Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HouseBlaster: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 130: Line 130:
#'''Support''' In the words of TonyBallioni, "not a jerk, has a clue". ♠[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]♠ [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 07:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' In the words of TonyBallioni, "not a jerk, has a clue". ♠[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]♠ [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 07:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. No problems here! [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 07:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. No problems here! [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 07:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Seems like we're on a roll with new admins lately! I wonder why? [[User:Mox Eden|<span style="background-color: #483D8B; color: #E6E6FA">Mox Eden</span>]] ([[User talk:Mox Eden|talk]]) 07:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' clear need for the toolkit. [[User:Draken Bowser|Draken Bowser]] ([[User talk:Draken Bowser|talk]]) 07:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


=====Oppose=====
=====Oppose=====

Revision as of 07:18, 18 June 2024

HouseBlaster

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (37/1/0); Scheduled to end 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

HouseBlaster (talk · contribs) – HouseBlaster has been one of the bright new faces of the 2020s, and I believe he will make a great addition to the admin class of 2024. HouseBlaster has displayed responsibility and good judgment with his work on the maintenance side of the site, which includes work at requested moves and on categories, files, and templates. With all the Categories for deletion closes he does, House might as well already be an admin; see the long history of Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working for examples, where House has helped tame a backlog at for the last several months. Working in these areas can result in queries about closes and certain decisions, and House’s comments in discussions and on his talk page show level-headed and precise responses. Outside of this, House has an established record when it comes to patrolling pages, and can do some real article writing, too. I believe House will be an excellent admin, and that the guy who created the page documenting the Admin Baton can now have it passed to him. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

I'm absolutely delighted to introduce y'all to HouseBlaster – that is, if you haven't met him already! I first met him a few months ago when launching the 2024 RfA review, and I found him to be incredibly competent, easygoing, and hardworking. A dive through his contributions honestly blew me away: he does huge amounts of needed work through categories for discussion, new pages patrol, speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and technical requested moves. With a mop, he could do even more. On top of that, he's level-headed, reasonable, and civil. He's also helped make needed change in RFA2024 and to CSD, deprecating two CSD categories and semi-boldly deprecating a third. All in all, a truly remarkable editor who has more than earned consideration for the mop. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with gratitude to Moneytrees and theleekycauldron! I have never edited for pay, and I have three alt accounts: Houseblaster (talk · contribs), BlasterOfHouses (talk · contribs), and User toolbox (talk · contribs). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I would like to help out primarily at CFD and secondarily at REFUND. At CFD, admins are needed to instruct JJMC89 bot III on how to action the results of CFDs, which they do by listing items at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. To prevent abuse, that page is fully protected; non-admin closures are listed on the talk page, and an admin checks before adding them to the project page. Currently, this task has a bus factor of two: Pppery and Fayenatic london. As an admin, I would be able to process CFD closes on my own and, in turn, process the kind of non-admin closures I have been making.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am currently one of two primary closers at CfD (for those of you keeping score at home, the other is Qwerfjkl). Besides helping to keep the outstanding discussion backlog as low as it can be, I am happy with the work I did purging Category:Songs written for films of songs that were not written for films – which had been sitting at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual since a 2016(!) discussion. I also am happy with the work I did to get on implementing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Category:Citizens through descent from, which had also been on the list at CFDWM for a while since 2022. (Currently, In part because of these actions, the oldest outstanding discussion at CFDWM is from October 2023.)

Content-wise, I would say 1934 German head of state referendum is my best writing. I am also proud of shepherding Daniel McCaffery – an AP2 BLP – through DYK (nomination). I will let my writing speak for itself.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Conflicts in life are unavoidable, and Wikipedia is no exception. My general rule is that I go for a walk when I need to take a second to calm down. Wikipedia will be there when I come back, and I certainly plan to continue doing so when I need to take a minute in the future. When I am interacting with others, I do my best to disagree without being disagreeable and focus on what will improve the encyclopedia. Asking for outside perspectives can be useful, whether that is at a noticeboard or a WikiProject (of course, while avoiding canvassing).

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Starship.paint

4. Hello HouseBlaster, can you explain your user name? Thanks.
A:. A long time ago at school (remembering the school I was attending, I was about eight years old) I needed a pseudonym for something (I have long since forgotten what that thing was). "HouseBlaster" is what I came up with, and I have used it since.

Optional question from Let'srun

5. When, if ever, is is inappropriate for a WikiProject to be notified about a RfD under WP:CANVASS?
A:. There is not really anything specific to RfD which makes notifications any more or less appropriate than in any other venue. In general – and this extends to RfD – notifications that are partisan, secret, or non-neutral fall afoul of WP:CANVASS; disclosing that you have made a notification to a WikiProject at the original discussion never hurts.

Optional question from Conyo14

6. Greetings. Do you have an area of this encyclopedia you prefer to edit over others (i.e. sports, science, politics, history, etc.)?
A: If you made me pick one area, political history. Though my favorite edits are the "spontaneous" ones – regardless of topic – such as fixing a typo or replacing a [citation needed] with a [1] in an article I was reading for other reasons.

Optional question from GTrang

7. Given your username, it looks like you will be "blasting" categories away (yes, this is a joke). But how are you going to judge whether a category is to be deleted (or jokingly, "blasted")?
A: There are two parts to this answer, as a !voter and as a closer. As a !voter, categories which are unhelpful for navigation should be merged to parents (and yes, this is broad); categories which are overcategorization should also be merged/deleted. And categories for non-defining characteristics of article subjects are also a no-no. There is no "formulaic" answer to this question – like most things on Wikipedia, CfD is more an art than a science.

As a closer, I judge consensus in the way you judge consensus in any area on Wikipedia: evaluating the strength of the arguments presented through the lens of our PAGs, though headcount is not entirely irrelevant.

Optional question from DandelionAndBurdock

8. Are you planning to do much adminning outside of CFD and coversely are there any areas of adminning where you don't think you'll have much involvement?
A: I do plan to work at WP:REFUND, and I was recently appointed a trainee clerk at ArbCom. Implementing its decisions – e.g. blocking a user who was sitebanned after a case – does require the toolset, and I would use it in the course of those duties. I have no plans to do anything outside of these three areas. One particular area I have no plans to work is AE: a non-insignificant number of AE cases end up at ArbCom, and given that the clerk team is understaffed I would avoid that potential source of reasons to recuse.

Optional question from Idoghor Melody

9. Have you ever made any decision or taken any action in the wiki community that you later regretted after much consideration?
A: Oh, plenty. If you want an example, I would say one of my most egregious actions was "reviewing" Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) for GA. It was a month into the COVID lockdown, and I was not even extended confirmed yet. I don't think I read the entire article... A few years later I remembered I had done that review, I went to check on the article only to discover it is now a featured article. It has a happy ending, but that was a major blunder on my part.

Optional question from CanonNi

10. It looks like you haven't participated in AfD in a while. Are you planning to become more active in that area?
A: I have no plans to get active in AfD, and if I were to become active it would be as a !voter, not a closer.

Optional questions from Renerpho

11. There are a lot of neglected areas on Wikipedia. What is it about CFD specifically that you find interesting to work on? Let's say you wanted to convince me to help out at CFD.
A: I think I enjoy CFD because I enjoy organizing things. It is, at its most basic level, a massive venue where you get to discuss the optimal way to organize things. And as a closer, CFD is great because most discussions are really easy to close, so it is easy to get started. You don't need much experience at all to close a sane proposal with four support per nom !votes and no opposition. There are discussions ranging from that easy to sitting-and-waiting-for-weeks-for-closure-because-it-is-a-behemoth – and everything in between – so you can move from easy closes on up at your own pace. After all, there are ~30 new discussions which need closing every day. And if CFD is not for you, that is completely okay! I am a massive believer that people should edit in ways they find enjoyable (of course, provided that those ways are productive / not disruptive). There are countless other tasks which you might find enjoyable.
12. In relation to my first question, and (jokingly?) to your username: Would you consider yourself a deletionist?
A: The labels deletionist and inclusionist are some of the least helpful things on Wikipedia. They encourage tribalism and are inherently comments on the person, which are both objectively bad things. Calling someone else a deletionist/inclusionist/mergist/etc. has literally never helped any discussion, ever. So I don't consider myself anything, though I would add that I dislike making broad judgements about types of pages and firmly believe ATDs are great. And my username (see Q4) just has to do with the fact that eight-year-olds think explosions are the coolest things in the world, not anything regarding the worthiness of articles (or houses) :D

Optional questions from Aszx5000

13. You seem a very promising candidate and heavily involved in admin-type work on Wikipedia. If you "owned" Wikipedia and had complete power like Elon Musk has with Twitter/X, what would you change?
A: I will start by acknowledging that I wouldn't want to be a dictator of Wikipedia. With that out of the way, I guess there are two ways to interpret this question, and because both are interesting I will answer both (and for those of you keeping score at home, I still count this as one question). If I were in charge of the WMF, I would look into better supporting the editor base, especially engaging new editors. We all started somewhere, better support for newbies really helps the 'pedia grow. If I were in charge of Wikipedia's policies, my current least favorite rule is "links outside of mainspace must be treated as external links" (part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid). I got started editing by clicking the "Learn how and when to remove this message" button on a banner, so this is an issue I find important. (I promptly removed a banner while neither addressing the issue nor leaving an edit summary, but I did mark the edit as minor – in other words, not my best edit. But I still think that the point remains we should encourage more people to contribute, even if their initial contributions require cleaning up. I know this sounds crazy, but I got a template message and actually heeded its advice!)

Optional question from The Night Watch

14. Hi there. Wikipedia has an interesting culture with people of various backgrounds, ideologies, dispositions, and hobbies. While collaboration with others can be fun, Wikipedia is also going to suck sometimes, especially with the conflict innate to admin areas. If you had the power to change anything about our culture, what would you change? Feel free to ignore this question if you would like, it's just some philosophical musing.
A: The Wiki Way is to change things, and yet we have this intense opposition to changing rules/procedures/etc. Sure, many of our current processes are not broken, but they could be better. I would make us more open to just trying different ways of doing things – like, for instance, the current 48 hour discussion period of RfA. The change might stink. But it might be better, and we don't know until we try.

Optional question from Daniel Case

15. To turn the last couple of questions around, what change, possibly controversial in its time, has been the most beneficial to Wikipedia in the long term?
A: I haven't studied all changes made to Wikipedia, so I cannot say what the most beneficial change has been. But one example that I think is worth highlighting is Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback (straw poll is now housed on a separate page). I don't have peer-reviewed science on hand, but the ability to have a dedicated anti-vandalism team is beneficial. There were concerns about rollback not requiring an RfA-like process (and in 2008 that was seen as a negative) and WP:CREEP concerns, but I think the additional WP:PERM bureaucracy has proven to be worthwhile.

Optional question from Codename Noreste

16. Do you have any technical and/or anti-vandalism experience? Examples include reverting vandalism, helping with edit filters or technical issues on the English Wikipedia, etc.
A: A while ago, I was active in reverting vandalism. It was not particularly enjoyable, and I recently gave up the rollback perm. I occasionally have done some work with templates, such as expanding the functionality of {{category redirect}} so it can take {{rcat}}s as a second parameter.

Optional questions from 60.241.125.170

17. This question does not imply any issues with your previous edits, it is due to the unrelated Nihonjoe situation. Do you agree to follow the WP:COI guideline?
A: Yes, I have followed the COI guideline (in both letter and spirit) and that will not change, regardless of the result of this RfA.
18. And would you avoid admin actions for articles where you have a COI?
A: Yes, I would avoid admin actions in general when I have a COI.

Optional question from Myrealnamm-alt

19. Hi! If you were to block users from reports from AIV, what would be your numbered procedure to checking and verifying the request?
A: I do not plan on working at AIV. But if I were potentially blocking a vandal, my process would be something like
  1. Make sure they were actually a vandal (looking at their contributions/filter hits)
  2. Make sure they were warned appropriately
  3. Make sure they vandalized after being warned
While keeping in mind what vandalism is not.

Optional question from Robert McClenon

20. I see that you are interested in Categories and plan to work CFD as an administrator. Can you explain briefly to the Wikipedia community why editors who work in article space and draft space should be interested in categories, and how categories are a useful part of the encyclopedia?
A: Categories help readers find related articles, and editors find similar articles they might wish to work on. And if you don't find them helpful, that is okay. But some people do, and one of the advantages of a category is that they are Relatively unobtrusive in that they generally don't distract from the flow of the article – they aren't really hurting you if you dislike them.

And I will also add that tracking categories (e.g. Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2024, Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) let people find a backlog they enjoy working and do that.

Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Per my general comment. Yes, this is a minute early. Sorry not sorry Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 00:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    HouseBlaster should use their future blasting admin tools to block you for one minute (joking) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  2. As nom! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  3. Third... beat again... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  4. Mach61 00:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  5. Blast err Support! Thank you HouseBlaster for volunteering! I have come across you numerous times at CfD and always found you to be civil and reasonable. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  6. Support: They seem to have a good head on their shoulders. I think they'd be a net positive to the admin corps. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  7. Support No issues from me. – robertsky (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  8. Support Net positive. I see no issues whatsoever. Schwede66 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  9. Support Net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  10. Support No concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  11. Support Good for the mop. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  12. Support Despite apparent limitations, HB looks like he could use the tools well the fields he works in. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  13. Support I admit I was skeptical at first, but what I've seen so far has eased my concerns. While content creation doesn't look like one of their strengths, we do need admins who like to work on the behind-the-scenes stuff. HouseBluster is clearly competent in the field they intend to work in, and I'm confident that they can be trusted with the tools. Good luck! Renerpho (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  14. We can always use more admins, especially in places like CfD. HouseBlaster has proven themselves to be trustworthy and I do not see any issues; I am also unconvinced by the oppose !vote. —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  15. Support: The candidate often uses the “no big deal” rationale for voting in the majority of RfAs. This is one of Lightburst's problems with the public RfA voting system, and does not seem relevant in any way to this specific candidate's fitness for the position. If you read the section it is very clear: - In the very early days… Jimmy Wales said, “I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. While this remark is 21 years old, it clearly appears on the policy page, and is a worthwhile perspective to consider, even though circumstances have changed.
    In researching, I have found that they often think they are right, but do not get hung up on the letter of the law more than a reasonable person might, i.e. the candidate likes to cite technical minutiae, but does not have any visible temperament issues that are incompatible with serving as an administrator.
    On balance, I think electing someone to an administrative position from which people are frequently removed (by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, and in the future by a community recall process) is not really a big deal, and based on the sorry state of our backlogs we should be doing it more often. Jimmy Wales saying it was NOBIOGDEAL in 2003 when he was handing out unelected adminships, and back then the backlogs only went back two years, as opposed to twenty-three. Materially, the mainspace participation for Houseblaster is irrelevant to their being promoted to the role of administrator on an encyclopedia. Tryptofish's analysis of the candidate’s greatest contribution to content (they said in answer to question 2 is my best writing), has shown that HouseBlaster was simply making technical edits to an article that was already written. But I do not think every candidate needs to be personally experienced with content review processes to protect content and content creators; and as mentioned above, I also see flashes of a personality that suggests Houseblaster would make a good admin. jp×g🗯️ 02:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    Comment That vote may be confusing if you haven't read Lightburst's oppose vote (which this is a response to, and which it is quoting). I am not criticizing your vote, JPxG, I just hope that this note is helpful to others for how to understand your argument. Renerpho (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  16. Support, appears rational with a usecase for the tools. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 02:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  17. Oh look, it's Lightburst around to oppose another RfA. Support - no big deal. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  18. Support no issues for me. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 02:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  19. Support: Candidate looks like something of a category wonk, which is pretty handy. So long as they don't go power-hungry or make a Category:Wikipedians who don't know how to use an em dash and add me to it, they'll probably do great as an admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  20. What I said in general comments. I have no concerns and I think HouseBlaster will do great. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  21. Support excellent candidate and a thoughtful editor. I will also add that I have seen HouseBlaster do impressive work in the area of history merges, helping to repair attribution for other editors' cut-and-paste moves: link to a barnstar I gave him. DanCherek (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  22. Support: Just take the mop and blast with it! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  23. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  24. Support Keep you mop wet and your toolbox open. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    Comment - Just curious. Has the Opposer ever voted "support" at any RfA. Inquisitive minds want to know! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 04:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  25. Support – Opposition concerns expressed thus far seem to be non-issues with respect to adminship. CfD (and more broadly XfD) and CSD experience is impressive, as is edit history. User is very active, and is an effective communicator, demonstrating strong knowledge of policies & principles with civility. For what it's worth, WP:NOBIGDEAL applies. Thanks for volunteering and good luck! Bgv. (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  26. Support an editor who appears to be an expert in their field with a good attitude to the encyclopedia in general. -- D'n'B-t -- 04:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  27. Clear need for tools and qualification for the intended purpose. Thanks for your work on the encyclopedia! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  28. Welcome. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  29. Support. ResonantDistortion 05:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  30. Support Every interaction I've seen HouseBlaster in has been positive. Their answers are well reasoned, and they clearly have the temperament. And they seem to understand where Wikipedia's long term sustainability and improvements come from. A solid candidate! Soni (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  31. Support. An obvious asset, particularly at CFD. ✗plicit 05:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  32. S'port from yours truly. Conyo14 (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  33. Support per JPxG and WP:NOBIGDEAL. Haven't really seen them before, but the answers above seem reasonable, so God bless and Godspeed. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  34. Support per Lightburst. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  35. Support In the words of TonyBallioni, "not a jerk, has a clue". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  36. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  37. Support clear need for the toolkit. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: The candidate often uses the “No Big Deal” rationale for voting in the majority of RfAs.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. In fact the candidate never opposed any candidate at RFA. This is one of my problems with the public RfA voting system: a person who wants to be an admin may be less inclined to vote oppose even if the candidate is not right for the job. From the link you can see that HouseBlaster did participate in other RfAs that failed but did not register a vote. The candidate lectures others about No Big Deal here emphatically stating that no big deal is "policy".

    A few thoughts. First, WP:NOBIGDEAL is policy. Not an essay. Not a guideline. Policy

    But if you read the section it is much less clear, WP:NOBIGDEAL - In the very early days… Jimmy Wales said, “I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. So this is more of a Kitschy-legacy-statement for historical reference rather than policy. The fact that the candidate confuses this 21 year old remark with actual policy is somewhat understandable since it appears on a policy page: I cannot let them off the hook though, because if HouseBlaster read the section, it is clearly not policy. It falls into the same category of RfA votes as "why not" and "yup" votes.
    In researching, I have also found that they often think they are right and they get hung up on the letter of the law. i.e. looking through contributions I see the candidate likes to cite technical minutia and can be dismissive. This note to Scope creep is one example. Or this bitey reply to an editor with 300 edits I am not required to satisfy you with my answer. Or this one to an editor with 382 edits about a close HouseBlaster made. depends what you want to say. If you just have general thoughts about the rename, you should probably keep them to yourself (per WP:NOTBLOG). If you think I misjudged the consensus in the discussion, you can leave a comment here (i.e. on my talk page), and I will consider your objection. If you are unsatisfied with my response, you can open a thread at deletion review. Alternatively, you may also place a request at WP:AN to ask an administrator to overturn my closure if you feel it was wildly off-base (emphasis on the "wildly" part: I sincerely doubt an admin will be willing to overturn my close without discussion, but it is an option you have. Imagine getting that answer when you have just a handful of edits? And FWIW, I too think this was a cringey and somewhat clueless question.
    On Balance, I think electing someone to a forever administrative position is a big deal, and based on failed RfAs others editors seem to think it is a big deal. Jimmy Wales saying it was NOBIOGDEAL in 2003 when he was handing out unelected adminships, is different than what it is in 2024. And materially, the main space participation for Houseblaster is way too low (28%) for them to be promoted to the role of forever-administrator on an encyclopedia. Tryptofish's analysis of the candidate’s greatest contribution to content (they said in answer to question 2 is my best writing), has shown that HouseBlaster was simply making technical edits to an article that was already written. I do not have confidence that the candidate knows the content creation side of the encyclopedia well enough to protect content and content creators; and as mentioned above, I also see flashes of a personality that suggests Houseblaster does not always respond cordially and digs in on their own interpretation of policy. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    I'll leave it for others to decide whether this is an oppose with genuine substance or just a Gish gallop of non-concerns stitched together to look reasonable, but the part about an allegedly "bitey reply to an editor with 300 edits" is grossly, shocklingly misleading and it would be enormously unfair on HouseBlaster to let it pass without comment. It leaves out the essential context that (1) the editor in question had spent said 300 edits trying to puff up their ancestor Jonathan Baldwin Turner and (2) HouseBlaster had been incredibly patient in spite of this obvious bias – if you read the editor's talk page you will see HouseBlaster spent months and months working with them and patiently trying to get them to follow our content policies. The particular context of the supposedly "bitey reply" was the biased editor attempting to get a citation replaced on another page altogether because it apparently didn't give Turner enough credit.
    In my view, the only thing HouseBlaster is potentially guilty of here is being excessively kind and patient. It's really hard for me to see how someone attempting to make an honest assessment of the candidate would leave out this context by accident. It really seems more like the sort of thing someone would do if they were looking for reasons to oppose and wanted to compile some convenient diffs to confirm their own presuppositions. – Teratix ₵ 03:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    I think you meant the other link/nomination for RFA #1; I couldn't see the nominee's username in the one from your post. Sure, the rationales provided by the nominee may seem concerning, but most of the ones you've cited are either unanimously or hugely successful RFAs. Nonetheless, the number seven and number eight are different stories: one was successful by 77.33% support, other unsuccessful by majority of crats after a discretionary rate. Reading the RFA #8 further, seems that the vote downgraded from "support" to "weak support" with further rationale, but the nominee still stood by that failed nomination in some way.
    Better examples should've been a failed crat nomination that HouseBlaster supported. The ones listed under "Unknown" may not count; more likely, HouseBlaster either asked a question, made a comment without voting, or just made cleanups. George Ho (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the correction George Ho, I fixed it in my rationale above. This is not directed at you George, but I hope everyone will just vote based on what they feel is best for the project. That is what I did. If I could have just put oppose I would. I have used up quite a bit of space with my rationale so I would rather we not continue commenting here on the project page. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    Funny how you are willing to retract that mistake but apparently unwilling to retract aspersions you cast when they're demonstrated to be false. It's difficult to see how a good-faith editor could engage in this behaviour. – Teratix ₵ 06:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Neutral
General comments
fish, chips, mushy peas and tartare sauce for the candidate and other wikipedians
  • While we're waiting for the voting to start, here's some fish, chips, mushy peas and tartare sauce for the candidate and the other Wikipedians in this room to enjoy... I don't see any issues myself at the present time, I see the content query above which is often a red line for me, but probably between their GA and other contributions such as 2014 Northern Cape provincial election - a stub but an adequately cited stub - I'd give them the weak nod on that score that they know what they're doing, given the attestation of good work elsewhere. We'll see how this pans out though.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Back a few months House Blaster took the time from their work at contributing to the Encyclopedia to nominate a fellow editor for the Editor of the Week award. To me it displays a hint into his social awareness. An important trait to have if one wants to administrate. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 18:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Be sure to rest well tonight. Watch some movies with friends or gaze up at the stars. That helped me on the final few days at least. Good luck. The Night Watch (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • This pre-!vote period of the trial RfA process is partly for bringing up potential issues, so that's what I'm going to do here. I've interacted a lot with the candidate, and have always found him to be collegial, even when we have differing views, and I appreciate that. But I've also noted some instances where he shows what I perceive as a rigid approach to doing things, along with difficulty in recognizing how other editors might react to what he says. First, there is this entirely well-meaning, but cringeworthy, post: [2]. Second, there is the very lengthy discussion here: [3]. By the end of that second discussion, I actually came around to accepting HouseBlaster's approach, so I don't think that he was technically wrong. But it seemed to me that he was operating under a rigid definition of The RulesTM, rather than showing deference to what other editors might prefer. I want to make clear that he wasn't, strictly speaking, wrong in either of these two examples. But I note that some other editors have commented above about there not being much content experience, and when I take that along with the two instances I link to here, I think there could be a potential issue in this RfA, of not having the right kind of attentiveness to interpersonal nuance that many editors want to see demonstrated in an RfA. Feel free to reply to my comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know if I'm missing something, but I see nothing objectionable in the second discussion, which seems to be respectful and constructive on all sides. The first comment is the kind of thing many of us might say and then later feel a bit embarrassed about; again, I don't see any concerns here. Others may have different views, of course. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with you that HouseBlaster was respectful in the discussion, and thank you for saying the same for "all sides". (And like isaacl, below, I found the discussion instructive.) But the reason I wanted to bring this issue up early is that the disputed edit to the policy page changed some very familiar and commonplace markup ('''bold''', for example), into some markup that, on the face of it, was considerably more complex when viewed in the edit window, and that I, for one, had never even seen before in almost two decades of editing here. And it felt, to me, like HouseBlaster was surprised at the pushback, because this was supposedly a question of only one way of doing the markup being "right", and everyone else just needed to follow the rules. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    I've been thinking a lot about how people have been addressing and changing their approach towards interpersonal conflicts. Some of that might come with maturity. We care a lot about communication, "playing well with others" for lack of a better word, but what does the community suggest people with those problems do to help address that? Sorry if this is an odd statement, I've been a little more contemplative than usual lately. The Night Watch (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    As I mentioned on your talk page, as your question is a general one, I think another venue would be more suitable for it and further discussion. isaacl (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    As isaacl says, this is indeed a general question, but what I can reply in the specific context of an RfA is that it's appropriate for the community to evaluate what we think about whether or not the candidate's ability to, if not "play well with others", then at least, to recognize the nuances of human interactions, so that the block button, in particular, will be used correctly, and not resorted to when a gentler method of deescalation can be used instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    Regarding the second discussion (in which I participated), which was about replacing presentational markup of bold and italics with semantic markup, personally I don't think it's an issue of deference, but appreciating there can be differing opinions on what best reflects the semantics of a sentence, and that the cost-benefit ratio for some discussions increases rapidly as the thread continues. I hope that all participants in the second discussion found value in it that will help future collaborative efforts (personally, I found it instructive). isaacl (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm going to bring up another, related issue, before we get into the support/oppose phase. And I want to say, specifically to HouseBlaster, please consider me to be exempting you from the (somewhat arbitrary) tradition of "candidates can't reply to comments", for purposes of replying to anything that I say here. Please feel free to say anything you want to me here, and I don't want anyone to hold that against you. As noted above, some editors have concerns about the relative lack of content work. You have, however, rightly pointed out your GA for 1934 German head of state referendum. And while I, personally, care about content work in RfA candidates, I also personally reject rigid criteria like "a single GA isn't enough". I'm more concerned with the kind of work done, than with checking off some arbitrary checklist. I took a deep dive into that page's edit history. The page was already pretty far along before you started working on it: permalinks of the page just before your first edit: [4], and the page now:[5]. As I look through the edits you made to the page between your first edit and when you started the GA process, a very large percentage of what you did was technical formatting of things like citations: [6], combined diff, and, I think, representative. You also added an image: [7]. I think your most extensive addition of content was when you added three paragraphs about "Hitler's rise to power" and elections background, which you had started in your sandbox: [8]. But when I look at your sandbox at that time, those paragraphs were actually largely copied from another page: [9] (which you ought to have made clearer when moving that into mainspace). So while it looks to me like you improved the page, not that much of it was a matter of creating new content, even in what you cite as your most significant content work. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    I think there is a little bit of confusion concerning the timeline. My edit summary was acknowledging that the rest of the article (minus the stuff I added) was copied from the mainspace article 1934 German referendum, which was later renamed after an RM to 1934 German head of state referendum (per WP:NCELECT). I wrote those paragraphs and added them in that edit, even though my edit summary did not reflect this. (As it was in my user sandbox, it quite frankly did not occur to me that others would read the summary; I was just concerned that my WP:CWW obligations were satisfied.) As for the amount of content I added, I have 62% authorship. I would also add that some of the original article needed removal – for example, a WP:COATRACK about the Hitler Oath – so comparing the length of the before/after does not present the most accurate picture of the work I did. Is it the hardest GA ever written? No. I am happy with my work, however. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • It's nice to see a very clear, specific and well articulated Need For The Tools. It sounds like perhaps they are not interested in using all of the tools, but I think that's alright in this case. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • HouseBlaster, I am really excited to see you as an admin, you will do a great job here. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • This RFA sort of emphasizes a quandary. The have specific expertise is a specific area which requires admin tools, and at least for a while would probably stick to that one area and maybe carefully expand into more areas in the future. So it would go really well if the RFA is successful. On the other hand, for a candidate, appears has weak experience in content creation (and no, I don't go by GA's) or in other areas such problem situations and thinks like ANI stuff. Things that are normally expected of a candidate, on the presumption that a successful candidate could do work in all admin areas. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    Most admins do not work in "all admin areas." For example, in my work with WP:UAA reports I constantly come across users who have had their inappropriate user page already deleted by one particular admin. Sure, that admin could issue the block as well, but they are working on speedy deletion while I am working on username issues. Some admins work at WP:AE while other wouldn't touch it with a ten foor pole. I've been an admin for nearly fifteen years and I've not once done a WP:RANGEBLOCK. There's plenty of work to go around. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I have two hobbies. Wikipedia and fishing. I have dozens of lures in my tackle box. Some are favorites that I use all the time. The rarely used ones are a bit of an obstacle and I only use them when I'm up to it. Same here. I can have a relaxing time editing what I know or I can challenge myself and do the difficult things. House Blaster will grow into the job. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 21:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Are we allowed to protest questions? Question 13 (not the answer) really grind my gears. this is RFA not a social media Ask Me Anything. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    They are being asked what they would change if they had the power to just do it. I think that's a valid question. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    I agree. It's a useful (and valid) question. Renerpho (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HouseBlaster&oldid=1229699880"