Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Husond

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

Husond

Final (80/22/3) - Closed unsuccessful Raul654 18:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Husond (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - I've been thinking about a request for bureaucratship for some time now, so I hereby humbly submit myself for your consideration. I regard Wikipedia as one of my most enjoyable daily activities, and I plan to remain here for a long time. I would like to further diversify my participation in this project by being given access to functions limited to bureaucrats.
I understand that some users might oppose this request on the grounds that I have been on Wikipedia for just one year, and been an administrator for merely seven months. But I also believe that I already have the experience needed to perform the new tasks that I am requesting. Particularly, closing requests for adminship. I have participated in many, many RfAs and my nine nominations resulted in nine admins. I also have experience in closing WP:AFD and WP:RM discussions. I always carefully analyze consensus, or the lack of it. I am always open to discuss my decisions, and learn with my mistakes.
I trust my fellow Wikipedians to make a sound evaluation of my preparedness, and grant me bureaucrat status if they believe that I am ready for a job that means such a great responsibility in this house. Húsönd 17:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom, I accept.--Húsönd 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. Yes I have, and this is also an important reading. I understand the current criteria for promotion to be an analysis of the outcome of an RfA, where: over 80% support will result in almost certain promotion; 70%-80% support will result in an extremely attentive scrutiny of the outcome, with great regard for the concerns raised by the opposers (they will likely determine the final decision, within the closing bureaucrat's discretion); less than 70% support will result in an almost certain unsuccessful request.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. As I deal with other discussions where users present valid but antagonistic and totally irreconcilable positions. I can't please them all, but I can meticulously examine all the positions and fairly decide which would better conform with Wikipedia's policies and be more beneficial for the project. If still in doubt, I can always ask for a second opinion.

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. Because I am peaceful and friendly by nature. I always hear what others have to say, I am genuinely interested in any feedback (even if it's negative), I always admit when I err, I always fix my mistakes, and I always learn with them. And I do that with a smile. Sometimes, others won't be that smily. But again, I am peaceful by nature. :-)

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. I do have. I already visit multiple areas of Wikipedia every day as a routine. I would gladly make those part of the routine.

Optional question from Pascal

5. RfBs are not so common so it's surprising to see two of them started within an hour. I'm guessing this is a coincidence but if it isn't, can you explain why you and Majorly decided to run simultaneously?

Note: Majorly has already indicated that this is a coincidence. Shalom ^Hello 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A. It was a coincidence. We even jested about it on IRC.

Optional question from bibliomaniac15

6. What are your personal criteria for an RFA candidate? bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A:. I don't have strict criteria. Generally I start with analysing the participation of a user in the different spaces, particularly in the mainspace (and the mainspace-talk space ratio) and the Wikipedia space. A high level of participation in WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:XFD and WP:ANI denotes experience in areas that require administrator intervention. I often support candidates who are outstanding vandalfighters, as I'm an active vandalfighter and most certainly have witnessed their good work many times, probably even interacted directly with them. Interaction with a user deeply affects my judgement about them. I am extremely attentive to civility and the overall capacity of a user to communicate with other users. Then I also pay attention to many other factors such as mistakes that reveal unpreparedness, and minor concerns such as edit summary usage, e-mail enabled, etc.. Still, each user is a different situation and I have found myself supporting users that I would usually oppose (and vice-versa).

Question from Cecropia

7. Noting your response to Wikihermit's oppose you need to understand that this is not a free speech issue. This is fundamental to being a bureaucrat. Are you aware an important feature of RfA is that the process be as transparent as possible? IRC is in no way transparent. Time and again issues have "spontaneously" popped up on Wikipedia and it was later discovered that it had been the subject of IRC chat. A bureaucrat lost his bit after he made a promotion after discussing the issue on IRC. If you become a bureaucrat, will you commit yourself to refusing to discuss open RfAs and RfBs on IRC and to make any commentary you have on the project? -- Cecropia 03:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A:. This is going to be long... Yes, I understand that the IRC issue is not just about the freedom of speech, but Wikihermit picked a frugal comment about me and Majorly jesting about the coincidence of our RfBs at the same time as a reason to oppose, and I regarded that as if for Wikihermit any reference to RfA/RfB on IRC is to be forbidden. I think that everybody knows well or should know well the border between harmless small talk and a serious discussion. When it comes to harmless small talk, I couldn't care less about IRC. Am I aware how important it is for an RfA to be as transparent as possible? Of course. But where does this "possible" lie? For example, is it possible to control parallel conversations on IRC that will affect the outcome of an RfA? Probably not. If you ask me if I agree that IRC is not transparent and shouldn't ever interfere with the outcome of any discussions on Wikipedia as it is a blatant vehicle for canvass, then by all means I agree. If you ask me if I intend to be influenced by any IRC discussions regarding any open RfAs, then of course not. But if you ask me to commit to refusing to discuss such matters on IRC, then I may ask what good could it be in such commitment? I could say I do commit, but if you don't trust me then you wouldn't know if I would respect my vow. But if you do trust me, then you wouldn't need me to commit because you would know beforehand that I am perfectly aware of the inherent responsibility of closing RfAs and RfBs and would never allow any interference from such an obscure resource as IRC. Either you trust me, or you don't. I already read entire RfAs before deciding whether to support or oppose the respective candidates. I will have to read them with a lot more care if I become a bureaucrat. It's a lot of work already. I certainly do not need IRC.

I am asking for a simple policy commitment. It is not simply a matter of "trust me or not. If you trust me it is OK to me do anything in any venue." Some editors will ask for special consideration or make suggestions on IRC or in email. This is not theoretical. If a bureaucrat is approached (or even participating in a discussion) on a matter about a current issue, even a "heads-up" {e.g., "WilliamOnSkates'" RfA) just closed at 75%. He's a good guy. Could you look at it?" and then you do and close it, without any explanation indicating that you received that heads-up on IRC, then transparency is destroyed. To me, a proper response from a 'crat on IRC would be, "please don't ask me to do things outside of the project. If you want something to be looked at, do it on my Talk Page on the Bureaucrat Noticeboard." Then let another bureaucrat close that RfA. Agree or disagree? -- Cecropia 15:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, that's been my stance for a long time, even before becoming an administrator. I'm often coaxed off-wiki to participate in discussions where my presence would influence the result, or close discussions according to the coaxer's position. This happens especially via e-mail. And I always politely decline, either by saying that I don't have an opinion in that matter or simply that I prefer not to interfere. I refuse canvass of any kind.

Question from Walton:

8. Given that Danny's RfA closed at only 68% support, with over 100 good-faith opposes from established users, do you believe it was right for him to be promoted? I'm not asking for an opinion on Danny himself, but on the bureaucrats' closure of that RfA, which ignored 100 people's opinions given in good faith. Walton^talk 14:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A:. Well here's a question I cannot dodge and will almost certainly cause this RfB to collapse no matter what I answer. But I'll answer as frankly as I can, in an almost naïve hope that other users will value my honesty rather than my personal decision should I be closing this particular RfA. If I were online at the closing time of Danny's RfA, I would come up with a lame excuse to be away from Wikipedia for an hour or so, hoping that another bureaucrat in the mood for being lynched would be more eager to close such a tough RfA. Chances for this to happen would likely be much less than the 68% support Danny had, and I would probably still have to do it after a useless one hour postponement. So I'd just to have to sigh and close it knowing that no matter my final decision, I would definitely displease many editors whom I have deep respect for and who took their time to present hundreds of valid positions. And after carefully analyzing this RfA, I would close it as no consensus to promote. The reason: Few would contest my closure as a no consensus, but too many would contest my closure as a successful RfA. Consensus or the lack of it can often be measured by the predictable ammount of complaints one would receive when deciding between opposite options. At least, that's how I think.

Question from Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC):

10. In the past, I have noted a concept in the WT:RFA archives somewhere about "scientific scaling" of RfAs in that, in general, it would seem that the commnity thinks an individual member may have different personal standards as to what they expect of a candidate, but that it would be preferable that a given person treats candidates consistently with their standards. In some cases, there are often mutterings about people moving the bar lower because they are friends with a given candidate or conversely some people can suddenly raise the bar for some guy that they don't like. People are always grumbling about RfAs being popularity contests and so forth. How would you deal with a case, for instance, where some person perhaps got 80-85% in raw numbers, but this occurred because a group of people went soft on them for some reason (eg when some person only made 800 article edits and/or only wrote 1 stub or had only been around for 2 months - but some people who have soft spot waived their usual requirements for 2000 edits, multiple non stubs, 5 months etc etc,). Conversely, what would you do if they were below the grey zone, but had a whole group of people who suddenly used uncharacteristically high standards (eg when they oppose citing less common reasons, or selectively quoting 1FA or lack of article writing or vandal fighting, when they usually support people at a much lower bar) - This could be because the people are either "under-rated" and "unfashionable" as well as rank undisguised retaliation against an argument somewhere. What is your opinion on calibrating the opinions in such grey cases with unusual supports/oppositions? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A:. This is an extremely pertinent question that reveals many flaws of the RfA process. We cannot expect that everybody is going to focus solely on the experience, dedication to the project and admin potential of a candidate rather than their personal affinity with them. Wikipedia is human, and it's normal that just like in real life many users will support friends and oppose people they're not fond of, rather than supporting qualified candidates and opposing unprepared ones. This may not be productive, but it's expectable and I personally can't figure out an effective way to prevent it. 80-85% would be slightly above my grey zone so I would almost certainly promote the unexperienced user whom over 80% of the participants thought that the lack of experience wasn't a reason enough to deny adminship. As for the valued, experienced user below the grey zone, I would almost certainly not promote, as over 30% of participants had voiced concerns despite a clear admin potential. As a bureaucrat, I am not an educator. It's not up to me to choose the criteria each user is going to use towards each admin candidate. I usually have uncharacteristically high standards and I have seen candidates I opposed be promoted. And I have seen candidates with immense potential be denied the tools. It's unfair but I cannot be part of the solution. I must abid by the community consensus, regardless of the fairness of the arguments. I would hardly ever see a consensus for promotion below 70%, or a no consensus for promotion above 80%. I don't like these cold numbers, but I also didn't create them. But between them lies a grey zone where I would use all my experience to carefully weigh the pros and cons in order to determine the fair result of the discussion. I am sure that the experienced but unknown user would have there more advantage than the popular but unprepared one.

Optional (hypothetical) Question from Anonymous Dissident

11. – Hypothetical situation: An RFA is ready for closure. It has 71% support, and 29% oppose. You know the candidate, and both like them as a person, and believe they would make a good admin. All things considered, what would you do as a crat in this situation of RFA closure?

A:. I wouldn't close it, for I would be naturally biased towards making him/her an admin. Most likely I would have participated in the RfA instead of closing it.

Question from Alansohn

12. Just a few hours after I expressed my concerns about your handling of teh closure of a recent AfD, you posted the following screed: "Among the hundreds of users whom I've interacted with, Alansohn is among the less than half a dozen users whom I no longer can assume good faith. Apparently omnipresent in every single school WP:AFD, it is utterly clear that Alansohn has an obsessively inclusionist agenda aiming at preventing articles about schools (no matter how blatantly unencyclopedic) from being deleted. Impervious to arguments but his own, Alan's obnoxiously petulant posture may cause any users unused to his exhaustingly repetitive rhetoric to question their own sanity. His spiteful ability to call other people stupid through disguised sarcasm and by manipulating counterarguments astray is nonetheless prodigious. I no longer bother to refute his arguments, as I have a strict personal policy against feeding the trolls. But he does waste a lot of time for many users who could be productively contributing to the project instead." (see here) Was this done in retaliation, and how does this reflect on your ability to serve as a detached Administrator, let alone as a Bureaucrat? Is there anything in my participation here that justifies this reaction?

A:. I don't have an eye-for-an-eye conduct. I had noticed your user conduct request for comment yesterday. Your oppose just reminded me to participate. It was not retaliation, unlike your (not unexpected) question with full copy+paste of my statements.

General comments

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

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Oh crikey, support, emphatically. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Support more 'crats are needed. A look at your blocks/protects/deletions shows no incidents which concern me too much. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Heimstern Läufer (talk). I trust Husond's judgment and understanding. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Someone has to pass RfB, not a bad candidate. Moreschi ^Talk 18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Very strong support Husond will make an excellent bureaucrat. Acalamari 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
6. There's no way I'm going to miss this :) Support, by the way! Phaedriel - 18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Husond's a great admin. He should be fine as a bureaucrat. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose No edits in the MediaWiki and Help talk namespaces. —« ANIMUM » 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) After due consideration, I'll strongly support. :P —« ANIMUM » 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Do I even need to think about this? Qst 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Support, of course. A very helpful user and excellent admin. There's no doubt he'll help a lot with the bureacrat tools. — Malcolm ^talk 19:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Support, a long track record of fair and balanced judgment as an administrator. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Support good candidate, dont really need to say much else.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. I just hope that you and Majorly prove the exception to the fact that sofar, no RfB's have passed in ages (except for Cecropia's, and he was a former bureaucrat). You'd make an excellent bureaucrat based on your administrator actions so far. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong Support - One of my Favorite..he has been a great contributor for so long and its about time he was given the B'Crat tools cause he would make good use of it.. Good Luck..--Cometstyles 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Well reasoned "nomination" statement pretty much says it all. This editor is more than capable of handling the responsibilities of bureacratship and is a trustworthy candidate. Agent 86 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. Trustworthy. Andre (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Support I have seen nothing from Husond to worry about. If the worst item on your record is a few mildly controversial userboxes (which have all been kept), than you're doing very, very well. As I have said before, Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats. Shalom ^Hello 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Exceptionally qualified for the position, and I very much trust Husond's judgment. Based on your actions as an admin and editor, I have no reason to believe you'll make anything but a great bureaucrat. - auburnpilot talk 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
19. Support, I like his RFA track record, his demeanor, and the way he sees RFA. Wizardman 21:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
20. Absolutely no doubt whatsoever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
21. Support A solid WP:RFA contributor, has a really good attitude for a 'crat in my opinion. Best of luck, GDonato (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
22. Support, a poisoned chalice, but absolute unequivocal support. The Rambling Man 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Suggested he ran a while back - he's a great candidate, very into the RfA process, nominated a lot of users, and I think he'll be a fine bureaucrat. Majorly (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
24. Most qualified of the three currently in my opinion Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Husond is trustworthy, reliable, reasonable and definitely qualified for the job. —Anas ^talk? 22:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
26. Support No reason not too. --Banana 22:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
27. Strong Support- Excellent admin, trustworthy, and definitely a great candidate. Eddie 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
28. Support We need more bureaucrats, and he will certainly do. EdJohnston 22:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
29. Support! Bucketsofg 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
30. Support definitely. Gracenotes^T § 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. No problems here. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 23:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
32. Support We need more B-crats, I think you'll do a good job at it. DarthGriz98 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
33. Support -- I've seen this user around as an admin, and I think I'd like to see him around as a bureaucrat. Good luck! --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
34. Support. Discussion in WT:RFA would almost be considered coffee lounging if it weren't for the fact that almost everyone there is an admin or experienced editor. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    What does that statement have to do with becoming a bureaucrat? —« ANIMUM » 00:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    I was just putting in my two cents on Durin's oppose at bottom. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 01:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

35. Michaelas¹⁰ 00:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. I think Anonymous Dissident put it well a few comments above. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Although I haven't been terribly active recently, I remember Husond well and it would seem he has continued his excellent work. Dar-Ape 01:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
38. Support He is a reliable, civil user who is here often and I doubt he would abuse the crat tools.--†Sir James Paul† 01:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Excellent candidate, will work dispassionately to determine and express the will of the community. Xoloz 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Husond is definately a good choice for a bureaucrat. Captain panda 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
41. Support. — Deckiller 05:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
42. Support Trustworthy...hardworking...Jmlk17 06:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
43. Support. Nice person. Not an elitist. Will let the community decide, hopefully by dispassionately counting votes rather than relying on a nebulous and always biased evaluation of whose opinions should count the most. Haukur 08:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
44. Support per reasoning of Durin's oppose below.AKAF 09:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
45. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. Nice sensible admin. --BozMo talk 11:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
47. Support - I can find no faults in your usage of the admin tools and you have shown to have good knowledge and experience, hence I am confident that you can handle the bureaucrat tools. Your answers to the questions are sufficient for me and I have no concerns over your involvement at WT:RFA. Camaron1 | Chris 13:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
48. Tentative Support - Answer to q1 makes me think he might make a decent bureaucrat, as he at least recognises the importance of respecting numbers and tallies (which represent the good-faith opinions of users). Ideally I would not support any RfB noms, as I would rather have a bureau-bot to count the votes and automatically promote those who obtain 75% support. But Husond seems like one of the least worrying options. Walton^talk 14:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
49. -- Y not? 14:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
50. Support, good experience. · jersyko talk 14:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
51. From my first few weeks on the project, Husond has been someone who I have looked up to and respected. I'm not sure where I first saw him, but I admire his approach on-wiki. I felt proud when Husond supported my RfA. IMHO, Husond stands up for wikipedia's core principles and I trust him to be a good judge of consensus - therefore I offer my strong support. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
52. Strong support A very civil and trustworthy user who would certainly do well with a higher technical access. ♠TomasBat 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
53. Support - Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats. Turning down a trustworthy, qualified volunteer would be insane. -- Schneelocke 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
54. Support Qualified candidate, trustworthy. Would make a great bureaucrat. I  ^{(said) (did)} 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
55. Support per Heimstern Läufer. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
56. FOMG IRC IS THE DEVIL SUPPORT and lawl at the seemingly irrelevant question. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

    While you may, of course, support or oppose for any reasons you desire, the indirect insult to the person who asked the question is unnecessary. Jouster  (whisper) 02:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

57. Support We need more bureaucrats. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
58. Support I don't 100% agree with all your answers, but I think you would make a great bureaucrat. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
59. Support. Great, trustworthy admin whom I would be very happy to see as a 'crat. Will (aka Wimt) 00:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
60. Strong Support - I believe this editor to have good sound judgment and it is my belief that Husond would be a great crat. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
61. Support I have general confidence in Husond, and support based on his answer to #8 (Danny question). User:Argyriou (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
62. Support A strong candidate. Eusebeus 00:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
63. Support A good admin who doesn't hesitate to make a decision just because it won't be poupular. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
64. Support. I trust his judgement; we need more good 'crats. Sr13 07:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
65. Support with (small) Reservations - Al of the opposers seem worried about the candidate's views on consensus. But to look past that, Husond is a valuable editor who will be trusted to use the bureaucrat's privileges well. --tennisman 17:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
66. Support. Without a doubt trustworthy and dedicated. Loved his frank and reasoned answer to the Danny question. I have no concerns. -- But|seriously|folks  21:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
67. Concordo -- Slade (TheJoker) 00:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
68. (No offense to others but,) the best admin around. Would be a great 'crat. G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
69. Support yo. ~ Infrangible 04:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
70. Terence 12:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
71. Support Good admin. Politics rule 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
72. Support Seems like a fine choice for bureaucratship and I second that "yo". MetsFan76 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
73. Support, most especially per Haukur, who well summarizes that which leads one to believe that Husond properly understands the role of a bureaucrat (viz., that he/she acts ministerially, divining for what consensus an action [most prominently relative to the closing of RfAs or RfBs or the flagging of bots, but also to the generally pro forma but sometimes subject to community discussion in the context of policy username changes] lies and then effecting such action, irrespective of his personal views about the soundness of arguments expressed in discussions—except, of course, where there exist overriding policies to which the community have acceded and where those policies are plainly inconsistent with a discussion, in which case further input ought perhaps to be sought—and in no case in substitution of his views or those of certain others for those of the community writ large) and that which, dispositionally, commends Husond to bureaucratship. Joe 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
74. Strong Support. Very good judgment as a closing admin. The DRV does not worry me. Nearly every admin is going to have a disputed closure here or there, and this unfortunately suffers from recentism. It does not indicate some pattern of bad judgment. AnonEMouse brings up some good points, but I think that Husond will be more than able to separate the worlds of XfD and RfA closures. IronGargoyle 07:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
75. Support. Appears to have the motivation and skills to handle the time-consuming duties of a bureaucrat. Cla68 07:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
76. Absolute support!!! - Out of all the editors on Wikipedia, Husond has the largest chunk of my respect. He's a great guy & I trust him undoubtedly with any tools that 'cratship will grant him. Good luck Husond. :) Spawn Man 08:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
77. Support. This user shows a strong committment, which is my main criteria. I do not have any worries or issues, so they should make a great crat. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
78. Support, clear and well-thought-out answers to the questions. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
79. Support As per answers to questions 1, 2, and 4. FunPika 14:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
80. Support All I see from a promotion is a better wiki. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: Almost total lack of involvement in WT:RFA. Since becoming an administrator just 8 months ago, has contributed just a tiny bit (5 edits) to WT:RFA, and that all on two days in April. I'm not comfortable with the idea of a bureaucrat who so categorically ignores WT:RFA and shows little participation there to speak of. Further, what there is of it, the user argues strongly in favor of tallies, which are meaningless to consensus evaluation. I fear this user as a bureaucrat would be focused entirely too much on numbers. The answer to question one just serves to further highlight that. --Durin 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

   Given the almost black-hole nature of WT:RFA (where well-meaning ideas go to die a painful death), not to mention the clique thing, I'd almost think not participating there is a positive thing. Almost. --W.marsh 23:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

   I am not obliged to edit WT:RFA if I don't find it necessary. In fact, I can only recall a few times I edited it, and it was in opposition to your RFA reform proposals which I deemed completely unproductive and surreal. Yes I strongly favor tallies, they are a quick, useful way to be informed about the current outcome of an RfA as is the "you have new messages" banner when someone edited your talk page. I don't really understand why you have this (unfounded) fear of me being too focused on numbers, but here's what I fear: nitpicking and retaliation opposes masked of implausible arguments. Not very dignifying, in my humble opinion. And I may add that, should these matters be openly and fearlessly discussed on WT:RFA, you'd find me there far more often. --Húsönd 03:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   My confirm reasons are supported, and even enhanced. You accuse me of making a retaliation oppose. That's blatantly false, and demeans my reasons for opposition. Rather than accuse someone who opposes you for what you think are baseless reasons, perhaps you should consider the reasons for the oppose. Making just 5 edits...ever...to WT:RFA is not involvement. It just flatly isn't, whether you think this is a retaliatory opposition comment or not. I don't care you didn't like the reform proposals I tossed up. I really don't care. I do care that you're uninvolved in WT:RFA yet consider yourself qualified to understand what the community expects. I also care that you do not seem to understand that the tallies are unimportant, and even buttress their importance by saying in your response above that the numbers help show the progress of an RfA. They most emphatically do not and are not useful for determining the "current outcome of an RfA". --Durin 17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   What, now he has to edit it to indicate that he reads it? Perhaps he knows what the community wants, and thus won't waste his time adding more junk to WT:RFA. Giggy _U^CP 04:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose Per Question 5. IRC is not the place for admins and 'crats to discuss RfBs and RfAs. Correct me if I'm wrong, as this could have two meanings. Per Jouster below as well. ~ Wikihermit 02:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   We weren't discussing, but even if we were, I don't really think it's unallowed. IRC is essentially a place for chitchat. And sometimes a place where private comments can be exchanged, second opinions can be requested. But hey so is e-mail. I think it's surreal to forbid a particular subject from being discussed on IRC. Freedom of speech applies there.--Húsönd 02:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Please tell me this is a joke, Wikihermit. Also, you should probably read WP:IRC#How_is_Wikipedia_IRC_related_to_Wikipedia.3F, or, more specifically, this quote: "As far as their influence on Wikipedia goes, IRC is equivalent to e-mail ... has no effect on how one is treated on Wikipedia." (Bold added) G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

   I don't see a joke, G1ggy. One of the special problems in IRC is that, when contentious issues are discussed, you can have a mob effect. That's hard to do with email. That notwithstanding, 'crats shouldn't discuss live RfA or RfB matters by email either. Not transparent, emails are by their nature private. If someone asks me a question about process or procedure, I respond, but if they want a bureaucrat task or give input to a live RfA, I politely direct them to the appropriate place in project space. -- Cecropia 14:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

3. As with Durin; we don't need another vote-counting bureaucrat (we have too many as it is). Asked above for the criteria for promotion, the word "consensus," or any reasonable synonyms are completely absent. Instead, you just give percentages. This is very wrong. I'm sorry, I think you are very likely a wonderful admin, but this is not what we should be looking for in bureaucrats. Dmcdevit·t 03:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   For this matter, I shouldn't need to say that my answer totally complies with the normal procedure carried out by bureaucrats in order to promote candidates. If you disagree with the whole percentages issue then I believe that you should propose new ideas to improve the process instead of just voicing a WP:POINT oppose here. I can't see how is it going to benefit the project really. Besides, if the percentages remain, then that's simply because there hasn't been any consensus to change.--Húsönd 15:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   I propose consensus. I know it's novel, but I'm not quite sure how that counts as disruption to make a point. I thank you for demonstrating even more clearly why you should not be a bureaucrat, however. Dmcdevit·t 05:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   Here's what I add: If to become a bureaucrat I must refrain from stepping on a toe or two to express my position, then yes I totally agree that I shouldn't become one. But well, I wouldn't want to become a bureucrat in those conditions in the first place. If there's one thing I'm proud on Wikipedia is that I've always managed to work following the existent policies and guidelines established by consensus. I can't even recall if I ever used WP:IAR. Should someone like you oppose me because I had been violating any of the policies, then I would surely withdraw this RfB and feel ashamed. But opposing me just because 1) you agree with Durin; 2) you believe that I would embrace straight vote-counting; 3) I didn't mention the word "consensus" in my answer; 4) I mentioned percentages? I'm sorry, but I just can't take it seriously. I am not you, I couldn't know how to write those answers with the exact wording that would please you. I wouldn't even try to, I'm not here to please anyone in particular but to propose myself to a new group of tasks and see if the community agrees that I'm qualified for the job. But of course, I can't please everybody. So I have to say that I don't really care about your oppose if those are the arguments you have to present. They're not going to help me improve. I do though apologize if I happened to sound bitter in my reply, it's never my intention to be blunt.--Húsönd 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Husond ins an excellent contributor, but I agree the above comments and I also have a rather abitrary rule that no one should be promoted to bureaucrat until thay have been an administrator for at least one full year.--MONGO 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Per Dmcdevit. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Per Dmcdevit. The absence of consensus is troubling. Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose, no discussions that decide anything on IRC, thanks. Neil ╦ 15:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Perhaps you misread his comment. He stated that they jested about the co-incidence of adding RfBs at almost the same time. Nothing was "decided." Giggy _U^CP 04:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose per IRC discussion of case merit and this incident [1] [2] [3]. Generally speaking, a hell of an administrator and a great guy, but I'd like to see those two issues addressed, and addressed well. Jouster  (whisper) 16:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I really prefer one year of adminship, but this isn't a hard-and-fast rule for me. The concerns raised by the above opposers haven't convinced me to make an exception. Would possibly support in another six months or so. Chaz ^Beckett 17:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   If it's not hard and fast, why not break it now? G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

10. I can't say I'm too fond of Husond's opinion of what defines consensus, which seems to be straight-forward vote counting (but I'm not sure it's appropriate of me to oppose based on that alone). My real issue is the IRC comments - I'm very vocal about the potential benefits of IRC, but bureaucrat decisions are not one of them. Ral315 » 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    And you oppose me because... we agree? :-) Húsönd 03:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

11. Strong oppose - per Durin. I don't demand a lot of involvement, but I want some, and more experience too. Voice-of-All 02:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Durin and especially Dmcdevit. TomTheHand 03:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Durin. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 14:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I think that Husond needs more time, particularly to develop a feel for what constitutes consensus. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I cannot support any candidate who thinks that consensus is calculated by percentages. --☑ SamuelWantman 08:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong Oppose needs more time to develop a better feel for determining consensus. Alansohn 20:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Retaliation for this opposing vote and disclosure of clear conflict of interest in closing AfDs in an area in which he has obvious biases are clear demonstrations that this nominee is unfit to serve as a Wikipedia Bureaucrat. Alansohn 06:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose per my long standing reasoning and per many concerns above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    Comment User has opposed several other RfBs with his "long standing reasoning" without specifying what that reasoning is: [4]. Icemuon 16:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    At a minimum, "per many concerns above" seems to be specifying the reasoning behind the Oppose. And is this justification any less specific than "Oh crikey, support, emphatically", "Do I even need to think about this?", "No reason not too", "definitely", "No problems here", "We need more bureaucrats", "yo" and a few more that don't even offer any word of explanation as reasons to Support? Alansohn 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    No trolling, please, Alan.--Húsönd 17:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Issues of consistency in policy -- or the lack thereof -- have been the cornerstone of the issues raised here with this nomination. One would hope that Support and Oppose !votes would be subject to the same scrutiny, even when they don't match any one individuals preferences. Alansohn 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    For your clarification, users only need to sign in order to support. By doing that they endorse what's written on the nomination at the time they signed. They don't need to add anything else really if they feel like they don't have anything in particular to add. Some users though like to add a personal message to the endorsement to serve as a kind of personal decoration of their support. Such causes no harm, and you should refrain from using that as grounds for nitpicking.--Húsönd 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Reason has been dug up: [5] Icemuon 10:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

18. Oppose I was on the fence, but I'm really disturbed by the AfD and DrV linked by Noroton. I don't think I've ever voted on any of these high school deletions because I just don't care, but I can't fathom how Husond looked at that discussion, saw 7 editors arguing keep, 5 editors arguing delete and concluded there was some sort of consensus for deletion. This is his opinion, he may be right, but it just doesn't have a thing to do with consensus. I actually think it's important to have admins who are willing to take really bold actions. Some of the best admins (and I genuinely think Husond is probably among these, and I hope none of the comments here are taken as a repudiation of his great value to the project) just aren't right for the bureaucrat role. Imagine if there was a difficult RfA and Husond just decided that "No Wikipedia policy says you can support an admin candidate because they are an 'awesome user'"? As an aside, I'm confused about the comment below in response to Noroton. WP:NPOV is talking about article space -- the point of the policy isn't that editors aren't supposed to have an opinion about Wikipedia policies in discussions. Yeah, reading consensus is really difficult sometimes, that's precisely why it's difficult to become a bureaucrat. --JayHenry 14:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose per the arguments of Dmcdevit and JayHenry.-- danntm ^T _C 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose - per evidence from Noroton, and response to Dmcdevit. Note that I don't actually buy Dmcdevit's argument - not using the word "consensus" isn't such a big deal, the words "peaceful by nature" would have been good enough for me - but it was a valid, and civil, argument, even if I didn't agree with it, and Husond's response was to call it WP:POINT. That's not peaceful by nature, at least not in the way I want it to be. As for Noroton's Afd - the frightening thing is that I strongly sympathize with the deletion; I certainly don't think all high schools are notable, and if I had seen that AfD, would probably have argued to delete... but it seems clear that most participants in that debate didn't, and we're not an autocracy, and shouldn't be. I'd be even more worried by the response to Noroton, in which Husond claims to be the only person able to understand what consensus really means (one would think that at least a straight-forward consensus would be, well, straight-forward), were the earlier two problems not already enough... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Just a little clarification AnonEMouse, I did not claim that I am the only person to understand what consensus means. I just said that consensus is an abstract concept since every single user has their own definition of "consensus".--Húsönd 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

21. Oppose. Sorry, I have to agree with JayHenry's concerns. The candidate is a good admin and contributor though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose as above. Anwar 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Per personal threshold of administrator duties of at least a year. However, Husond is a very good admin, and I hope he will be a good bureaucrat. -- ReyBrujo 02:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Just wondering, would you not support a candidate with 355 days experience as an admin for the sake of the personal threshold? Majorly (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   My threshold is never set in stone. As an anecdote, at the List of best-selling video games, the franchise list has a "minimum" of 10m units sold. I added and fought to keep Battlefield in the list although the reference stated it "only" sold 9.9m. In the end, I decided to let them remove it and wait for a future press release stating they have sold over 10m ;-) I am just stating that, were I in Husond's place, I would not have self-nominated at this time. -- ReyBrujo 03:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   And just in case it was not clear, any administrator with over a year of experience, who has been rather active and had not had serious problems (blocks in the last six months, in example), would get my support in a RfB, even if we had already a thousand bureaucrats. Actually, that would be true for the Spanish Wikipedia, but not for this one. -- ReyBrujo 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral pending an answer to Cecropia's question about IRC. The concerns and misgivings that many users have about IRC are good-faith concerns. Responding that "Freedom of speech applies to IRC" is complete missing the point of a very legitimate issue. --JayHenry 06:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (changed to oppose)

   Though I voted 'Support', I too would welcome a more firm answer (in any direction) from Husond about the role of IRC discussions. Simple transparency might be enough. E.g. when closing an RfA the bureaucrat could disclose whether he had been present during any IRC discussions when that RfA was mentioned, and if so, whether he took it into account. EdJohnston 17:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral I have a long standing 1-year term of service as an admin expectation for 'crat nominations, also I don't really know you. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral but appalled at Husond's action in closing the deletion discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Father Michael Goetz Secondary School, which has resulted in a deletion review discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5. One duty of bureaucrats is to fairly assess consensus. Husond incorrectly assumed that opinions that all high schools are notable were references to Wikipedia policy, then threw them out, apparently because he believed they were factually incorrect. Even if he believed that opinions that disagreed with Wikipedia Notability policy should be simply thrown out and not considered part of consensus (much like a !vote consisting only of gibberish), the longstanding practice in those deletion discussions was clearly to consider those votes. At the very least, Husond's comment in closing the deletion appeared to take a stand on a topic long debated in deletion discussions. I haven't looked into all of Husond's record, which should be done by anyone voting for or against, but anyone considering his candidacy should review his actions in this case and decide for themselves. For all I know, other qualities may overwhelm this objection. If I saw a spot where I could simply make this comment, I wouldn't even vote "neutral." I bear no ill will to Husond, but I would not have typed up this comment if I didn't think it was a serious matter. Noroton 20:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

   Your neutral argument is sound but, sadly, ironically futile for my improvement. You see, this RfB taught me something that I should well know for a long time now: on Wikipedia, consensus is against WP:NPOV. It's a comfortable but totally abstract concept shaped according to each one's POV. Look above at the opposing users: some oppose me because they fear that should I become a bureaucrat I would only look at percentages when closing RfAs, and some oppose me because I would weigh arguments instead of closing with a straightforward vote count. Should I be closing my own RfB, where would I see any consensus or lack of consensus to promote if I can't even see a coherent opposition here? It seems that I can only rely on my own ability to understand where lies consensus, not on my ability to understand what does "consensus" mean to every single user (especially when for so many users it means something that cannot be unless it favors their own side).--Húsönd 23:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

   It's not an argument I made, it's a report, and its purpose is not to improve you (though that's always nice when it happens) but to alert others to further examine your actions. There is a longstanding practice of considering editor's comments as valid for determining consensus even when those editors don't appeal to a Wikipedia rule or even when they appeal against a Wikipedia rule. I see in your comments about Alansohn (referred to in the questions section) that you are well aware of older deletion discussions about schools, so you should have been aware of that practice. Instead of following it, you pulled a surprise on people involved in that discussion (as seen in the deletion review discussion). In doing so, you justified yourself by essentially participating in the discussion rather than acting as an unbiased administrator. And the justification you gave for your action was about as vague as it could possibly be: That the result would not be consistent with Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Someone could take all kinds of action using that as a justification. Your actions essentially disenfranchised me and several other editors in that discussion. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with whether you agreed or disagreed with us, as the deletion review shows. Noroton 00:21, 9 July 2007 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.