Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redwolf24


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

Redwolf24
Vote closed early because outcome is clear  (45/24/7)

– Well let's see... I have thousands of edits... I am often found interacting with other users, I've closed hundereds upon hundereds of AfD's, closing entire days by myself before. I think I know my share on consensus. I would now like to be a bureaucrat, partly to establish a firmer consensus at changing usernames (CU is down), partly to help promote those who need it, as I remember back during my RfA I was annoyed at how it took hours to be promoted, I guess I was that eager. For more on my resume, I've assumed leadership of WP:MC and got it up and running and organized WP:RFM. As the head I also promote candidacies at WP:MC to mediator once I feel a strong enough consensus has been reached. Note that there I have promoted people I voted for, as I'm the only one who promotes them and I definitely didn't fiddle with consensus as they all had 100% support (with the exception of Flcelloguy who had Sam Spade's opposition, but all voting mediators supported). Now, to present the fact that will probably cause this RfB to be rejected: My first edit was April 20, 2005. 6 months of editing. Well, bureaucratship is a big deal, and I understand all your concerns about not supporting someone unless they've been here for (circle one:) 1 year, 2 years, 1 year an admin, etc. However I don't believe this should be the case. Have I proved myself trustworthy? Would I use my tools when I'm not sure? As you may see in my edit count, I have over 3000 user talk edits, so I'm no stranger to user interaction, and I would always establish a bureaucratic consensus before promoting on the tricky ones. Also there's one stone cold rule I'd adhere to: do not promote on an RfA I voted for.

Oh, one other bureaucratic argument for opposing: Do we really need more bureaucrats? Well I don't know, the more you have, the better the consensus. For example, if we had a three member congress/parliament in our respective countries, and these three guys decided everything for everyone, it would be amazingly corrupt and an unfair representation. I would be there to help replace retired bureaucrats as Cecropia and Uncle Ed. Nichalp and Rdsmith4 are doing a fair job, but I bet they could use some help. Also note that I am often delisting failed candidacies, before a dogpile of opposes occurs. Does adding new bureaucrats HURT the wiki in any way? Anyways I submit myself now to the community, vote as you feel appropriate. Addendum: note that I had an RfC recently, but so far I have about 60 people saying I was free of error, and I think just wiki brah saying I was too harsh.


 * I wanted to co-nom this RFB, but apparently Red had put it up while I was asleep. Yes, we do need more bureaucrats. RFAs have increased in the recent past, and in many cases I notice that the candidates nom still languishes after its expiry time. Redwolf does help out on this page, so he's not new to the role of a bureaucrat. Since I am hard pressed for time these days, I think Redwolf would be ideally suited to this role while I am offline. =Nichalp «Talk»=  14:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I normally would prefer not to selfnominate, but I feel bureaucratship should be as such. So yes, I accept my own nomination. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 00:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) OkiedokiedokiedaeforRedwolf24!He shall suceed!Amen![[User:tdxiang|Father Tan Ding Xiang [[Image:tdxiangat13.JPG|300px]] ]] 12:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongest Possible Support Outstanding User --JAranda'' | watz sup 00:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote Change to Neutral --JAranda'' | watz sup 23:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)  Do we really need more bureaucrats? ;-) ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  00:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Extreme... I mean, happy to support a highly qualified candidate. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yay! Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  00:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) No, no way, no how, damnit!, Ohh no, wait, sorry, I was thinking of someone else :P, Support gkhan 00:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support we need bureaucrats more than ever with the possible implementing of access to checkuser for them. Redwolf24 is a great guy, he most surely deserves it. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support...period.  Rob e  rt  00:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. Bureaucratship should be granted liberally. Andre ( talk ) 00:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) 'Oppose - What kind of crazy person would even consider giving *THIS* guy bureaucratship? err...I mean Support. :) -- Phroziac ( talk )[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 00:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Send to the psychiatric ward -- I mean -- Support ;)  Sango  123   (talk)  00:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Strange. I could have sworn I already voted. It seems I didn't. --Maru (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) delete nn - too few google hits and fails WP:MUSIC. Erm... is this the right page? (PS. Support) Grutness...  wha?  00:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Be careful what you ask for, you might just receive the Support to get it. --Allen3 talk 00:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) For Great Justice!!! Ryan Norton T 00:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) There was a comparison to Linuxbeak below, so I'll say what I said then - Support - the experience [can be called] a bit light, but I've had nothing but productive dealings here, and no indication that the lack of time conceals anything worrying. Always good to see a name I know. Shimgray | talk | 01:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, excellent admins make excellent bureaucrats. Er, I hope. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Support, he's an excellent guy, regardless of his age or seniority. - Pure  blade  | ☼ 01:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: I believe guidelines such as time or edits are important factors, but never the deciding factor on their own. Redwolf is almost ubiquitous throughout Wikipedia and on the related IRC Channels. As for the maturity issue, I say that isn't even relevant unless it gets in the way of his work on here, which has been quite the contrary for the most part.(sometimes the best way to diffuse a tense situation is saying something completely random). He's helped me out time and time again, and I expect him to help out all of us as a Bureaucrat. Karmafist 01:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support In most cases, I would say that there's no way I'd support for bureaucratship after this short of time, however, I'll make an exception considering all the experience with dealing with problem users, mediation, closing AFD's, etc. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 03:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I agree with Y0u. I normally wouldn't support after this length of time editing, but Redwolf has done amazing work; seems to have breathed life back into the mediation committee; displays a lot of common sense; and is very easy to get along with (is in fact a pleasure to get along with). I trust his judgment. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Very strong support - In terms of the level of trust the community has in him, he already is a bureaucrat. The way I see it, bureaucrats get very few extra tools but are the most visible and accountable people on Wikipedia. Those are two qualities which he possesses already - is there any reason whatsoever to believe that he would make bad, rash, un-thought-through decisions? --Cel e stianpower hablamé 08:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Redwolf24 is a good user, and someone who would actually do well as a bureaucrat; he's shown that he doesn't mind doing a lot of "dirty work" for Wikipedia by being very active across Wikipedia.   Ral  315   WS  08:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I've never felt time or lack thereof really mattered very much. -orizon 12:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Fir  e  Fo  x  12:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong support. How can we let time spent on the project matter more than intent? Surely it's far more preferable to have someone who has, say, racked up five thousand edits in a fortnight than someone who has been a Wikipedian since 2001 and has got about five hundred edits. There's certainly enough evidence here of good intent to validate this RfB, and so there's really no alternative but to support. JDH Owenstalk 14:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support see above. =Nichalp «Talk»=  14:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support 1st rate admin -- Ian ≡ talk 15:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. He may be young--in more than one way:)--but he has nonetheless proven himself up to the task. If he can do AfD work and other daily admin task so well, that he can certainly be a good beaurocrat. Such higher tasks are really just the same as the old ones, but with more serious matters; in either case, he will mainly uphold consensus, with personal judgement serving only as a tiebreaker. Voice of  All   @  |  E  |Merit  16:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Maybe too early for Arbcom, given the lack of content edits, but already his volume of community work has been greater than much users who have been around much longer. His work already proves that bureaucratship would prove no problem for him. 172 | Talk 21:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Has done great work, age and experience shouldn't matter that much. N (t/c) 23:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Has clearly shown that he can be trusted with the promote button, and I'm sure he understands how to use the rename button too. Now that hardworking Cecropria has retired, there's a lot more work for everyone else to do. Let's allow Redwolf24 to take up the slack. Uncle Ed 23:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support... on wheels!. Talk about self-confidence (in a good way), and it seems more bureaucrats would be a help. My only question is, when do we see Essjay's nomination? the wub  "?!"  23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Back when Essjay and I were up for adminship, I told Essjay I intended to one day become a bureaucrat. Essjay said that adminship would be good enough for him, so I doubt he'll ever run. Also, my real bureaucratic running will be in April, but I still appreciate every ""vote"" cast here. :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 23:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Essjay is indeed satisfied with being an admin. The only way I would run for bureaucrat is if I saw a demonstration from the community that they wanted me to serve in that capacity. Until then, I shall remain (quite contentedly) a humble admin. -- Essjay •    Talk 01:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. A fine fellow, Redwolf has been unfailingly helpful and courteous towards me, and has shown what I consider to be exceptional dedication and commitment to the workings of the project. He has a particular understanding of what makes Wikipedia tick (which I admittedly lack) which I have always been impressed with; in addition, his ability for problem solving, and for gathering consensus from groups of people, would I believe make him an excellent bureaucrat. In short, I could not consider there to be a better candidate, looking at his accomplishments so far. --NicholasTurnbull  | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 00:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ive decided to disrupt my Wikibreak to Support Reds in his quest. A fine fellow who would make a very good bureaucrat.  Or an   e   (t)  (c)   (@)  01:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 04:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support. If Ilyanep became an admin when he was 13, that tells me that there's no reason 15-year-olds can't be bureaucrats if they show good judgment, Which Redwolf24 has. Also, to say that making a few jokes makes him unfit for the position is quite false. I've never seen him to be less than serious when the situation requires it. Tito xd (?!?) 04:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. We need more bureaucrats to handle all the new requests for adminship. &mdash; J I P | Talk 12:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. If we are to be bold in the way we do things, then appointing a breath of fresh air to the bureaucracy should help our cause. I would, however, caution Redwolf24 about the tendency to act comedically. Bureaucracy demands very clear thinking and a manner of expression that commands uniform respect. Real-life comedians may be well liked, but we wouldn't want them in charge of many things, would we? -Splash talk 14:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) I've been thinking about this for a while; I hesitated because Matt is still relatively new here. But after thinking about it for several days, I am not convinced that "inexperience" outweighs everything else he has done and his potential to be an excellent b'crat.  So, after careful consideration Support.  Guettarda 14:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I think he'd be great =) Sasquatch  t|c 19:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Always helpful and informative. RW24's a shinning example of what a Wikipedian should be. PRueda29 01:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Thanks for the mspaint of the disgruntled herb. AngryParsley 02:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. You're the man now, www.ytmnd.com Red!. You've always been the man, but now you're even more manly...I guess.... Sure it'd be great to develop a huge case of (timecountitis?) and pretend that a user who makes 3 edits over the course of 2 years should be given something an editor with 10,000 (!) good edits, and a history of great user interraction, should not. I fully Support Red, and unless he does something really stupid, will continue to support him throughout. Thanks for listening, and good luck. - User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]]03:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) yep yep -- (drini's page| ☎ ) 05:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Yes, I think so too.  Ban e  s  09:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1)  Strong Oppose. I would like to see at least a bureaucrat candidate have a minimum of one year on Wikipedia; Redwolf24 has been editing for less than 6 months. With user name changes currently disabled, I also don't see much need for new bureaucrats at this time. Finally, the edit summaryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&curid=2609425&diff=25621571&oldid=25618529 in which Redwolf24 added his RfB "OHNOES!!! I'M RUNNING FOR BUREAUCRAT!! (this user is insane)" doesn't exactly inspire trust or demonstrate maturity. Carbonite | Talk 00:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Your first objection is certainly understandable, but as for the edit summary, that's clearly just a joke. Andre ( talk ) 00:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got that it was a joke, but it was pretty inappropriate since requesting bureaucratship is a rather serious matter. As a 15 year old attempting to prove himself mature enough for a very trusted position, I would have expected much more from Redwolf24. However, my main reason for opposing is that he just hasn't been here long enough. Bureaucratship is a big deal and I don't believe that expecting a candidate to edit for one full year is unreasonable. Given that we have plenty of bureaucrats to carry out the necessary duties, I don't think there's a need to promote any except the most qualified candiadtes. Carbonite | Talk 00:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps true, but the edit summary was clearly a joke, and should be taken as such. No one said a bureaucrat can't have a sense of humor.   Ral  315   WS  08:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought that was funny... editing the wiki doesn't have to be 100% serious business. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perfectly acceptable - anyone running for Bureaucrat has to be a bit doolally. See also Catch 22. Grutness...  wha?  00:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Out of curiousity, why would you expect a bureaucrat candidate to be "a bit doolally"? Someone running for ArbCom, OK, I can see that due to the huge amount of work that comes along with the position. However, the only diffence between admins and bureaucrats is that the latter promote admins (and possibly change names should that come back online). I guess I just have different expectations for bureaucratship than a nice guy that makes jokes. Nothing at all against Redwolf24; I think he does a great job and I'd very likely support him after he's been here for a year. Carbonite | Talk 00:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * because they have to make the tough, controversial calls - arbitration, close votes, etc. They're like the referees or umpires in sport. No-one spots them when they're doing a good job, but everyone does when they stuff up. You'd have to be a little warped to not only be able to stand that but to volunteer for it. Grutness...  wha?  05:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Candidate does not demonstrate the maturity behooving someone in this position. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 00:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose &mdash; while Redwolf24 does great work around here, I would like to see more time in Wikipedia. Linuxbeak's request for bureaucratship was rejected last month mainly due to his amount of time on the project, and I see great similarities: both Redwolf24 and Linuxbeak are great users and dedicated Wikipedians, but both have only been on Wikipedia for less than six months when each RfB for each was started. In addition, Redwolf24 has been an admin for less than three months (promoted July 23). Combined with the fact that I don't think we are in demand for more bureaucrats (though I would never oppose someone just because of that reason), I must oppose. Give it more time, Redwolf24, and I'd gladly support. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk |  WS 00:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) The user has really only been active on wikipedia since June this year, i.e. about 4 months. I believe a bureaucrat should have more experience than that. Shanes 01:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) --Boothy443 | comhrá 01:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Like I said on Linuxbeak's request for bureaucratship, I would prefer a few more months of experience serving as just an admin. And the other problem is the lack of experience overall; I do not want a bureaucrat with less than about 4 months of total activity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that another reason I vote oppose is the current discussions on CheckUser and Wikipedia talk:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy proposal. Some users have suggested giving the Checkuser feature to all the bureaucrats, and so I am extremely uncomfortable about the possibility of giving it to someone like Redwolf24 who has less than a few months of experience as an admin. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Refer to the comments section. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 01:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Redwolf24 is clearly a model user whom I like and respect a great deal; but I must oppose due to lack of time. The time-window is a security against abuse. If there were a greater need for new bureaucrats, I may see this differently, but for now I think it's better to wait. I will be very happy to support if you renominate yourself later. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, Sorry, but you do seem to be lacking in experience to be a Bureaucrat. Don't hit me for opposing. Private Butcher 04:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Redwolf24, You're a great user and a fantastic contributor to Wikipedia. However, I feel that bureaucratship is an important position, and that users who are promoted to this position must have demonstrated through time their commitment, maturity, and ability to handle conflict. I think, for the most part, you are doing a fine job with that, and have only but to continue in that path to achive your goal. However, I do not feel the amount of time you have been here is enough for Bureaucratship, nor do I feel the amount of time you have been an administrator is enough for that Bureaucratship. That is the primary reason I am voting oppose. Best wishes, and please continue the strong contribution you have been providing. Also, I personally thought the "Oh noooes" was funny. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4)  Relucantly Oppose, I think Redwolf24 is aiming for the title "Son of Jimbo" or something, leading the Mediation committee, running for arbcom, nominating himself for bureaucratship... too much power in the hands of one person makes me uneasy. one at a time, ok? Alphax τεχ 09:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)  23:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Reluctant Oppose Matt, I'm sorry, but I feel that I must be fair, as I opposed Linuxbeak's RFB. A bit more time on the project would be a big help. It's not that we don't trust you or your sense of consensus. We want to make sure you don't burn out after 6 months. You've got a lot on your plate. You are an editor, an admin, the chair of the MedCom, the keeper of the Esperanza Spamlist, a candidate for the ArbCom... it goes on and on. All that in six months. Take it one task at a time. :) Ac  e  tic  ' <sup style="color:#FF8247;">Acid  16:51, October 16, 2005
 * 6) Oppose Too soon, as per Acetic and others. FreplySpang (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. CDThieme 19:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. After extensive discussions with Redwolf on IRC, I'm still not satisfied with his thoughts on consensus on a RfA, nor am I particularily happy with him using RfB as a mode of self-validation.  On top of that, he's recently taken over MedCom, an important role in Wikipedia on its own right, and I would like to see him prove himself out there a bit first.  Come back in six months or so, and assuming nothing goes badly in the interim I'll be glad to support.  Right now, I can't.  Sorry, my friend. Kelly Martin 19:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * # Oppose. Redwolf, it pains me to vote oppose, and you know that. However, everyone who has been opposing you on the basis of my RfB is correct. You need more time. You are obviously a mature individual and I will support you once you hit a year. I know you're not happy with me concerning this right now (over IRC), but I'm going to reiterate this: my running for bureaucrat that early was a mistake, but it established something (obviously): the Wikipedia community wants people who have been around for a while. I might be a very active administrator (one of the most active), but I'm certainly not one of the most experienced... yet. That's why I'm not going to even reconsider running until I hit one year. I highly suggest you do the same. Finally, one other thing: over IRC, you reacted a little bit too severely to me telling you why I opposed. A bureaucrat needs to be calm, cool, and collective. This is something that we both need to work on (I know I do); you've got to control your reactions to be as neutral as possible. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry but id like to see at least 9 months of activity before i vote support for a BUREAUCRAT. Job  E  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 21:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I agree that bureaucrats should be more experienced, and a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FFake_color_articles&diff=23956943&oldid=23793718 recent lapse in judgement (and his http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_undeletion&diff=23962650&oldid=23962491 defense thereof ) lead me to question this user's level of maturity.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Very, very weak oppose. Redwolf24 is a great editor with a sense of humor and a great admin. However, the recent episode with the "on wheels" joke left him temporarily burned out and I'm not sure he's ready to handle being a bureaucrat, running the MC, etc., etc. Also, the answers to the questions below aren't quite adequate. Try running once you've been here about a year to a year and a half and I'll definitely support. H e rmione1980 23:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for now - needs more experience as an admin, imo -- Francshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 23:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, for the same reasons as Evilphoenix.--nixie 03:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Hermione1980. I found the "on wheels" joke to be bad style. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. I like Redwolf, but he hasn't been here that long, and I'm not convinced we need new bureaucrats. Xoloz 15:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, come back in a year, and convince me that there's a need for any more bureaucrats. Proto t c 15:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose too irresponsible and too little respect for rules.--Silverback 01:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, no compelling reason to make bureaucrat, not enough experience, too popularity-contest like. This is not to say that I don't like Redwolf24, because I do. silsor 04:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Great editor, fantastic personality, handles a huge workload, and probably built the Great Pyramid of Gaza with his bare hands. Seriously.  Give it a few more months and I will support without even the tiniest bit of hesitation.  Right now, though, he's just a little too green, and I'd like to see a little more experience first.  Sorry.--Scimitar parley 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I see only that there is not enough time in yet. I have no doubt as to Redwolf24's ability, his conviction to NPOV or his overall contributions, but would like to see a minimum of one full year of editing and six months as an admin.--MONGO 06:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Redwolf24 is an extremely great guy, and has been very nice to me in the past. However, "OHNOES! I'M RUNNING FOR BUREAUCRAT!" did get to me. I don't want to Support, but I definitely (and I mean definitely) don't want to Oppose. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 2:13, 16 October 2005 (CDT)
 * 3) Neutral, regretfully. I don't think there is any question that Red & I are good friends, and that I think he is a great user. I will not oppose, as I believe Red will make an excellent b-crat one day. However, I'm concerned that there is too much on his plate and that he will become burnt out. I'd also like to see a few more months activity. Try again after the first of the year and you'll have my support. -- Essjay •    Talk 22:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. More time is definitely needed... but I have reconsidered my vote, and "oppose" is way too harsh. I'm changing from oppose to neutral. However, my comments in my previous vote hold. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral regretfully as well Outanding User But one Word Time and also may burnout. Good Luck on your run for the arbitration committee and in the next Bureaucratship I will support big time but not now and sorry for the vote change :( :(  --JAranda'' | watz sup 23:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral leaning opposeward. Not because Red isn't motivated to do the right thing and to make Wikipedia better, because he is, without question. Just too green yet; having looked at some previous calls (no, not the "on wheels" thing) I think a little more time on the project would be useful, with special attention on being able to defend your position in a calm, even-tempered manner no matter what you feel about it. And leading the medcom is a big job, anyhow (in addition to your other tasks); keep it up for a while and if you still don't feel like you're going to burn out, then consider this again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Michael Snow repeats Mindspillage's comment.

Comments
 * Have you mediated? If so, where? Marskell 00:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have done three cases on IRC, short term mediations. Kelly Martin once said that mediations, including who was involved, should remain confidential unless the users involved say other wise. Rvalles will allow me to say I did a case with him. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 00:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. Do you have a link? Maybe something two or three months ago preceding this nom? "Bureaucratship should be granted liberally"-well, I don't think so. Onus is on opposers in RfA; onus is on nominators RfB! Not that this is an oppose!! Just curious. An absolute level-head (provable thru links) seems fair. Marskell 00:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * How could I link you to an IRC mediation? I hang out in #wikipedia a lot and people, knowing I'm the chair, just ask me. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 00:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well an example of being level headed see User talk:Adamwankenobi R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 00:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Maybe you can't link to an IRC. Just looking for an intra-wiki example of your behaviour which your second example didn't really provide. That's all. Probably shouldn't comment on the obvious. Marskell 00:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well let's see.. how do I prove I'm level headed. My proudest accomplishment would be mobilizing the defunct Medcom. I don't think I could do that without a level head... R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 00:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, done. Don't need condescention. No vote for what it's worth. Marskell 01:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If my tone sounded condescending, I apologize profusely and I promise you it wasn't my intent. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 01:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Tone is a funny thing. Can't really accuse based on tone but you react to it ahead of everything, don't you? Anyhow, no vote. Marskell 01:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As for my edit summary: I used obnoxious caps lock so people would be able to see it in Recent Changes patrol, as is far as I know, bureaucrat runnings are a big deal. But I'm not gonna put it in my signature, as that would make me bigheaded... R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 00:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I feel like saying its dissapointing how any feeble attempt at humor is frowned upon, and those trying to joke get insulted. If the joke causes harm to the wiki, by all means. But if its harmless, I don't see your point. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sort of reminds me of the treatment Ta bu shi da yu got on his second RFA nomination. He appeared to have clinched the promotion, but vandalised the featured article of the day as a joke, and everybody changed their vote to oppose in droves. This forced TBSDY to withdraw. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Re:Activity: From April 20 (my first edit) to early May I was in Europe. After that I edited frequently as an anon. And once again for the time thing: I don't think you should measure in days as much as hours. I've read every page in Category:Wikipedia_official_policy, and I spend about 6 hours a day here, almost every day. In that manner, I'm more experienced than a lot of editors. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 01:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Your comment reminds me of this advice I got from one of my mentors: Just because you read everything does not necessarily mean you can apply it to various situations, including ones that "don't go by the book". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, I'd have to say recent events demonstrate RedWolf24 is pretty good at situations that don't go "by the book." Jdavidb (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Re:Linuxbeak: For what its worth, I have more than twice the edits of Linuxbeak. I have 2000 edits in Articles, User talk, and Wikipedia namespaces. Editcountitus of course, sucks. But I think I probably lurk around the wiki more than he does (though kudos to him on wiping away JarlaxleArtemis and MARMOT. Also, I'd like to refer to WP:RIG and User:JCarriker/Wikipediology/essays/Redwolf24-1. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 01:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Re:Checkuser: I would never use that unless I had evidence of sock-ness. I haven't abused admin powers, and I don't see why you think I would abuse that power. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 01:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not say anything about "abusing". All I said was that I was extremely uncomfortable. But maybe because I am one of those who is paranoid when it comes to privacy issues. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I respect that. Essjay is quite anonymous, and he's my best wikifriend... I wouldn't just jump from person to person checking their IP. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 01:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at Recently created bureaucrats, successful candidates have edited for about 18 months and were admins for nearly a year. Candidates below these thresholds usually have a fair amount of opposition. Carbonite | Talk 02:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would take that statistic with a grain of salt. Of the nine that were rejected, only Linuxbeak, and to a lesser extent Andrevan, failed primarily because of their lack experience. Most of the others already had enough experience before going through nomination process. Some were rejected because of prior conflicts, and some like Michael Hardy and Rdsmith4 were rejected solely because many users did not think we needed more bureaucrats at that time. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was actually looking at the matter from the other angle; Basically, what is the profile of a successful candidate? Even candidates that meet or exceed the thresholds I described may still fail the RfB. However, not meeting the threshold does have a strong correlation with rejection (of course, correlation does not imply causation). Carbonite | Talk 02:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Would it be crazy to judge by merits instead of by guidelines like edit count and account age? It doesn't seem suitable to oppose me, unless you really don't trust me, though neutral would be understandable. I think opposes should only happen if you think I'll promote random people and if you think I don't know consensus. But that's my opinion, and you of course all have yours. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 02:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I think your experience and tenure is part of your merits. You've done a lot in your short period of time here, but you're still far short of what a successful candidate normally has. Also, to be quite honest, I don't think that challenging oppose voters is really helping your chances too much. It's not at the GordonWatts level, but sometimes you just have to accept that people are going to want you to put in a bit more time before giving you a promotion. As for your "joke" edit summary, I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I would have assumed that after your last joke, you would have been slightly more aware of how your actions may be viewed. In my opinion, bureaucrats should have virtually "bulletproof" credentials. You're well on your way; I just don't think you're there yet. Happy editing... Carbonite | Talk 02:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If I see a problem, I'll try to argue with it. At least I'm doing it in the comments section, and not in the middle of the oppose section. And as for that on wheels thing, I think its safe to say that the consensus was it was a harmless joke, which didn't hurt the wiki in any way. And as I said about the edit summary, the obnoxious caps were to show people at RC and anyone looking over the history of RfA, as bureaucratship is a big deal, and I'd like maximum community participation, as it'd be terrible to promote me if I just had 5 supports to 0 opposes, how can five people decide what the community wants? R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 03:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't misunderstand, I'm don't think you did anything wrong with challenging oppose votes, the "wheels thing" or the edit summary. My point is that they all could have been handled in a more mature way. One response to an oppose vote is fine; saying "It doesn't seem suitable to oppose me..." is a bit too aggressive. Users are allowed to have their own standards for bureaucrats and mine are right in line with historical standards. As for the "jokes", even they don't actually harm anything, they can be disruptive. The "on wheels" incident was evidence that the community often views jokes in a negative light. The edit summary wasn't harmful or really even disruptive, but it's not what I like to see in a candidate (I may be in the minority on this). A simple edit summary such as "nominate myself for bureaucratship" would have served the purpose just as well and wouldn't have given the impression that you were treating this like a popularity contest. I know that's not actually the case, but edit summaries are permanent, and is that one you really want stored forever? In summary, I really do think you're doing a remarkable job, and in six months or so, I'd almost certainly support you (if this RfB doesn't suceed). Carbonite | Talk 03:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually here's my biggest problem with your oppose: where you say 'as a 15 year old trying to prove himself mature enough'. I just recently wrote an essay on teenage wikipedians and how I'm rather tired of the condescending tones toward teenagers just for their age. (May I recommend reading that (possibly pov) essay?) -- R e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 03:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I had already read your essay before voting. It was good reading. It makes it clear that you realize there's a mostly undeserved bias against teenage editors here. That's why I was diappointed in your joking attitude to listing this RfB. When you act like you're not serious, people may not take you seriously. Personally, I couldn't less about the ages of admins, bureaucrats or arbitrators. But I do care about how old they act. Carbonite | Talk 03:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm seeing stars... Sorry for that then. I often see Raul654 joking on the main page with stuff like OHNOES!! MENSTRUATION IS TODAY'S FEATURED ARTICLE! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!111!!11shift!! Anyways, thanks for the essay compliment, and now that I know your tone was misunderstood by me, I'm fine. Half the problems at wikipedia seem to be tone misunderstanding... Anyways, cheers Carbonite. I don't really expect this RfB to pass, the real RfB would be in April. But if this one does pass, then I'll be the happiest wikipedian you've ever seen. Thanks for telling me what your intent was. Happy editing. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 03:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In re: "to help replace retired bureaucrats as Cecropia." Yeah, it was Redwolf who "retired" mehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats&diff=prev&oldid=25330579. ;-) An honest mistake, but I'm pissed he didn't see to it that I got a gold watch. :D -- Remembering Mark Twain, I remain, Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
 * A. Yup, read it, including the bureaucrat percentile vs. admin percentile. I'd prefer 80% myself, but I wouldn't close an RfA as no consensus if there was anything less. Anyways, why don't these questions have anything about changing username?
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. Establish a consensus, talk with my fellow bureaucrats, worst come to worst there'd be a revote (as per Requests for adminship/Weyes2a.)
 * 3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
 * A. Well, I believe I've ran AfD/VfD just fine. I know of all the policies, or so I like to think. And as one can see, I'm very active in interaction with other users. I don't believe I've ever been unfair, although, once again to be NPOV, Xiong and Tern may not agree with that.

Now that you've read the answers, go and vote! :P R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.