NBD. Apparently, Wisdom89 does not meet the standards of "no big deal". This RfA is prima facie evidence that adminship is, in fact, A Very Big Deal. Tan | 39 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Per my nomination and everyone's desire to make Wikipedia a better place for our readership. Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Nom support - per my nom and like pedro said: Net positive. Tiptoety ^talk 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - You should be a good admin :) -- Wisconsus ^TALK|^things 16:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Support, and delightfully so. Rudget 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Fantastic editor, knows what he's doing! I have no doubts he will make one of the best admins on wikipedia today. TheProf - T / C 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Of course « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral

6. I think Wisdom89 will be a great administrator. I've seen plenty of solid contributions since the January RfA. Darkspots (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Rush fan eh? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Damnit, I was going to vote pre-tranclusion but for the rather catching notice in the discussion section. A+++++++++++++ eBayer. EJF (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. WODUP 19:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong Support More than ready to be an admin. In fact, I thought he was an admin. --Sharkface^T/_C 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong Support - No complaints about this user. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Herculean Support - I'm a little bit of a nitpicker myself, so it is not that often that an admin candidate comes along that I can't dig up a single thing that I find troubling about them... but here it is. Give'em the mop. Trusilver 20:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Strong support I thought I recalled a good experience with this user so I checked by archives but to no avail. It must just have been a good impression (unless you helped me some other place than my talk page). Anyway I see this user around loads...very hardworking...and per 602 Usernames for administrator attention 247 Administrator intervention against vandalism 224 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 197 Help desk. This user will go far! Best of luck!--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Spartan (one step up from Herculean) support - Per disagreeing with the ridiculous oppose + only having good encounters with this user. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 20:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
15. Strong Support I have known Wisdom for a while, and I have seen his tireless contributions. I actually thought Wisdom was already an admin for some reason, probably because of how well he has done here. I think that Wisdom will be a great user to give the tools to. Support!--RyRy5 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Support A competent user, often seen around the admin-related sites, and very competent therein. Will do well with the tools. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Strong Support you weren't an admin already?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Support No reason not to support. Soxred93 | talk bot 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
19. Support as Omar would say, oh, indeed. Definite net positive. VanTucky 21:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
20. Support per KojiDude. Wisdom acts with calm sureness, I trust that he won't misuse the tools. FusionMix 21:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Strong support. I had a really long rationale for this, but I beleated it. Oh well. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
22. Strong support Wisdom is a terrific example of an editor who I don't agree with 100% (granted, it's like 95%), but for whom I still have great respect. An excellent editor, thoughtful contributions, policy driven. These are the kind of hands in which we need to place the tools. Tan | 39 21:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
23. Support yep, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
24. Strong Support Has overcame the issues raised in earlier and also taken Admin coaching from Pedro which shows both his commitment and desire and willingness to react positively to the points raised in earlier RFA.Great track and commitment.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
25. Strong Support I have known Wisdom89 for a very long time on Wikipedia. Of any editor I have crossed paths with he is certainly one who understands what Wikipedia is all about. A dedicated editor and a candidate long overdue for the mop. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
26. Support have seen his work about the 'pedia, and it's impressive. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
27. Theban (they defeated Sparta) Support I have always had the utmost respect for Wisdom89 and I was very surprised to find he was not an admin already when I first encountered him. I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting him. the only reason it took me so long to !vote was because I wanted to make sure it wouldn't be a COI because of this. Thingg^⊕⊗ 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
28. Support A dedicated, thoughtful editor who gets involved and, in my view, always provides insightful comments. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
29. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
30. Alexander-an Support (at risk of being called out for being called out for frivolity) I can't believe Wisdom wasn't already an admin. Excellent candidate. IMHO, this is merely turning a de facto into a de jure and giving him the technical ability to delete pages, block users, and the like. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
31. Support why not Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 23:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
32. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
33. Strong support. I can think of perhaps only one non-admin (at least of those who I think will seek it) who is more qualified for the position than Wisdom89. I am sure once he has the tools, he will have a very strong positive effect on the project. Best of luck, and thank you for finally throwing your nomination in here. :P SorryGuy  Talk  23:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    Per DarkFalls' diffs, I am far less strong in my support. I am still supporting because I think the net positive remains, but please try to be more careful in the future. I can't say I feel the RfA standards opposes sway me at all, though. SorryGuy  Talk  17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

34. Support Good improvement since last RfA. Epbr123 (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
35. Support I'm more than positive Wisdom is ready for the tools. He understand all the policies well, and has done a good amount of both article and vandalism work since his time here. He has a massive 602 reports to WP:UAA so I know he will definitely be an active member there. He also has 247 reports to WP:AIV which both show experience in two key admin areas. In the articlespace, Wisdom has helped make Rush (band) a featured article, and Neil Peart a good article. He has been contributing since 2006, which is enough experience, and has maintained perfect edit summary usage since November 2007. I'm sure he will make a great administrator. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Finally!!! MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
37. Support very helpful user. Spencer^T♦C 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Jmlk17 00:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
39. Support WTF are you doing not being an admin? Stop that right now! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
40. Per duh! although I very strongly suggest he take JayHenry's advice on board (as in, some of his RfA comments have been sucky, IMO). But otherwise, he's awesome. (Neil Peart made FA? Why didn't you tell me!) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Maaan, stuff of that stuff down there is really concerning. Might come back to this. Might not. I'm still supporting, for now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

41. Support Third time lucky, you deserve this i have seen you all over the place and you will make a great admin. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
42. Support with pleasure. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Your not an admin already? I thought you were. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. A no-brainer to me. Wisdom89 should be an admin. He knows his stuff, is experienced, communicates, works hard, what more could I ask for? This will reach WP:100 for sure. Useight (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
45. Support - There are a couple of habits that I wish Wisdom89 would reconsider--an apparent over-reliance on edit counts at RfA and a tendency to report borderline usernames to WP:UAA before the users have even edited are the two most obvious items--but for every time I've been less-than-happy with his edits there are ten times when I've thanked my lucky stars that he's around. He's smart, capable, and the very definition of a net positive to the project. He'll do great. --jonny-mt 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
46. Support - as per previous. Agree with JayHenry's points but feel will ultimately be a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
47. support first supporters signature reassures me--Pewwer42  Talk  04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
48. Support - per all the reasons in oppose section. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
49. WEAK Support Seen significant improvements in his awareness of other aspects of the project since prior RfA. Fully Support now. A recent revert by Wisdom89, during this process, was not followed up with an explanation to a new user. As such, I can't fully support anymore, because he should know about such things by now. (Edit was AGF style, not vandalism, and explanation would've been appropriate. I provided one.) ThuranX (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
50. I don't see much reason to oppose. This contributor is reasonable and civil, which is what we need in administrators. Valtoras (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. Sure. Malinaccier Public (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
53. Support - The admin coaching shows skills and the editor seems trustworthy. Also I wasn't convinced by any oppose argument thus given. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
54. About damned time support. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
55. Dlohcierekim 13:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
56. Support Absolutely. User has demonstrated commitment to the project and, equally important, a willingness to learn from mistakes and ask assistance when required (as coaching page shows). I hope user continues his excellent contributions. Also, I would note that I tend to disagree with user in RfAs, but I am sure he will make a great admin regardless. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
57. Support SexySeaShark 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
58. Strong Support - What more can I say? D.M.N. (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
59. Support - I see continuous improvement from a good editor. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
60. Yup. Good editor, obvious dedication to the project. Excellent nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
62. Support. I cannot recall any significant negative interactions with the candidate. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
63. Weak support - nice guy, but his answer to Q1 is the sort of vague nonsense that candidates spiel if they spend too much time in admin coaching. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
64. Support: Solid vandal fighter. Support without hesitation. Toddst1 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
65. Support - appears trustworthy. The concern below over the supports before the transclusion is utterly ridiculous and has no bearing upon his actions as an administrator. I also don't believe that his RfA votes, although I may disagree with some of them, have any bearing on his ability to conduct administrator tasks. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
66. Support per appropriate use of speedy deletion tags. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose anyone who present the community with such a fait accompli. Seven supports before the community has chance to comment? That's not fair George The Dragon (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Huh? TheProf - T / C 19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   And per biting newbies George The Dragon (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Username concerns/templates are specifically designed to not bite the newbies. And considering the username, I feel that my concern was justified. It was likely a profane spoonerism. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   I was unable to reach a computer last night to accept the nomination - Wasn't even aware it was there until just a few minutes ago. However, I fail to see why hasty or enthusiastic support from other editor's should weigh against myself...Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   The RFA was transcluded at 20.19, at which point there were already seven support !votes. The community then see the RFA for the first time and it has seven !votes, all for support and I'm not comfortable with that. There have been concerns raised about similar behaviour in the past George The Dragon (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Four of the supports were here prior to transclusion. TheProf07's was added 22 seconds after it was transcluded. The other two (of the 7 that were there at George The Dragon's posting) were also added after transclusion. Metros (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   I'm !vote number 5, and this RfA was already transcluded when i cast it! (This comment is late because of edit conflict) TheProf - T / C 19:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   (ec) I, too, think that this has more to deal with those who commented early and less to do with Wisdom. How should he have responded when he found that this request already had comments? WODUP 19:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   There was a total of four votes on transclusion. 3 were nominator votes, which is perfectly acceptable. There was just one which might not be acceptable. This oppose is, however, completely unfair, nothing to do with the candidate or admin duties, and should thus be disqualified. Majorly (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Oh and that link wasn't biting a newbie. Majorly (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   I'm going to have to agree with Majorly here. The votes (minus one) were acceptable, and the example of "biting newbies" is anything but. In fact, that example is the complete opposite of biting newbies. --Sharkface^T/_C 20:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   I'm going to also agree with Majorly. If that was a case of biting a newbie, that was about the most toothless bite I've ever seen. That and the idea of opposing someone because they were supported before the RfA was transcluded is downright nonsensical. Trusilver 20:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   I say we cease this convo, I have trust in our bureaucrats that they will disregard this vote. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Whilst not wishing to bang on about this, I'd respectfully ask George to view this diff. [1]. I asked that people hold off prior to transclusion. If they did or didn't, I hardly see how it effects Wisdom's capability to be an administrator. However as nominator I have gone to the best lengths I can to not present the community with a done deal, something I feel strongly about.Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   That's fair, but as we are being asked, to an extent, whether we trust the user's judgement, I can't help but feel the right judgement would have been to remove the pre-transcluded !vote. George The Dragon (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   But Wisdom89 has no right to remove users comments. And even if he did, do you really think this has any relevance on whether Wisdom89 is going to be a good admin or not? Even if you think it was his mistake, don't you think people deserve at least the benefit of the doubt? I mean this "mistake" has nothing to do with adminship, whatsoever. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Another thing to point out would be that, in the event of this RfA's success, Wisdom will never be placed in that situation again. It's irrelevant.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, but it can hurt people's sensibility, the way a request for adminship is presented and the behavior of the co nominators matter. Ironically, it could have been worse, at a time, it were going to be six co-nominations (with Rudget's) and five supports, the nominators made their best to solve the issue I think. Cenarium^Talk 16:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Hmm.. it wasn't meant to be six co-noms (that'd be outrageous!!) as discussed here. It was only meant to be Pedro, Tiptoety and myself. Of course, the others would support and hopefully I didn't offend them too much. Rudget 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   (outdent} Well, I can't resist, and I trust Wisdom will understand that even in the midst of this stressful time for him we can have a bit of levity.... Six nominations - outrageous! :) Pedro :  Chat  20:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Moral Oppose User may now be "cabal approved", but does not come across as an article builder (a few decent contributions though), rather clear career mandarin more interested in obtaining a mop than building free knowledge. We need no more of these. Sorry to those who don't like my reasoning, but this is an encyclopedia and its admin group needs better balance in the opposite direction from where this promotion will take us. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Hey Deacon, I appreciate you taking the time to offer your view on things. Just in my defense, if I were simply interested in the status of obtaining the mop, do you really think I'd be at the help and reference desks? Also, I would like to just gently point you in the direction of, well the obvious Rush and Neil Peart articles. But, also see Conservapedia, Burn, Phospholipase C, Knock-in, Dream Theater, Snakes & Arrows, Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson to name a few. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry man, you've clearly been gunning for this. Adminship is no big deal, the only problem with adminship are people who think it is a big deal. I appreciate you've got a few decent contributions (as I acknowledged), but a handful of link-stacked band articles don't make up for the stats on this talk page [in my narrow wee mind]. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. This is a candidacy constructed entirely out of "admin coaching". He's had people teaching him how to do and say the right things to get promoted since his last RfA, and several of those mentors piled on to support this RfA before it was even transcluded. Despite all this coaching -- and ironically, given his username -- he still doesn't actually show the wisdom necessary to be an admin. He doesn't think through his actions very carefully. I've seen him in particular at UAA, where he is far too quick to recommend blocks based on incomplete understanding. All it takes is another incautious admin, and then we've got an inappropriate block being placed. If this RfA passes, he will be that incautious admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Could you provide some examples/difs substantiating his rash behavior at UAA?Balloonman (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Well, there's this exchange we had on his talk page. He and Tiptoety (who happens to be one of his nominators!) got the newbie User:Hacker.gul indefinitely hardblocked. I explained to both of them that "hacker" does not always mean "I AM GOING TO DISRUPT THIS SITE", and that it has a positive connotation referring to programming or engineering skill among geeks. Neither of them really grasped the fact that this was about as far from a situation that required hardblocking as you could get. Wisdom didn't stop to read the dictionary link I provided, or even (apparently) the entirety of my message; he thought I was talking about Greeks.

   I don't know, you could possibly put that one down to lack of sleep or something, but it wasn't the first time I had encountered him misusing UAA. The first time I removed two of his reports and notified him about it, he replied, "I do not require a lecture on how to use WP:UAA since I have over 200 contributions.". A stunning defense of unnecessary blocking, that was. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Deacon and rspeer sum it up pretty nicely. I've seen this RfA coming for a long time (which is a bad thing). John Reaves 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Per rspeer. east.718 at 03:14, April 21, 2008
6. Per the above, especially the comments by Rspeer. Admins are picked for their judgment and their ability to make good decisions on their own. I see you've worked well with Pedro, and that's great, but I need to see that you can make the right choices without being told what to do and how to do it. You seem to be a great editor, and I see much improvement from your last RfA, but I would have liked to see a bit more time between the coaching and this RfA to see how you really do. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Please see User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching#UAA, I think this shows a willingness to learn and improve from mistakes which we all have made, especially when it comes to the username policy. Tiptoety ^talk 04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   If he's learning so much from mistakes, why does he keep making the same ones? Clearly on a page about "admin coaching" you have to say you're learning from mistakes, but I'd need to see something to back it up. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Hi Rspeer, I was going to remain silent on this topic, but I kindly request that you take a look at my recent reports, bar the hacker user, and point out where I'm making these repeated errors. I view the RfA as a learning process as well. Any kind of feedback is helpful. Cheers.Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Well, you're still reporting names for "unnecessary use of profanity" when they wouldn't actually offend anyone who's mature enough to use Wikipedia. User:Maxbitch is pretty recent, and actually got blocked due to your very borderline report. (The admin who blocked her, of course, shares the blame.) Shouldn't you have learned from Superduperjackass that not everyone who self-identifies with mild profanity needs to be thrown out the door before they edit? That's the one that Tiptoety referred to on admin coaching, so if that's not what you learned, what did you learn instead? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for responding. Well, yes, I believe I have made a conscious effort in this area actually: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose Poor understanding of adminship, Rspeer's evidence of lack of common sense regarding username blocks and the subsequent defence (which I hope no one ever uses), my personal dislike for "coached" factory-made admins. - TwoOars 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose based on answers to questions, concerns about the editor's excessive desire for a mop (per nom, per so many RfA's in row as well as responses to oppose and neutral votes) and lack of significant interest in creating content. I will elaborate for those who attack the latter reason. I am well aware that some think that content-writing does not matter much to understand Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, such opinion is common in the non-writing but rather chatting and socializing quarters. Arguments are well known. Moreover, a small minority of non-writing admins are actually good ones. However, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater interest in being in a position to tell others what to do, "run" wikipedia and chat-a-lot. The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. Answers to questions suggest that the candidate plans to get involved in critical decisions that would affect content and content editors. The "wikipedia-runners" patrolling 3RR, ANI, etc. prescribing blocks and making rulings (often above our policies) make a strong net-negative impact on the Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia first of all rather than an internet site for other activities. A candidate indicated an interest to involve himself into such decisions and his consulting IRC when doing this would only make the matters worse as shown from experience. He already shows signs of being coached (perhaps at IRC as well.) I feel the user is a "nice guy" and I wish him luck in content writing but I cannot support his candidacy. --Irpen 04:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I see too many incorrect speedy deletion tags. For example: this was tagged as A1. I cannot understand how "Calling code +1-868 is the calling code of Trinidad and tobago" fails to identify the subject of the article. Isn't it a calling code for Trinidad and Tobago? Tagging this page was also questionable. The web page has reliable sources and is mentioned in multiple books. Surely that's an assertion of notability? This is also bad judgement. The article is definitely not complete nonsense (mashing the keyboard repeatedly for example.) and cannot qualify as completely nonsensical. See Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. The tagging here is also troubling. Does a professional football player playing for three of Hungary's top football clubs show no assertion of notability whatsoever? Also the speedy deletion tagging here as A1 (no context) is questionable. On the article, it clearly states "Coastal Forces base ... This base existed 194* to 1945 as a repair and base for Coastal Forces boats." Doesn't bother checking the history before asking for deletion of a clearly notable group,Anonymous (Project Chanology). The sources for this page, as with EqWorld, also demonstrates an assertion of notability; and the tagging was wrong. This tagging was plain ridiculous. An actress appearing in four extremely popular (as well as notable) films/tv series is clearly an assertion. May I remind everyone that the diffs listed above only extend to March 17 2008, a month ago. —Dark ^talk 05:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Just to let you know, Wisdom fixed his mistake in a matter of seconds on Anonymous (group). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Think of it if he had the tools. Unfortunately deletion of the topic can cause much more harm and can strain the servers; given the amount of revisions it has. —Dark ^talk 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Isn't it more important that he knew the pages met the speedy delete criteria than it is that he knew which template to use? And, if he becomes an admin, he won't need to use those templates anymore.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

10. Strong Oppose Everytime I saw Wisdom89 opposing someone at RfA, it's always about "lack of experience in X-area". He's a big fan of edit count and his actions speaks for itself even though he claims that he's not a fan of edit count[9], how ironic. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    What does that have to do with use of the tools? Tiptoety ^talk 05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Well if we base everything on edit count, wouldn't it create some elitism? Unwillingness to block someone with 100,000 edits while blocking someone with 10,000 is not exactly ideal... —Dark ^talk 06:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Tiptoety, it means that Wisdom89 has double standards. And that makes me not trusting this user to gain extra tools. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    I am not sure what "double standard" you are referring to. I think Wisdom by far exceeds his requirements for admin hopefuls. Tiptoety ^talk 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose Gotta say no here, per DarkFalls and definitely per JayHenry. I've seen Wisdom oppose some pretty damn good RfA candidates. DF's diffs were worrying as well, and the points he made were valid. GlassCobra 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Only partly directed at you GC, it just happents to be the next place to type! I appreciate there are other concerns, but to structure opposes based on the candidates RFA opposes seems a little odd. This isn't an RFB. I'm not sure I understand the extension of poor RFA oppose = poor judgement with tools. Poor AFD commentary I would agree, but RFA is much more subjective. Just my thoughts, really. Pedro :  Chat  07:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    My opposition isn't based on that, but I believe their reasoning is that it shows double standards (not a desirable trait in an admin). -- Naerii 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

12. No, I think not. Giano (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Giano. _{...and per rspeer (edit count elitism?) and DarkFalls.} Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Irpen and TwoOars. X Marx The Spot (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose, per rspeer's diffs on UAA. The fact Wisdom89 has been coached extensively yet still exhibits poor judgement is disconcerting; I don't think he'd make a good admin at this time. Neıl ☎ 09:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Per rspeer and DarkFalls, amongst others. Usually these things wouldn't be such an issue for me, but after three RfAs and extensive coaching it's harder to ignore. The UAA reports in particular are concerning - that place is a hive of newbie biting on a good day, I'd rather not add another excessively bureaucratic admin to its ranks. -- Naerii 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Per DarkFalls. I don't think I can trust him to delete stuff wisely. Majorly (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Need to avoid scaring off new contributors with inappropriate speedy deletions. The criteria were created to avoid it as much as possible, so the natural assumption is that deleting outside the criteria without a very good reason will lead to the loss of potential contributors. Per DarkFalls' evidence. Daniel (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose per OhanaUnited - Wisdom89's double standard-isms are unforgivable in the short-term. --62.113.158.186 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    IPs are !not allowed to !vote. Majorly (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

19. Oppose - I'm not certain if its just rush to judgment, but I see too many recent mistakes when tagging for deletion. I'm not sure if you're tagging for the sake of tagging, but I would advise slowing down. Everyone makes mistakes in this area (I certainly have) when rushing. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Seven supports before the community has been given a chance to comment? I feel that IRC has been thoroughly mobilized to push this guy through, and I don't like it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, I find that unacceptable. If you wish to oppose by all means do so, but do not make slights on other editors and get your facts right. There were four supports prior to transclusion, of which three where nominators. As nominator I specfically asked people not to comment before transclusion (check the RFA history). And finally I have never discussed this RFA on IRC (indeed I have never discussed any RFA on IRC - I barely even use the medium). As I say, if you want to oppose do so, but oppose based on facts and evidence not a wild accusation that is both untrue and derogatory to other editors. Pedro :  Chat  13:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Agree, what an unfair oppose. For one thing, it's completely false there were 7 users (there were 4, 3 who were supposed to be there, so that brings us down to one) and another thing is assuming bad faith that it was mentioned on IRC. How ridiculous. Ghirla, get your facts straight before making such ridiculous comments. Majorly (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Marjoly and Pedro, there were seven supports before Wisdom accepted (see here!). So Ghirla is right and you can't blame him for smelling the worst. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    When he accepted it completely irrelevant. The point is when it was transcluded to the main RfA page. At that point, there were 4 supports, not 7. Acceptance is not a requirement, and it was obvious he would accept, as this RfA has been in planning for weeks. Majorly (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    With all due respect, Ghirla is entitled to have his own opinion and voice it with regards to what is and is not a "requirement" or acceptable. His concern is seemingly the premeditation of it all, which you are confirming. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    With all due respect, Ghirla is not entitled to state that this RFA has been subject to some kind of IRC based movement to make it pass. If s/he even bothered to look at my slender contributions over the last few days s/he would see exactly how opposed I am to pre-transclusion voting. I stand by my comment. Ghrila is entitled to oppose, but to do so by implying, nay - stating that there is off-wiki activity and collusion is, bluntly, rude. He should not reconsider his oppose in light of this. But he should either produce evidence of collusion or retract that part of his oppose comment. Pedro :  Chat  16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Pedro, Ghirla's not psychic and he didn't say that, he just voiced his "feel"ing of some kind of pre-orchestration, which frankly is understandable. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    I believe that further input is now without value. However I'm pressed to make this matter clear. Ghrila has mistakenly asserted the number of supports prior to transclusion was seven, per , "community has been given a chance to comment...". So this is factually in error and demonstrably so. Secondly, Ghrila asserts that "I feel that IRC has been thoroughly mobilized...". This may well, as you state, be literal in that it is just a "feeling". Where I to type that I have a "feeling" that editor X is a sockpuppet of editor Y I would be asked to produce evidence or shut up. I'm sorry, and Wisdom's RFA is not the place for this. However I take great exception to the implication that I, Rudget, Tiptoey (by the extension that we nominated) and other editors have colluded in some way. I've dealt straight on Wikipedia, and to see these allegations against myself and other editors is disappointing to say the least. Pedro :  Chat  16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    <outdent>I am deeply disappointed this oppose has cropped up, for two reasons. Unprecedented allegations that we somehow worked together in a conspiracy to 'push this guy through' are completely unacceptable, as is the idea that somehow IRC has been used. The only time I ever use IRC is when I query anothers actions or enquire about certain aspects of something. Saying that we have used this medium abusviely is totally off mark. Rudget 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    When this page was first placed on the RfA list, there were 4 !votes (3 of which were nom supports). All of us who had made the mistake of !voting before transclusion, removed them and apologised. You are simply using this as an excuse. As Pedro said, if you want to oppose thats fine. But please go and find a real reason! As for the conspiracy about us all getting together on IRC to push this RfA through, thats clearly assuming bad faith and quite frankly ridiculous. TheProf - T / C 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

21. Oppose Per Rspeer and Dark.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
22. Stop with the "admin coaching" nonsense already. We need people with a clue, not just people who try to learn how to get promoted. It's what happens after promotion that's important. Many good reasons for opposition are given above (along with a few bad ones.) Too bureaucratic, not enough judgement. Those trying to teach people how to pass RFA, rather than teaching people what the project is about, should seriously reconsider whether their actions are helpful or harmful to the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Hear, hear! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

23. Oppose per Rspeer. Seems to be a decent editor and I thought he is already a sysop due to his vigorous participation in Wikipedia areas but the diffs offered by Rspeer concern me about his ability to be an admin. --Appletrees (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose Per poor judgment in the deletion area, as shown by DarkFalls, per Rspeer also. I have the concerns of Friday and others too, though I don't oppose for that, I never trusted admin coaching and I think that it spoils the process. Cenarium^Talk 14:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose — Three RFAs in six months? Absolutely not. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose - sorry, but I'm not sure of Wisdom's... wisdom... yet. I share rspeer's concerns about some UAA comments and misunderstandings. - Philippe 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose - Really do not agree with his admin standards, but that's not enough for me to oppose. The recent wrong csd taggings are. Garion96 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose per DarkFalls, and even without that, "I do not require a lecture on how to use WP:UAA since I have over 200 contributions", when you've just been called on an incorrect report, was enough on its own. Black Kite 17:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose. This user's previous oppose votes on RfAs lead me to believe that this user does not understand adminship. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    But this is an RfA, not a RfB. What does his opinions in !voting on a RfA have to do with use of the tools? Tiptoety ^talk 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    I feel that a candidate who views the tools as too dear may not act properly with them. An administrator who forgets that the tools are no big deal is a big problem. Before everyone rebukes me, I am well aware that adminship is no longer widely perceived to be "no big deal," however, the tools themselves are. Having the delete and protect tabs at the top of every page does not convey any special privilege, and I am wary to grant them to any user who has been capricious in opposing RfAs with extremely high standards. As an administrator, and therefore speaking from experience, this user's voting patterns on RfAs lead me to believe that he or she views the tools in such a way that I am uncomfortable giving them to the candidate. Specifically, in this case, I worry that Wisdom, by opposing editors for having "the wrong mix" of edits and "not enough project space" edits, will become an admin who injects him or herself into controversial areas without appropriate foresight; one who is involved in drama rather than actual administrative tasks. This, combined with the extensive admin coaching, and to borrow phrasing used before me, the presentation of this RfA as a fait accompli, gives me an overall negative impression. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

30. Oppose Misread my posting in WP:AN recently and had the attitiude of wanting to antagonise rather then be constructive. SunCreator (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Errmmm.. "misread" implies you feel he made a mistake? Have we not all made mistakes? How is misreading a post at AN show possible abuse of the tools? Tiptoety ^talk 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    That's the second question in a row you've asked in a way which makes it look like you didn't read the thing you're responding to. That Wisdom "had the attitude of wanting to antagonise" is the (very obvious) problem here, not the making a mistake. Friday (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    I can't recall wishing to antagonize anybody at WP:AN since I've never made any comments there to my knowledge (unless you mean ANI), may I have a diff for this please? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

31. Per Friday and the answer to six looks scripted. miranda 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Scripted?? Please assume good faith. It was written extemporaneously. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

32. Oppose Unfortunately, too many RFAs too soon per Kurt. Adminship is no big deal, and that extends for not having it as much as having it. We don't need the bit to write articles, do research, and lend a useful opinion. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose - Per Kurt. User:Krator (t c) 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
34. Per Giano. Sorry, nothing personal. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
35. Mainly per Friday and Giano. I've noticed Wisdom mainly through his participation here at RfA, and I'm not comfortable with what I see. Nick (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose rspeer, Irpen and Friday have already said it best. ~ Eóin (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose per Rspeer, Irpen, Darkfalls, etc. mathwhiz29 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
38. Oppose The contributions adduced by Rspeer and Darkfalls, et al., prevent me from concluding with anything near the appropriate degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I have concerns about this user's judgment. My primary encounter with Wisdom is through his relentless WP:EDITCOUNT opposes on RFA. Not-enough-X-space-edits, indifferent-toward-the-tools type rationales. Lack of experience is a valid concern, but if an overwhelming body of evidence has been presented that though low in number the edits are extremely high-quality, it is the dreaded prima facie-reasoning to continue the opposition. His participation at RFA seems very rarely based off thorough analysis or familiarity with candidates. Is his participation elsewhere based off more? My comment could probably be considered superficial as well--I would contend much less so than guesswork based off Interiot's tool--but you'll also note that I'm neutral. --JayHenry (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Hey Jay, thanks for the comment. I just wanted to highlight that only in extreme circumstances will I oppose based on a lack of namespace contributions. And it is never solely based on edit count. For instance, if the candidate wishes to work in "insert random admin-related userspace here" and then has a half dozen edits to those areas, if any at all, then I will oppose. I direct you to the following as examples: here I oppose on lack of experience coupled with questionable answers, here I changed my neutral stance to Support based on trust and the user's answers, here I opposed based on lack of experience coupled with a distorted idea of adminship which left a bitter taste in my mouth and here I changed from a Support based on diffs. I hope this helps illustrate my point. Cheers matey. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   How on earth is 10 months experience, 30,000 edits, a good article and a featured list "lack of experience"? Majorly (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral Switch to neutral per rspeer's links. I still can't put myself in the oppose category though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 03:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Was going to support, but the diffs presented by DarkFalls concern me. the wub "?!" 09:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
4. rspeer and darkfall provide worrisome diffs, so I'm leaning towards oppose. But the edit summaries show a nuanced understanding of vandalism and unconstructive but good faith edits. Attempting to talk to a user called fickducker, rather than just reporting to UAA, is a good sign too. Dan Beale-Cocks 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral likely to switch to support I like you answer to my question and I've liked your contributions here. But I do have some concerns about some of the issues raised by the opposes. I need to take a closer look at your other contributions before supporting. (I can't see myself opposing, but don't know if I can support yet.)Balloonman (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)