Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wizardry Dragon


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

No, no, NO. Everyone with a legitimate complaint should be treated with respect, and the harassment of oppose voters just bothers me too much for this to go on. I told myself that I'd sleep on it and see if it got better, and I only woke up to find a long post! *sigh* I appreciate all the comments here, the nomination, the support, and especially the oppose votes as they highlight where I need improvement, but I cannot let this go on. People should not feel harassed over their opinions. It's not the wiki way. So, in short, I am withdrawing my acceptance of this nomination. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Can someone replace the archive top and archive bottom with the right templates? I don't know what they are, never having closed any RFAs before :) Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon
Final (21/24/5); ended 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

– I saw this user around AFD and other official channels. I think Peter would be a strong admin. He has a good sense of the rules, an active RC patrollor, and a good mediator. His solutions to common Wikipedia problems are very innovative and effective. The most notable example would be the problem with bias and POV in articles - he is the head of Neutrality_Project. Wikipedia could definitely benefit from admins like him, and I centanly don't think he is going to abuse the tools - he has good judgment on weather or not any rules have been broken and how severe the violation is. -- Selmo  (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom - In all my dealings with Wizardry Dragon, he has been nothing but professional responses. He is also a great WP:RFCU clerk. Wizardry Dragon also understands some of the issues that are facing wikipedia, such as spam, vandalism, policy ect. He has made valuable contributions to most every process on Wikipedia. I have seen him to put more thought and effort into what he says and does then just !support, !oppose, ect. Some articles that he has worked on include Ultima, BattleTech technology, Exult, and Delta Goodrem. This guy has all the makings of an admin. He seems to be well balanced, has worked in many areas of Wikipedia, and seems to have a handle on the job.

Also he is a very avid coder, working on such projects as DragonBot, which is an open source bot framework for .NET C++. The source for this (incomplete) framework can be found at sourceforge. In addition he has his own toolserver account, which can be found here. Wiz has some interesting tools in development. Currently he has one close to a working level, this is a lookup tool for IP's (which can be found here). He has managed to make a nice framework so that it can be used in javascript tools. Right now there is one tool by Georgemoney, it can be found at User:GeorgeMoney/UserScripts/LoadIpInfo. Before you can use the script you must have this pasted before it in your monobook.js. The script allows inline whois checking of an IP.

What I see here is a toolmaker, one who has taken the time to get to know all of Wikipedia. I can see Wiz, using the admin tools from everything to blocking spammers, to developing new tools for admins to use. Personally the one question we must all ask, is this user trustworthy? In my view there is 0% chance of admin abuse. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom- I'll start with the most important thing in my view, the matter of trust. I'm confident that Wizardry Dragon would, if promoted, not abuse the tools, and I intend to demonstrate with some diffs, a level of policy knowledge which precludes any misuse of the tools through inexperience. I'll also demonstrate why Wikipedia would be a better place in Wizardry Dragon was trusted with the tools and the uses this user would have for the tools. Before I begin, it's worth noticing that Wizardry Dragon is also at present a moderator for the VandalProof software and is a Checkuser clerk, already showing how he can handle responsibility.

Mainspace  Wikipedia

The diffs are typical of the excellent work Wizardry Dragon is performing across Wikipedia, and I know that Wikipedia will be that little bit better for everyone if we can give Wizardry Dragon the tools, tools he can go and use to make Wikipedia that little bit faster, more pleasent and more encyclopedic for both the contributors and ultimately, for the end user. Adminship is no big deal, but giving the tools wisely to editors can reap big benefits. That's what we've got here, the chance to reap big benefits for Wikipedia. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
 * Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
 * Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
 * What's in a name? that which we call a rose
 * By any other name would smell as sweet
 * So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

William Shakespeare Romeo & Juliette Act 2, Scene 2 What is an admin? Wizardry Dragon has been handling "admin" actions as a CU clerk and as part of the WP:WNP. let the admin get +sysop and become an admin as I have asked for his help many times in dispute resolution, and other issues. This user clearly shows that there is zero chance that he will abuse them so I give my full support of him. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I have always said I would let the community decide if it wants me to be a sysop, and so, with this nomination, I think it's time to let such a decision happen.  So the question you should ask yourself is Do I trust Wizardry Dragon with page protects, deletions, and blocks?.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 02:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: There are several places and capacities in Wikipedia where sysops are needed currently, however, there are a few which my experience would already lend itself to. First of all, as a RFCU clerk, I often deal with tagging sockpuppet accounts.  Were I a sysop, I could also block these users, which would take some of the load off Luna Santin, who is the only active sysop there.  (There are other clerk sysops, such as Thatcher, but they work primarily on the Arbitration Committee pages as ArbCom Clerks).  Secondly, there has been an increasing amount of subversive vandalism, such as the (in)famous template vandals.  I would happily lend a hand there, as I know that this has been a problem, and the cascading protection Werdna recently added to the software is not fool-proof - there will always be someone that finds a way around of it, and there'll always be vandals.  Such is the nature of open editing..  In either event, these are just examples.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I have a wide range of contributions - from articles, to wikiprojects, to policy discussions, to RFCU clerking - but I think the single set of contributions I am most pleased with is the Wikipedia Neutrality Project. It surprised me, upon signing up to Wikipedia, that such a project on Wikipedia did not exist, so, being bold, I created it.  It took a while to get of the ground, and has changed from my original vision a bit, however, I'm very pleased with how positive the contributions that project has made to Wikipeida, as a whole.


 * 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: In an environment with many diverse editors and views, conflict is an inevitability. I feel that everyone that has a complaint that states it with respect, should be treated with respect.  While I have been in some fairly heated exchanges, I have tried to treat everyone that has a complaint with my conduct or edits with the upmost respect.  Everyone here is a respected contributor, and so I extend that respect fully and without hesitation.  Sometimes when exchanges are particularly heated, I say things in ways that are not the best, but I try to always apologise and make things right.  We are all here to help improve the encyclopedia.  While we may sometimes disagree, it's a necessary part of establishing consensus.  We must just remember, we are all here for the same goal, and we must try to remember and enjoy the beauty of us all working together for a common goal.


 * General comments


 * See Wizardry Dragon's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * I would ask all involved in this discussion to be respectful to everyone voting here, support, oppose or neutral. Especially the oppose and neutral votes.  Everyone with a complaint that presents it respectfully should be treated with upmost respect.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 04:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
 * An awful lot of Peter's main space edits are AWB-assisted cleanup of one sort of another, and a lot of his project space edits are as a checkuser clerk. Both very important tasks.  But (and this will be an unfair "but" in some respects) I get the feeling that Peter would like to be an admin in order to be an admin, rather than being an encyclopedia person who reluctantly shoulders an additional burden.  This is an unfair "but" because I can't point to specific diffs, it's just a hunch.  I am certain he would not be a deliberately bad admin, but I wonder if he may be too eager--although I can't describe clearly why this would be bad, except for a gut feeling.  Sorry. Thatcher131 05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I was very strongly leaning towards opposing this nomination at first, for a few reasons. First of all, I don't really *need* the tools for what it is I do - though they definetley would be of assistance.  Secondly, I am every leery of some of the ongoing large disputes that have burnt out many administrators and don't want to be a party to those.  However, on further reflection, I thought back to all the times someone said to me "you're not an admin?" or "you should be an admin" - my response was always "if the community wants me to be an admin, they will make me one.  So, I thought it would be best to let them reply.  It is not the end of the world if the RFA doesn't pass, and I'll keep on chugging one way or another.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to post this in response to Erikster, until I realised he is one of the few (but vocal) proponents of using blog.myspace as a reference. I am one of about 6 people on Wikipedia that actually sees almost every external link added to the project, and the person who compiles the statistics (all available at the bottom of my userpage), I can assure Erikster and Amarkov below that blog.myspace has no place on Wikipedia and Jimbo's decision is quite correct. It's a resource that cannot be cross referenced, it's often hard to know if it's official or impersonation (Brian May from Queen (band) has three impersonators on MySpace and there's more than one Richard Wright (Pink Floyd) on MySpace at the moment too here and here and, whilst in no way a generalisation, the arguments of those supporting blog.myspace are exceptionally weak, we all know if a hardly notable indie band said they sold 30 billion zillion records, they would be laughed at, derided or plain ignored, but if they say so on their blog, it's regarded as being true by those who use blog.myspace as a quick and easy way to reference the un-referenceable. If it's on blog.myspace it can be included in their article on Wikipedia. At the moment, reliable news sources (Reuters, AP, BBC, CNN, London Times etc) make up just 23% of external links being added to Wikipedia, not good for the project, I'm sure you'll agree. I know and most of my fellow Wikipedians know how absurd this sort of situation is and it's excellent to see someone like Peter taking a brave step and actually doing something that's made out to be controversial (though isn't really, a vocal minority don't create controversy, just a lot of noise) rather than plodding merrily along making pointless, wasteful, and downright nuisance WP:ILIKEIT !votes to XfDs, going through Admin Coaching and being hell-bent on becoming an administrator. What your opposing on here today, fellow Wikipedians, is nothing more than the flimsiest of excuses (Peter having already having been exonerated by Jimbo) and it's all the more shocking that it's as a result of a fantastic and brave drive to improve the quality of this project. It takes more than writers to create Encyclopedia Britannica, and the same is true of Wikipedia. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 11:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support - per nom. GeorgeMoney (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Nom Support --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 02:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Nom Support —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Nom support Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Will make a fine admin.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - dedicated, helpful user; will make good use of the tools. He knows how they work and will use them wisely and efficently. — E ditor at  L arge  ( speak )  02:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --Elaragirl 02:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC) (interrupted my AWB run for this vote!)
 * 8) Support as nom -- Selmo  (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Per nom. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 02:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per nominations and votes already cast. &mdash; The still-Esperanzan   $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - good editor. Yuser31415 03:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) support; already doing admin-like tasks. article-writer != admin for me. ~ Crazytales (talk)  03:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't care about article contributions, and everything else looks fine. -Amarkov blahedits 03:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (changed to oppose)
 * 1) Support-  Jorcoga Yell!  03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support he will be a good admin :) FrancoGG ( talk ) 03:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Definitely deserves tools, as her understands policy. Per nomination, and the many co-noms following. Alex43223Talk 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gzkn 03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Worthy of the tools, and would make very good use of them IMO. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Wizardry Dragon has been a great asset to the project, and deserves the tools. To rebute what is said in oppose. His contributions on the toolserver, and in other ways have been fairly useful. You should not have to contribute thousands of articles to the mainspace to qualify for sysop access, when we clearly need sysops. Expecially those with a desire to handle more backend work, and have the experience to put the tools to use. I hope those below can rethink what they believe hurts this editor's RfA and put another light onto things. Somitho 04:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Carpet9 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) I've seen the Dragon make level-headed and constructive responses in dispute resolution, and believe him to be trustworthy.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong support I don't understand why Peter wants this, but if he wants it, I trust him more than any other to wield a mop with a strong sense of justice. I also think it's unfair to look at his mainspace edits as an indication of his willingness to serve this Encyclopedia and his passion for it. I do feel that mainspace edits give one a greater sense of the conflicts that can arise, and prevents a person from burnout, but I sincerely doubt that Peter will ever burn out. Peter would use admin tools better and more efficiently than anyone I can think of. Consider the whole person when you "vote". NinaOdell | Talk 16:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I strongly believe that an admin should have a solid experience with working in the mainspace especially in some article writing. WD has 685 mainspace edits almost all of them been AWB, reverts or tagging. Sorry about it. Alex Bakharev 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what to you consitutes "solid experience"? I have been active on few articles overall, I will freely admit, however, I have made some very extensive edits to some articles, including BattleTech technology.  I would be more active in article writing myself if it didn't seem that many of the articles I'm interested in did not draw disputes.  I can handle disputes well, in my opinion, however, one who willingly goes into a dispute, is, in my opinion, disruptive.  Lately, I have found a new flame in article writing with expanding on stub articles, which I feel is very productive.  See my copy editing to Gap loss or minor edits to Guy Marchant as examples.  Really I think its not the NUMBER of edits that should be the sole determinant, but the quality thereof.  Of course, more edits is more assurance that it wasn't a fluke, but I feel I've made enough content edits to judge.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would formulate it as being the major editor behind a Feature Article or being the major editor behind a few WP:DYK/GA/A or B class articles or making vandalism revertions/style/spelling/grammar/MOS fixes measured in thousands. I have put as my criterium 3K mainspace edits but this is just a rule of thumb. Obviously good edits significanly expanding articles require lesser numbers and semi-automatical edits require higher numbers. Alex Bakharev 03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is making significant expansions to mainspace articles a key requirement for adminship nowadays? I think it needs to be appreciated that some editors are not significant article expanders, but improve and maintain articles and other aspects of Wikipedia instead. It's obvious now that Wikipedia consists of more than just mainspace articles that need regular attention. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no official requirements for admins, but this is certainly a part of my own requirements. Actually Wiki is an encyclopedia (that is mainspace), anything else exists there only if it helps to develop the articles. Particularily, admins exist only to make comfortable environment for productive users to work in the mainspace. Without first hand main space experience it is very difficult to see if a controversial admin action makes editors more or less comfortable. The other reason is that promotion without significant mainspace contributions generates We vs They mentality. It is not We who are writing the articles, the articles are written by an anonymous grey mass (Them), We are different: We rule, enjoy power games and occasionaly hit Them on the head. Such a mentality usually does not help. The third reason that an admin is occasionally have to warn devoted mainspace editors with say 50K+ edits. Believe me it is much easier to do if you have some mainspace contributions he or she respect. Alex Bakharev 06:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose with less the 700 edits to the mainspace makes me a little nervous with this RFA. Also the edits are primarily with the AWB. Another problem I see is the wikipedia space, I see literally "no" XFD's. Arjun 03:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think wiz does have some experiance with XFD's. WP:MFD/Wikipedia:Esperanza, WP:TFD, WP:TfD agian, Deletion review, WP:AFD/Ultima Dragons, and here where he creates an AFD AFD/CreationWiki. All in all, his contributions to XfD's are more then just simple !support or !oppose, he comes at them with a good argument. I hope this clears up some things. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 03:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose While I am not familiar with the user's Wikipedia history, I recently had dialogue with him regarding his usage of AWB to blindly delete all blog.myspace.com links. While blog links and Myspace links are generally not acceptable, several editors and myself contested his removal of valid links to Myspace blogs, as seen on his talk page.  Peter told a user to stop repeating the argument that was trying to be made, although the user had identified two new stances to back the argument that was being presented -- Point #11 of "Links normally to be avoided" and the WP:RS acceptance of primary sources (the official nature of certain Myspace blogs) for descriptive points.  He has continued the same AWB activity today without investigating Myspace blogs on their merits, and the negative response from other editors is clear on his talk page.  If this is the cooperation he will have as an admin, I have to oppose. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Wizardry Dragon was completely right in doing so as Jimbo apparently requested that all such links be added to the meta spam blacklist. So take it up with Jimbo, not Wizardry Dragon. Cowman109 Talk 03:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He may have. The issue isn't so much that the links were removed, it's that he continued to remove them, after being asked not to. If he was aware that Jimbo requested the links be added to the blacklist, he should have said that, but he didn't. -Amarkov blahedits 04:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah - wait a second, how was it possible to re-add the link? Users should not have been able to re-add the link unless it was added to the spamlist afterwards... Odd. Cowman109 Talk 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, why should he have to use Jimbo as a defense for removing disputed external links? --Sagaciousuk (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To Sagacious: Because dispute is not a reason to AWB external links. As to why the blacklist doesn't work, what was blacklisted was "blogs/.myspace/.com". That's not going to match "blog.myspace.com". -Amarkov blahedits 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nice guy and seems committed to the project. But needs more mainspace contributions to confirm his ability to judge encyclopedic content -- Samir धर्म  03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Retracted: -- Samir धर्म  06:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, per recent contentious controversial activity (per Erik for example) and especially per lack of article writing. WP:ENC. – Chacor 03:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See above rebuttal, please. Cowman109 Talk 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Changed to oppose strong oppose per Erik. I still don't care about whether or not someone contributes to the encyclopedia very much. -Amarkov blahedits 03:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling good faith bias vandalism, using VP to revert it, strong oppose. -Amarkov blahedits 15:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I hate to spam opposers as this is probably viewed as intimidation, but see above please, as the circumstances probably require that this is nipped in the bud (is that even the proper saying?) before it turns into a trail of oppose based on Jimbo's request. Cowman109 Talk 04:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I really don't understand why people would oppose based on behavior of supporters. But it really isn't necessary; anyone who watches this would see your comment, and if they aren't watching it, replying isn't going to help. -Amarkov blahedits 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Amarkov, you said above that your problem was with me continuing to add them after they were contended, however, can you please point out me readding them after the discussion? I do not think I did, and if I did, it was a mistake and should be remedied.  If you mean continuing to remove myspace, I have kept in mind the complaints that have raised, and have tried to be more discerning with my removals of myspace.  As one user said, "they should be judged on thier own merits."  I agree with that, and have been trying to be more careful.  If you have a specific complaint, then please tell me, as that's the only way I can know what people think of my work, is feedback, and it's how I can fix issues and improve.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You used AWB, even after being told that you shouldn't. You do not use AWB for things which require more than minimal discretion. It obviously conveys the impression of semi-automated edits, which is bad, and worse, it encourages clicking through, so even if you are not consciously doing so, you're not evaluating as clearly as you should be. -Amarkov blahedits 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This edit made today was reverted by a user citing that the Myspace blog belonged to the director to share information of the film. Using the AWB could delete appropriate links, and not everyone is going to be able to revert the changes you've made.  Who knows what's been lost in the mass deletion process? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would Like to point out that the blacklist was modified and that the s in blogs was removed. I assume this was a typo by Raul654 Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. For me, the answer to the question pose by the candidate his acceptance statement, the short answer is no. There is not enough contribution to both main and wiki spaces to make me comfortable, which also goes to the need for the buttons. However, there are too many other things that sit wrong with me. The first is the mass of co-noms, the first which refers to this nominee's participation in "other official channels" (sic). If this is a reference to all the off-wiki chatter that goes on at IRC, etc., that doesn't make me feel confident. I am also leery in RfAs where the majority of "oppose" comments require some sort of "rebuttal" by the candidate or his or her nominators. That this nominee is the creator of the "Neutrality Project" also leaves me uneasy, as it adds yet a new bureaucracy to wikipedia that wasn't really necessary. This is not the place to argue the merits of this new project, suffice to say the POV template is more than sufficient for flagging POV issues, and I'm unable to fully trust these types of wiki-clubs that set themselves off from the rest of the community and project some sort of authority that isn't necessary. I am sure that this nominee is a very nice person, but I felt compelled to answer the blunt question that was put. Agent 86 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I too am concerned with the replies to the oppose votes, and it is why I posted the comment I did. If this turns into a group of editors harassing everybody that opposes me, I will withdraw.  I feel that everyone with a complaint that presents it respectfully should be treated with respect, and the "pile on" on oppose votes concerns me.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose nice guy, but the overall impression I get of this user is summed up by the word "officious". (This isn't really the place, but I have reservations about this "neutrality project" that largely parallel Agent86's.) Needs more experience in substantive and sustained article building to acquire "in the field" as well as "by the book" perspective on policy. Opabinia regalis 06:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose the mainspace contribution is far too weak. There are 600 odd mainspace article edits, and most are either automated or tagging, etc. The latest 200 or so, were done in groups of about 50 edits taking about 1 hour each to do a set of 50 AWB edits. There is simply far too few meaty edits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - nothing against you, but a lack of mainspace edits (which are mainly AWB).  Insane phantom   (my Editor Review)  09:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - extremely weak main space contributions, too much use of AWB and not enough use of the "Edit this page" tab. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, lacks of article contributions, I expect some article writing when one applies to become an admin. This user has done a lot of work in the community side of things, keep it up. Terence Ong 11:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I don't care about the mainspace. I have seen this user around the admin noticeboards and other Wikipedia talk areas, and I have often seen remarks I do not believe are appropriate for an administrator. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 12:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to the inevitable request for diffs, the user's opposition to ProtectionBot is a recent enough example of the user failing to understand what is good for Wikipedia. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose. Little if any experience of writing this encyclopedia. Needs to show an interest and dedication to the project before trying to climb the ladder. Giano 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Oppose  - per Giano. We simply cannot create a divide between the "editors" who write the articles and the process-wonk admins, who do anything but. This has already caused friction within the project and is entirely unhealthy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The job of Wikipedians is to write that encyclopedia. Everything else is of secondary importance. Oh, and also per excessive bureaucracy at the Neutrality project, WP:NOT. That's why we shut down Esperanza, in case everyone's forgotten. Does any other wikiproject function in that way? I can't think of any, bar the Advocacy lot, and that has more than enough problems even without bureaucracy. Moreschi Deletion! 12:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to Strong Oppose per Amarkov. AWB should not be used in what is self-evidently a controversial case. To the nominators: I do not think that this user will consciously abuse the tools in a million years, but I do sense a trainwreck, largely based on my rationale just above. Moreschi Deletion! 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is more, nor can we have edits that are not blatant vandalism or complete trolling reverted using rollback or its non-admin equivalents, and the fact that the candidate didn't get this straight away is pretty worrying. Moreschi Deletion! 16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Matthew Fenton. May reconsider after 2 months. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. My only real interaction with Peter was at ProtectionBot's RfA. While there absolutely were valid reasons to oppose adminship for the bot, one of Peter's reasons was that the bot's owner (Dragons flight), may use it as a "backdoor" for admin actions. Several other comments by Peter seemed directed at casting Dragons flight in a negative light rather than debating whether Wikipedia would be better off with the bot. In general, I believe that admin tools would likely be misued (though not abused) by Peter, at least at this time. SuperMachine 13:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Agent86, RyanGerbil10, and Moreschi. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Can't put it down exactly, but something tells me that this isn't a suitable candidate. Dr Zak 13:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Firstly on the grounds of the existance, at all, of this personal attack page (which I only discovered now, while looking for examples of what I see to be the problem here) but also, in that, during the course of the incidents he claims to catalogue, I found User:Wizardry Dragon to be making claims that were constantly at variance with the facts and distorted them considerably. Whether this was an error of judgement, comprehension or integrity, I do not know, but it seems to me, that, whatever the reason, it would not be a good quality in an admin. --Zeraeph 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) My strongest oppose ever One of the worst experiences I ever had on Wikipedia was with Wizardry Dragon. I spent considerable time and efforts improving Host desecration only to see my 12 (!) edits reverted by Wizardry Dragon using VandalProof and a vandalism warning placed on my talk page. It soon turned out I was not alone. Other users also complained that Wizardry Dragon had reverted their edits using VP. The discussion demonstrated that Wizardy Dragon had no understanding of the definition of vandalism, as he claimed that an edit by Idleguy he saw as POV was vandalism. Giving this user admin tools will only increase their ability to disrupt editing and drive away content writers. Beit Or 14:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, Beit Or's comment above seals the deal. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  14:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved to neutral per his exemplery work in removing blog and myspace links from Wikipedia. I am willing to support if he cares to remove the oversight and chairperson hiearchy from the neutrality project. Regards, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  11:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Peter M. Dodge, head of Wikipedia neutrality project, eh? I am not supporting anyone who fuels hiearchies on Wikipedia. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  11:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per much of the reasoning posted by Erikster above. Peter and I engaged in the MySpace debate a little longer than Erik would (it eventually moved to User:Eagle 101's page), and I found Peter slightly hostile. Things eventually cooled down, we both essentially agree to disagree, but what troubles me is his blind removal of the links. His explanation, which I leave you to judge, was "I removed over 120 bad links, of which maybe 10 were good - so, which is easier, to just readd those ten good links, or to manually remove the 100+ bad ones? Sometimes when we use such tools there will be those few exceptions. Don't take it personally, as such automated removals are very INpersonal - just readd them and confer with the person doing them so they know to pass over that link next time" (found at User:Eagle 101's page). Additionally, I was troubled when Peter threatened to remove my aruguements from his page (I'm assuming because of this RfA) because he considered it disruptive and/or wikilawyering. Once again, I leave that judgement to you, but either way I must vote to oppose his RfA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SERSeanCrane (talk • contribs)
 * 2) Oppose, per all above. Proto ::  ►  15:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per raised concerns. Seeing POV as vandalism is a grave misunderstanding of WP policies. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  15:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above stated concerns with mainspace edits and "officiousness". I didn't quite parse together that Peter M Dodge was Wizardy Dragon at first, but I've seen comments I would not support in an administrator. Sorry, not now; get your feet wet in article writing and please mind your tone/argumentativeness. -- nae'blis 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) It would be churlish of me to oppose someone who does the dirty work at RFCU. Peter does great work there and I have no doubt that he'll make a good administrator some day. At the time, I can't support with so little experience in the main space. Mackensen (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral leaning towards support - while the lack of mainspace edits (particularly discounting AWB edits) is worrying, the candidate clearly does a lot of useful work.  The Rambling Man 07:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, switched from oppose, despite the lack of mainspace edits, it does not necessarily indicate a lack of trust from me.  Insane phantom   (my Editor Review)  09:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. Fantastic work, but a good engineer has to have been a mechanic. You need to know what it's like being an editor if you want to help them.  yandman  10:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) 'Neutral, Peter does a lot of good work around here, but a couple of things concern me. One thing is the apparent bureaucracy that exists on the Neutrality Project.  The other is the fact that Peter doesn't necessarily seem to want to be an admin.  I'm going to take some more time to go through his edit history and track this RFA, so I may reconsider later, but right now I'm neutral on it.--Isotope23 14:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above adminship 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.