Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Husond 2

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

FINAL (33/12/1); withdrawn by candidate[1] 01:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husond (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - After my unsuccessful request for bureaucratship a few months ago, I would like to once again apply for the job. I paid due attention to the concerns expressed by the opposing users and would thus be most thankful to be evaluated anew. I believe that a bureaucrat's main requirement is trust from the community that he or she will know how to fairly determine consensus (or the lack of it) in discussions such as WP:RFA where the respective outcome so often seems to fall into the uncertain. If promoted, I hereby vow to always use my new abilities with maximum responsibility and careful interpretation of the community's will.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do. Húsönd 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A. Yes, I have read many of those discussions. I understand that the current model of WP:RFA fastens consensus to support percentages for most discussions. Candidates with less than 70% support from the community would most likely see their applications closed unsuccessfully, as otherwise would prompt outright flux of complaints towards the closing bureaucrat. Candidates with over 75% support (preferably over 80% support) would most likely see their applications end successfully (again, complaints if not). For candidates falling in the 70-75% I would have to peruse the positions of the participants with extra care, and be particularly attentive to any grave concerns presented by those opposing in order to determine the final outcome.

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

A. Somebody has to close contentious discussions. Any complaints would be given due attention and my acts explained. I do not expect any massive criticism from my actions though, as I always weigh them very carefully and would ask a fellow bureaucrat for a second opinion when in doubt.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I believe that I have been around for quite some time. I have participated in many discussions, closed many discussions, and have communicated with many users. I have also made a few mistakes but they were quickly fixed. I strongly believe that making mistakes and witnessing the mistakes of others will greatly increase one's capacities to avoid future errors. I like to learn from others, I like to listen to others and I like to be fair with others.

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, I am willing to diversify my tasks on Wikipedia with the inclusion of those.

Optional question from K. Scott Bailey

5. Can you envision a scenario where you would promote a candidate with just below 70% support, but the opposes mainly cited one issue that you considered irrelevant to the conduct of an admin? Conversely, could you envision a scenario where you would fail to promote a candidate who had around 85% support (say, something like 77/13/4), but the opposers/neutrals brought up concerns about the candidate that you considered quite grave serious?

A. Yes, I can envision a few extremely unlikely but still possible situations of those kinds (and I would always request a second opinion from another bureaucrat if I were to close them). I would probably choose to extend the ending time of those RfAs so that more feedback could be gathered. Grave concerns usually don't take long to sway an RfA into the negative if they're really grave, and the support usually doesn't take long to overcome the opposition when the latter is unjustified.

Follow-up You have extended the time on the just below 70% nom. The count now stands at 56/25/6 (from 34/15/5 when you extended). You genuinely feel that at least 1/2 of the opposes are quite weak, and that the candidate is well-qualified. What do you do? Same for the 85%er. (Changed the concerns to serious, from grave.) You extend, and it goes to 93/16/6, yet you still feel the concerns expressed are serious and well-founded. What do you do? K. Scott Bailey 03:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. I would close the first one as unsuccessful and the second one as successful. It's not just the closing bureaucrat who has to meticulously weigh the concerns presented at those RfAs. If after the time extension the community persists in providing such outcomes then I must abid by its decision even if I disagree with it.

Important follow-up After re-reading your answer here, am I to understand that you actually can not envision a time when you might discard frivolous, but non-sockpuppet-type opposes (i.e. "He failed my article at FA" or the like), passing a candidate that was otherwise well-qualified in both namespace and mainspace experience? K. Scott Bailey 15:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Honestly, I don't think that those frivolous opposes would ever have the capacity of making a valued user's RfA to collapse. In fact, I have always been pleased to witness that, as in a chemical reaction, the community reacts to frivolous, bad-faith opposes by staunchly defending the candidate and increasing their support.

Enough can creep in to push the candidate from the standard pass rate of around 80% to under 70%. I've seen it happen, and more than once. I would greatly appreciate a more direct response to my scenario. It is extremely important to me that I know how you would deal with that type of situation. K. Scott Bailey 17:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Do you agree that 70% is already extremely marginal for an RfA? If you could envision 69% "in some cases" and promote, well, what about 68%? And 67%? Are you concerned about the divisiveness that has occurred here because of under 70% promotions? How much latitude do you think a bureaucrat should be entitled to take in such "special case" promotions? -- Cecropia 04:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. I do agree and I don't think I would ever promote a candidate with less than 70% support. I don't think that a bureaucrat should be entitled to any latitude below the 70%, but rather a group of bureaucrats could, if in accordance, promote a candidate who fell in the 68% or 69% (if under most exceptional circumstances that would naturally require sound explanation and justification). Again, very unlikely scenarios that I don't think I'll ever encounter.

Optional questions from User:J-stan

6. First of all, let me commend you on being so bold as to go up for RfB. More admins should do the same. Now to the question: What are the major concerns from your previous RfB, and how have you addressed them?

A. Thank you. I faced multiple concerns on my last RfB, some of which I was sad to verify that were due to misinterpretation of my own words. But some users with valid arguments were unsatisfied that I made little allusion to the notion of consensus in my nomination, thus believing that I had no regard for consensus. Other users opposed me because I made an unorthodox closure of an WP:AFD which was subsequently taken to WP:DRV, thus believing that I am prone to fail when reading consensus. In order to address these concerns I became much more prudent when making decisions, and I started to seek second opinions more often when closing tough discussions. Additionally I try to stay away from anything unorthodox. There was also a concern that I was not involved in WT:RFA and that I produced no input regarding the whole request for adminship process. In response to that, I paid more attention to the ongoing (perpetual) discussions about the reform of RfA, and even participated in the recent request for comment related to it. But I must say that I am not a reformer of RfA as I haven't found any of the reform proposals so far as practical or as an improvement to the current model, nor I can come up with a good proposal of my own. But I'm glad that many users are still brainstorming for alternatives that may respond to the flaws of WP:RFA.

7. Do you feel we need more bureaucrats? What would you say to someone who opposed based on apparently nothing else except that they felt we don't need more 'crats?

A. I think that we neither have lack nor surplus of bureaucrats. I do not agree with views such as "we have enough bureaucrats" because 1) that can't be determined 2) it's nitpicking and 3) surplus of bureaucrats can bring no harm to Wikipedia.

Optional questions from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)

8. Your main contribution to meta discussion about crat related matters in recent months is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#View by User:Husond, where you express the view, "Face it, on Wikipedia any non-random, non-abstract, non-unrecognized form of consensus will always require a number or percentage. The closing crat will always need his or her priorly established number, over which would lie consensus." Do you think this opinion is compatible with that of the number of editors who belive that consensus is not numbers?

A. Not necessarily incompatible. I don't take any of the radical approaches that either "consensus is numbers" or "consensus is not numbers". I think that consensus and numbers are different concepts that walk side by side here. You will inevitably look for a percentage when you try to determine consensus among users who present antagonistic but equally valid arguments, because you need it as your own pattern of self-coherence. Yet the percentage where the consensus resides isn't a strict number, it varies within a limited range always accompanying consensus. Side by side, not irreconcilably.

9: There's an increasing pressure on bureaucrats to allow users to usurp usernames that have made some, albeit few, edits. In what circumstances (if any) would you be willing to perform such usurpations?

A. I currently have no formed opinion in this matter. If I become a bureaucrat, I prefer to gain some experience in changing/usurping usernames before I have a position.

Optional questions from Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)

10: What experience do you have in bot and username changing related work? Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. I am a tech dummy, so my only bot experience so far was giving suggestions to bot developers for a few tasks where a bot could prove useful. I would not flag a bot unless it's absolutely clear from users at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval that it should be approved. As for the username changing work, I've never been a clerk at WP:CHU, but I understand the process (including account usurpation).

11: What's your opinion on opposition based on "time since last RfA", and how will you treat such oppose votes? Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. I personally find valid the argument that some time should exist between RfAs. I believe that it forces a candidate to reflect on the concerns presented by users opposing them, as treating them with levity may result in another unsuccessful RfA and a few more months waiting for the tools. It also allows more time for their peers to evaluate progresses. And, it prevents WP:RFA from being clogged with consecutive, cloned-like RfAs by persisting candidates who'll inevitably be viewed as power-hungry.

12: "Vote" or "!Vote"? Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Personally, I use "!vote". I like to make clear that I am aware that RfA is not a vote, even though most users who write "vote" (without !) are also aware. It became an habit. I recall seeing some users nitpickingly frowning upon the usage of "!vote", but that's really not one of my concerns.

Optional question from Keepscases (talk · contribs)

13: Do you think "I PUT THE P IN WIKIPEDIA" is an acceptable user name? -- Keepscases (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. No, I don't think that's an acceptable user name.

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

• As the issue of under-70% RfAs is being debated here, I have moved a discussion from my Talk Page to WT:RFA on that issue so all can read and comment. As usual, do not take this as a statement about Husond or this RfB, on which I am not expressing a position. -- Cecropia 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am considering switching back to either neutral or support, per Gustafson's long-standing rationale (which makes a mockery of the system, in my view), and the fact that it does seem (per comments in support below) that Husond might consider discarding frivolous opposes for reasons other than sockpuppetry-type issues. -- -- K. Scott Bailey (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec2)Any chance of logging in to make that comment to prove that IP address is nothing to do with me? Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC) you did. Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Pedro. How could that comment have had anything to do with you? -- K. Scott Bailey (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the comment you made, I think you are single-handedly going to kill tangobot :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Tangobot"? -- K. Scott Bailey (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot that updates the bureaucrat noticeboard template for RfAs (and sorry Pedro if I caused an EC). J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EC's Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Beaten my personal threshold of 1 year of adminship before requesting bureaucratship for barely 4 days! You did that on purpose, right? ;-) Seriously now, the main opposition (lack of RfA involvement) has been solved, and I am one of those who think there is nothing wrong, at this moment, with more bureaucrats. -- ReyBrujo 03:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Seems okay. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 04:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Per answer to my first question (the second was more of a viewpoint question, I just wanted to see what you thought of that.) Husond shows that he has reviewed concerns raised by opposers, and has adapted for them. Now let's hear it for the first RfB since the July rush! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support (I opposed last time, but now believe Husond would be an excellent addition to the team) particularly per his comments at RfC/RfA and his excellent response to Kscottbailey below. --JayHenry 05:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Having interacted regularly with Husond I find his judgement to be sound. Very sound. He has proved time and again his excellent qualities as an administrator and this will, of course, continue. Every interaction with Husond has revealed how civil and helpful he is, to new editors, experienced editors, new administrators and seasoned administrators. I can see no occasion where his judgement has been less than excellent and I trust, at a fundamentally deep level, his ability to judge where consensus lies as evidenced by his regular input to community discussion and his ability to communicate across the expertise level of all editors here. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong Support as last time. Excellent candidate. Demeanor and judgment well-suited to the task. Xoloz 14:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong Support - as last time. The candidate is still an excellent one, who will do well as a 'crat. --tennisman 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong Suppoert I supported last time, and will support again. There are no issues with Husond. Cheers!--SJP 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Hell yeah, Really strong support because he's got guts!--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Husond will do just fine as a bureaucrat. Captain panda 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong support, just like last time, and with the same reasoning as last time (something about him being the best admin here, etc. etc.). Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support — I view self-nommed bureaucrats as prima facie evidence of accepting community standards. Oh yeah, and he's also really fit for the bureaucrat tasks. —Animum _{(a rag man)} 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support · AndonicO ^Talk 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. EC Support - Husond is reliable and can be trusted, having excellent judgment. Neranei (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong support - as with the last one. I said it before and I'll say it again, when I first joined the project, Husond was someone I looked up to in admiration. I was always amazed by his friendly responses and his ability to help new users. He's a real asset to our project and has done a fantastic job as an administrator. I trust his judgment more than just about any other administrator on the project and therefore I trust him to correctly judge the community consensus in RfA's. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong support - Amusingly, I took WT:RFA off my watchlist this morning because it's a monumental waste of time. No one should be required or expected to contribute there. The fact that he doesn't says something to me about his priorities. Additionally, I think I actually prefer 'crats not involve themselves in the clique of regular RfA voters. I also respect him and his administrative contribs and trust his judgment. I have no reservations. Lara❤Love 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. The strongest support possible. He will do just fine, and not only that, I ran in to him many times, and he's pretty good in his adminship duties right now! -Goodshoped 04:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. Husond is a great user and I am simply not persuaded by the opposers. Good of you to have the guts to go through this nightmare of a process again, too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I don't share any of the concerns the opposers do. In fact, one of them was blocked for disruption earlier. Anyway, I should also commend you (idea borrowed from J-Stan) for being bold and submitting this RFB. More admins should do this. SashaCall 06:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    May I ask what the fact that one of the opposers had been blocked for disruption would have to do with anything? I don't mean any offense, I'm just curious as to how (other than ad hominem) you could possibly have meant that? K. Scott Bailey 06:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, the fact that SqueakBox was blocked for something totally unrelated to this RFB does not change the weight of his comments in the slightest. --Deskana (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, he was blocked for something that was totally related to his oppose. It was the disruption that he was causing and which I was reverting, that prompted him to unleash his angry oppose below. Since SqueakBox was blocked for that same disruption, I believe that one can make logical conclusions about the nature of his oppose, which is nothing but far-featched accusations by a user who'll not refrain from trolling against other users who try to defend Wikipedia from his misdoings. If I were a bureaucrat closing this discussion, Squeakbox's oppose would be precisely the example of an oppose that I would disregard. It's unfair otherwise, and against all sorts of policies on Wikipedia (especially Wikipedia:Consensus) that a disruptive user (whose disruption has been confirmed by a block) may have his disruption allowed on RfB by nullifying the support of 10 users with his single unreasonably and clearly retaliatory oppose towards a user who was just working to correct his wrongdoings. Húsönd 17:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah that pretty much sums my reasoning for not being concerned with SqueekBox's oppose. SashaCall 17:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (to the candidate) So there are oppose comments you would disregard in an RfA? I'm not trying to be snarky, but per the Q and A above I had come to understand that you would only throw out blatant sockpuppet-type votes. Was that a misunderstanding? And what threshhold does a vote have to cross before it becomes pointy and agenda-driven, and is thrown out by a 'crat? -- K. Scott Bailey (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It might have been a misunderstanding but it might also be my fault as I don't think I mentioned obvious trolling/disruption as a valid reason for disregarding opposes. I'm not sure if a threshhold can be established for a !vote to be disregarded on these grounds, but let's say that if it is proven/obvious that a user has chosen to attack an RfA or RfB candidate because they had a disagreement where the former was causing damage to the project and the latter was just fixing it, then I guess that the vengeful oppose should yes be disregarded. It's sad, but some users will not allow anyone to go against their actions, and will attack those who went against those actions instead of allowing themselves the slightest willingness to learn why were those actions wrong in the first place. RfA and RfB must not condone this behavior. Húsönd 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21. Support Absolutely. You are experienced, intelligent, and in my view, incredibly qualified to be given the super-mop. Godspeed! DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Best of luck -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. I trust in Husond's ability to determine consensus and, even more importantly, his ability to positively respond to constructive criticism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support A user superlative in every way. Good luck! Dfrg_msc 08:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. As someone who believes that WP:CONSENSUS should be taken fairly seriously, I appreciate Husond's willingness to set aside his personal views (or more precisely, to give them limited weight). Other concerns that have been raised (last RfB included) are for the most part unconvincing to me. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support, based on his conduct, --BozMo talk 10:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. I very strongly support this RfB, and I very strongly supported Husond's last RfB as well. He is more than qualified to be a bureaucrat, and from his answers, he'll follow the community's will in promoting someone to an administrator rather than promoting people who he simply likes. He is civil, decent, can spell "bureaucrat", and has now been an admin for a year. Husond will make an excellent bureaucrat. -- Acalamari 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Good luck t'ye - Rudget _zŋ 21:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - -- Keepscases (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Very tentative support, per my rationale in the "Discussion" section. I still have serious concerns that Husond might be MUCH more "by the numbers" than I care to see, but his apparent willingness to at least consider discarding pointy opposes heartens me a bit, at least. I also have concerns with his response to Durin, but on balance, Gustafson's "long-standing rationale" pointy-ness swayed me from switching to neutral toward going over to support. I apologize for being so wavering in my comments here. This is a tough call for me. (I completely removed my initial support vote, to hopefully clear up some of the mess I've made. -- K. Scott Bailey (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TangoBot hates you :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry ... this is a tough call for me. I'm honestly not usually this indecisive. -- K. Scott Bailey (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's good to see that you're not just a hit-and-run (!)voter. You keep reviewing this admin until you are sure of your answer. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

31. Support SQL^{Query me!} 06:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - I have always thought of you (Husond) as a civil and constructive user, and I see you becoming a excellent Bureaucrat. You have good judgement and evidence suggests you are willing to consider both sides of the RFA number v. consensus debate, which is what I like to see. Lack of activity at WP:RFA does not concern me, I do not consider it essential and you have still made some good contributions to WP:RFCRFA. Camaron1 | Chris 17:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support I trust him to make the correct decisions. Mr.Z-man 20:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Many of the issues raised at the previous RfB do not seem to have been rectified, and the issues regarding demeanor and consensus still appear to be present in the few short months since the previous attempt. Alansohn 14:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose: I concur with Alansohn. Issues regarding consensus still, in my opinion, remain. In particular, this nominee states contradictorily that he could envision a situation where he could promote at 69% (answer to question 5) but then later states "I don't think I would ever promote a candidate with less than 70% support". The answer to question 1 is very much like his answer to question 1 from the first RfB, and gives me no confidence that the nominee is capable of evaluating consensus. K. Scott Bailey put forth a good scenario in question 5, and I think the nominee failed in properly assessing the situation, and defaulted to numbers instead, noting a fear of complaints in answering question 1. 10% of RfAs fall into the grey zone. A bureaucrat must be able to successfully contend with complaints, and not fear doing their jobs due to complaints. Also, in his position at WP:RFCRFA he notes "Face it, on Wikipedia ... consensus will always require a number or percentage" The nominee also noted that the lack of participation at WT:RFA was a concern raised in his first RfB, yet since the first RfB there's not been a single comment from him at WT:RFA. He instead indicates his involvement at WP:RFCRFA as response. I find this unsatisfactory. Maybe WT:RFA is a coffee lounge, but failing to interact with the people who make up this realm of Wikipedia is a guaranteed pathway to failure. While the nominee has been considerably more active in adding his votes to RfAs in the last few months, the complete lack of interaction with his peers at WT:RFA leaves a gaping void. --Durin 15:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Please Durin, don't transform my views on consensus into mind-puzzling and contradictory notions. Again I'm afraid you would prefer a candidate who defined consensus by using your own words on that matter, but then I can be of no help. WT:RFA is an area where once again I remind you that I naturally have the choice of not joining in. I am not willing to take part in endless, repetitive discussions where I have little to add. The day I see a good proposal coming from WT:RFA then you can be rest assured that I will provide comments. Until then, I don't know why do you insist in requiring my direct involvement in WT:RFA, as my participation there wouldn't have greater relevance than any other user's. Is your intention to make a simple request for bureaucratship an appendix of WT:RFA or do you just wish to voice your dissatisfaction with the entire WP:RFA process by opposing a candidate who doesn't seem interested in reforming it? Either way, I don't find your position any productive. Húsönd 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Last time around you accused me of making a retaliation oppose. This time, you accuse me of having an agenda and using your RfB to promote it. This sort of behavior just confirms my belief that you are ill suited to being a bureaucrat. WT:RFA is not just about reforming RfA. Had you taken an active role there, you would know that. --Durin 17:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Given your history here, and your relative lack of activity over recent months (per your retirement), I think it reasonable to suggest there is an "agenda" underlying your comment; indeed, most long-time commenters have established positions of this nature, including myself. I interpret Husond's remark only as a suggestion to new readers, who might not know of the tensions involved here, to investigate the issues before resolving an opinion of your opposition. And Husond is not alone in his view that RFA talk is largely unproductive, though it takes courage to say so.Xoloz 17:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't have to be active to have an opinion on this candidate, nor does having an opinion constitute an agenda. If it does, then your support is every bit as much you using this RfB to parade your own agenda. Nobody needs to 'investigate' me (and I find your assertion in this regard quite offensive) or you in order to determine the veracity of our statements. Simply put, I find this candidate ill suited to being a bureaucrat. Let's practice just a little assumption of good faith, shall we? --Durin 18:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As often happens between us, you have apparently failed to read my comment closely. I said that my comment represented an "agenda" much as yours does. See that part where I say, "myself included..."? I repeat, established commenters, including myself, often have previously-stated philosophical positions of which newcomers may be unaware. I would encourage any newcomer to fully investigate such nuanced comments before offering an opinion, again including my own comments. Surely, you wouldn't desire commenters who made judgments without having been made aware of all the facts? As to your absence, while it does not render your opinion more or less valid, it is a fact which anyone (bureaucrats included) might choose to consider before evaluating the relevance and currency of your remarks. Folks who aren't around sometimes are not aware of all recent pertinent developments that might occur in a given area of policy. As I suspect you'll be prone to misinterpreting these latest words of mine (communication between us has been historically difficult), I'll direct your attention to my consistent use of conditional phrases above. Xoloz 19:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Note I have reverted Durin's removal of the above comments as "personal attacks" [2]. Húsönd 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I attempted to remove the comments in green above as containing personal attacks, lack of assumption of good faith, and discussion about me that was inappropriate to the RfB. Husond reverted the removal. This sort of action is indicative of how Husond would be as a bureaucrat. Draw your own conclusions. --Durin 19:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You can't possibly believe that it's valid to remove comments from someone challenging your opinions, Durin. You have opposed every candidate in every RFB in which I've seen you participate and it's not an assumption of anything for someone to point this out. --JayHenry 19:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   How is this meta discussion about me appropriate to this RfB? --Durin 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Though it is better to keep these exchanges short (if possible), you did offer reasoning in opposition at this RfB. The discussion isn't so much about you (from my POV), but about your reasoning. Xoloz 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Let's see...you raise my "history", my lack of activity, me having an agenda, my philosophical position, me having "nuanced comments"...and I'm supposed to think this isn't about me? Excuse me? Regardless of how your are couching it among conditionals, you are attempting to undermine my comments using a variety of disparaging methods. If you have an issue with me, take it elsewhere. This is not the forum. I'm quite confident you are capable of initiating an RfC. If you have an issue with my stance, address my stance rather than meta positions about me. Do you disagree with my comments regarding Husond's elevation of consensus? If so, why? Do you disagree with my comments regarding his participation at WT:RFA? If so, why? If you can't constrain your comments to those two points I raised, then please take your comments elsewhere, as those are the only two points I raised. Thank you. Frankly, I can't believe I am getting this much grief for stating a position with respect to this candidate. --Durin 20:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Note font colour (or color for those in html/america) green really does look remarkably similar to black for those with poor colour vision. If you want to use it to symbolise something, draw attention to or detract from there are other avenues. Pedro :  Chat  22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It's supposed to indicate comments revmoved and re-added. As no change was ultimatley made, I don't think it really matters - Husond's comment and diff should be enough to explain things. Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Which is great if you can see the difference between green and black on a laptop screen, which some people can't....! No biggie ! Pedro :  Chat  22:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose, per above reasoning in my striking of my support, regarding answers to my questions, and response to Durin. K. Scott Bailey 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)--Switch to support, per Gustafson's long-standing rationale, and other reasons given in discussion.[reply]

   He has replied to your follow ups, as far as I can see. Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   He has, and I find his answers--especially his last one--as well as his response to Durin, completely unsatisfactory. It's not personal, as I think he's a great admin. I just feel we have far too many ballot counters as 'crats as it is. K. Scott Bailey 04:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Remarks lead me to believe that this candidate will, in closing RfAs, allow numerical noise to distract him from the arguments and evidence presented. I do not believe he would be a useful addition to the current pool of bureaucrats. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose. I, too, am a bit concerned that he may put too much emphasis on numbers. --krimpet⟲ 21:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong oppose as is a completely non-trustworhthy POV pushing editor, see [3], [4] we need imnpartial editors not angry POV pushers who abuse their edit powers to push their own opinions. Nightmare proposition. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Erm- the diffs you've linked to don't seem to be edits by Husond. Have you got the wrong editor (or diffs)? WjBscribe 01:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Probably wrong diffs. SqueakBox is at me because I reverted him earlier today when he overturned my closure of a move proposal that was made out of process (see here). A user with an extensive record of warring/block log who obviously would not hesitate to transform his frustration into an attack on this RfB. Húsönd 01:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Husond, you can't claim you are right by talking about my edit record, would that yours was as impressive, eh? and indeed your comment merely confirms my oppose. please try to defend your first proposing something and then trying to close debate around it[5] as your record shows you are not trustworthy to be a bureaucrat. And we are discussing you not me and your attempt to divert the conversation towards me is merely further evideb=nce of your complete unsuiy=tability to be bureaucrast. You look likle you would abuse crat bnpowers re your obsession with Burma, putting the ptroject at serious risk. Crats need a far higher level of trust than admiins because of the legal issues re RCU and you look like you would out someone whom opposes your extreme views around clearly controversial issues like Burma. i fear you as a crat could seriously damage someone based on your POV obsessed record, there are real people in Burma and the day you start outing them to fulfill your obsessions is th e day wikipedia lawyers have a headache, and some! Thanks, SqueakBox 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. The concerns last time were with regards to closing by the numbers, and I feel they remain valid. As Dmcdevit said last time, a very good admin, but we don't need any more vote-counters. --bainer (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Durin. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose I do not trust Húsönd to evaluate consensu or reasoning on trivialities like article spelling; I see no reason to trust him to evaluate consensus on admins, or to recognize a railroaded nomination when he sees one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose, per my very long standing rationale. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Jeffrey, burying the "I will not reply" bit in hidden text is frankly poor. If you want to oppose good for you. Don't act like a child by making statements that you know are provocative (as evidenced by your hidden html comment) and then not let the rest of us in on the issue or concern. I am, frankly, disgusted by your (continual) lack of respect for the community as proved in this incident by not bringing forth evidence or making facts clear. Pedro :  Chat  22:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I quite agree; you should oppose with a clearly stated rationale, and since you have one, why make it difficult for everyone else? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   For the record, Mr. G's long-stated rationale is "there is no need for more bureaucrats." He has been posting it to almost every RfB for a long time. This is only to explain, and not to excuse, his brusqueness. Xoloz (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   That is perhaps the lamest "long standing rationale" I have ever heard. No wonder he refuses to post it; perhaps he's ashamed of it? K. Scott Bailey (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It's right up there on the list of extremly useful arguments, along side "we don't need more admins" and indeed "we don't need more editors". A surplus of quality can have no detrimental effect on the project. Pedro :  Chat  14:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. oppose per answers on some questions and no I will not explain here, to give you chance when you come here next time you will give smart answers. Also, your last several thousant of contribs show extremely low percentage of actual content creation. My opinion is based on my general concern about "professional bureaucracy" in wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not my style to badger opposers, but sometimes I brreak my "custom" when something down right shocks me. Being a bureaucrat has absolutely nothing to do with creating content. Secondly, "no I will not explain here, to give you chance when you come here next time you will give smart answers." isn't very constructive. Maxim 02:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You'll find Mikka isn't very constructive, as a general rule. (See "no professional police" blanket opposition on the RfAs). While I'm not a huge supporter of this RfB, the kind of thing Mikka and Gustafson are doing is disruptive, in my opinion, as it takes 9 to 10 genuine supporters to override each of these 2 spurious opposes. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose — if we promoted just by the numbers, we'd have 'crat-bots. Walton has mentioned a couple of times that "bureaucrats are not the Jedi Council." That's true, but they are, IMO, expected to exercise at least some judgement and not just look at the percentages. I'm not sure if you'd do this as a 'crat. Sorry. --Agüeybaná 15:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In fairness, as my tentative support note indicates, Husond has outlined specific times when he would be willing to deviate from just a "by the numbers" approach. I completely understand your concerns however, which is why I have been so wishy-washy on this RfB, and have left my support "tentative." K. Scott Bailey (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. I like Husond as an editor and admin, but find it likely he would over-rely on numbers in determining results, and therefore don't want him as a bureaucrat. Picaroon (t) 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending answers to my questions. 03:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Change to support. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I nearly switched to oppose, and may yet. My biggest problem with your candidacy is that we have plenty of "by-the-numbers" admins, and not enough that will be bold and toss frivolous oppose comments, which happen all too frequently at RfAs. However, you seem to be a really good administrator and a solid contributor to the project, so for now, I will not oppose. K. Scott Bailey 04:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)--Afer consideration, and discussion with Cecropia regarding the 70-79% policy, I am switching back to support.[reply]

I understand your position. But allow me to ask you to reflect on the fact that most users expect a bureaucrat not to be bold, but to be able to analyze their consensus. After all, WP:RFA requires more responsibility than other discussions, as a promotion cannot be undone by the closing bureaucrat (in contrast with admin decisions that can be promptly undone). Thus a bureaucrat must avoid letting his or her personal view of a candidate be the one to dictate the fate of their RfA. As the community trusts in a bureaucrat to close RfAs and even use their discretion within a reasonable leeway, so must the bureaucrat trust the community to make a good decision. Forcing a decision outside that reasonable leeway is an abuse of the community's trust, and that I cannot allow. Húsönd 04:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My neutral is more about the fact that I have grown weary of the "70-79%ers", for lack of a better term. Being a bureaucrat is a very responsible position. But it most certainly should not be about simple ballot counting. K. Scott Bailey 05:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can you comment on this exchange concerning a recent move request? I don't see anything in the close at Talk:Iao Valley to cause me to believe that GTBacchus was biased (although I give you credit for acknowledging that consensus was against your original position). Your inquiry seems to indicate that you think administrators should avoid giving the reasons behind their decisions in determining consensus. I'm worried about supporting here if that's how you feel, because bureaucrats should be encouraged to be open with the community about their decisions (i.e., the analysis you mention above) when promoting admins. Dekimasuよ! 04:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Heh, I thought that was ages ago, guess I forgot that one month on Wikipedia feels like an eternity. Anyway, I didn't contact GTBacchus because he provided an extensive justification for his closure, but because the arguments sounded to me too much as the view of someone expressing support for the move rather than those of an impartial admin closing a move proposal (e.g. he evoked broad consensus for naming articles without a diacritic when such rendering is the most common in the English language, when there is no such consensus). So although there was a clear majority for the article to be moved, I just had to tell GTBacchus that I didn't find the comments he added very neutral. I don't think he took it personally. And, he stated that he had no biases in that matter, which I have no reason to doubt. Húsönd 05:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.