Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HouseBlaster

HouseBlaster

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (127/8/0); 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 ‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.›  with a 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 question 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 questions 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.

21. AFC reviewers, in accepting articles from drafts, are asked to add categories, but sometimes instead tag the article with {{Improve categories}} because we understand that there are gnomes who understand categories better than many reviewers do. Do you plan to work as one of those gnomes to assign categories to tagged articles?

A: I have no plans to do so.

Optional question from RoySmith

22. There have been a number of cases over the past couple of years where admins have been found to have violated WP:INVOLVED, or been accused of such and it was later determined not to be so. Could you talk about what WP:INVOLVED means and how you would apply it to yourself?

A: INVOLVED is Wikipedia's version of the principle one should not act as a judge in a case in which they have an interest. Admins can either act as editors or admins in a given situation, with a few exceptions when any reasonable administrator would do the same action. Blatant vandalism is often cited as one such exception, and I would add processing my own WP:G7s and WP:U1s. There are hundreds of other admins who can act in my place; there is no rule of necessity that comes into play with admin actions. I will always err on the side of caution when using the tools, and potential INVOLVEment would be no exception.

Optional question from Valereee

23. Would you like to address the concerns expressed in Oppose #4 regarding your understanding of the issues facing content creators and your willingness to reconsider your position on/approach to a given policy w/re: a rigid interpretation of rules?

A: I approach situations with the idea that common sense is above any policy or guideline; common sense and compromise are necessary and beneficial parts of editing Wikipedia. Oftentimes, subverting the rules is the best way to stay focused on the values those rules are meant to uphold, and I fully support that. That being said, the rules exist to document best practices, and if a rule fails at that job to the extent that the exceptions to it would essentially erase it, we should just change the rule instead (something I have a good deal of experience doing).

Regarding content, I don't necessarily believe that The Rules are there to constrain content creators. In general, they are there to help create better content. Sometimes the rules do have to define what content is out of bounds: as one example, it would be easier to create content if we didn’t need to worry about copyright, but we can’t IAR our copyright rules out of existence. However, those rules protect the integrity of content.

Discussion

• Links for HouseBlaster: HouseBlaster (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for HouseBlaster can be found here.

---

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 Scribe^{Edits! 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)

    @Ajraddatz This is a needlessly WP:POINTy remark, I think. Cremastra (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

    It was intended to be more glib than disruptive. Every RfA, it seems that some of the same names are pretty consistently in the oppose section, often picking apart the candidate's contributions to find some reason to oppose them while saying they are trying to protect the Content Creators^TM. I find that to be pretty disruptive, both at the individual level preventing some fine but imperfect people from becoming admins, and also at the systemic level by creating the toxic culture around adminship that demands nothing short of perfection and addiction to gain access to what was supposed to be a toolkit for people who could pass a vibes check. And to be clear, I also think that adminship is no big deal and that this candidate would be a net positive - my review of their contributions shows someone with a relatively level head, a decent amount of empathy and desire to collaborate, and someone who I think can figure out how to read policy and press the buttons properly. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:53, 19 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)

    I'd also like to throw in a essay for those on the fence: Wikipedia:Content awareness, not content creation. HouseBlaster meets my criteria – they're good at what they do. I've seen HouseBlaster show kindness and initiative to several editors over time. I don't think adminship will suddenly cause them to go on a power trip and in the incredibly unlikely scenario it does, we're in the midst of creating a community desysop process anyways. I don't think we should let perfect be the enemy of good because no one is perfect. Humans are complicated and we all have our own strengths and weaknesses. Ideally we balance each other out by having a variety of admins with different skillsets. For example, they can make up for my lack of interest in category maintenance :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:52, 19 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)

    Yup. But rarely. Best, Reading Beans 10:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

    I don't like adding to inline !vote discussions but facts matter: from this: 35 support, 28 oppose and 2 neutral votes - so actually not rarely KylieTastic (talk) 16:26, 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)

    Just noting I’ve read all the opposes to date and remain happy to support. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

28. Welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
29. Support. ResonantDis_tortion 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 Seems like we're on a roll with new admins lately! I wonder why? Mox Eden (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
38. Support clear need for the toolkit. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
39. Support Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
40. Support – I trust the nominators – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
41. Support. No concerns, seems a great candidate who has a clear need for the tools. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
42. Support. Best wishes –Volten001 ^☎ 09:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
43. Support. Good candidate, no issues. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

    Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. The candidate demonstrates a clear expertise in various areas of Wikipedia. I don't see the low rate of article creation as a negative, nor do I see it as a positive. It is neutral because the candidate has high skill in the other areas. I'll note here that I hope to see the candidate doing more article creation. Svampesky (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Not extended confirmed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

44. Support. I used to be fully on team House, but went over to the dark side of Bass sometime around 2021. I do hope it's at least Deep House or Funk House you'll be blasting (especially if camped within earshot), but it's a big genre with a lot to love in it.
    Also legit thought you were an admin, given your comportment, which has been most proper and appropriate. Wish we had succeeded in replacing H:YFA with User:Houseblaster/YFA draft last summer. Folly Mox (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

    @Folly Mox: I'm not much for house, but I have been on a binge of House that has been rather bumming me out – unlike the candidate House, who is the polar opposite of the arrogant manipulative hardass House. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

45. Support has a clue. Not swayed in the slightest by the opposes. SportingFlyer T·C 12:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
46. Support No concerns for me. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
47. Support Will be a net positive to the project in the areas they plan on working in. Let'srun (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
48. Support. Tons of experience and very good work that will only get better with administrative tools. Malinaccier (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
49. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
50. Support I have read the opposes, and I do not find them convincing. Scorpions1325 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
51. Support an experienced editor. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
52. Support. I'm happy to see this because CfD definitely needs another mop or two. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
53. Support. Love the amazing work at CFD and stuff! JuniperChill (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
54. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL and my striked out !vote above. I hope the candidate increases their article contributions; and that my initial !vote being striked out for insufficient contributions serves as a cautionary tale for them. Svampesky (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
55. Support - per everyone else and also HouseBlaster GA-reviewed my favorite article :) NØ 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
56. Support. Excellent candidate and very trusted noms, so I see only a good future with editor HouseBlaster in the admin corps. Let's have more like him, please! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
57. Per Lightburst. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
58. Support They are missing some experience that would be needed to be a "full scope" admin, but I think that it's clear that they intend to work in areas where they have the necessary experience and expertise.North8000 (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
59. Support Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 15:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
60. Support Teratix's reply to Lightburst's oppose is what got me here. I read through the entire discussion the candidate had with the user, and was seriously impressed by their overall temperament, ability to keep cool, and encouraging comments. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
61. Support. Kind, collegial, and helpful. I think he will make a great admin. Also per JPxG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
62. Support. Candidate has clear expertise in the areas in which they plan to focus, on top of a strong base of knowledge in general. Having more content creation would be nice to see, but it's not make-or-break for me, especially for a candidate with a clear vision of how they intend to use their toolkit. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
63. WP:NOBIGDEAL ;) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
64. Support. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
65. Support. No issues here! Great candidate :). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
66. Support Need more admins to help out in WP:CFD. Lightoil (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
67. Support, would be a good janitor in areas that need attention – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
68. Support – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
69. Go and pick up some slack for me. And write some more content in the future. The Night Watch (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
70. Support - no major concerns. GiantSnowman 18:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
71. Support Will benefit the project with the tools at CFD and elsewhere. Sure, additional mainspace contributions are always appreciated but candidate has sufficient content experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
72. Support: the candidate is familiar with the workings of Wikipedia and has a use case for the tools at CfD. I have no concerns about temperament from the discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
73. Yes, please: HouseBlaster's addition to the sysop group would be more of good than bad. We've all made comments, took actions, where we wondered what we were thinking when we said those things or took those actions. We can't keep discrediting users because of few errors they made, whether the errors are noteworthy or not, when they are obvious net-positives and when they have worked seriously and extensively in other aspects of the encyclopedia. As Just Step Sideways stated below, there's plenty of administrative work to go round for every admin. It is not an easy thing to be a jack of all trades. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
74. When I clicked the RfA link in my watchlist I yelled HouseBlaster's username out loud immediately (is that weird?). I can't speak for his category work much, but I can say with confidence he is of sound judgement and patience. Support. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 20:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

    For private reasons I am unconcerned with what Lightburst brings up, and I've never been particularly concerned with a low amount of content creation (as long as it's not none—some people just don't like that stuff and it shouldn't be a reason to prevent them from being admin). Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 20:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

75. Support. Great candidate for sysop. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 20:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
76. Support Mainspace may not be a majority of edits, but it is the plurality. Besides, we need several types of admins, not exclusively content creators. HouseBlaster seems like they would be a good admin. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
77. Support, I see no reason for concern. The admin tools aren't needed to create articles, nor is creating articles the only type of work needing done on Wikipedia, so I find the opposes to be unconvincing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
78. Support No concerns. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
79. Support the low amount of content creation does not concern me. The encyclopedia is already very big, and it needs people to maintain what exists just as much as it needs content creators. HouseBlaster has been an asset as a maintainer. I see no other serious concerns, so this is a comfortable support for me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
80. Support Based on my interactions with them, HB is a net positive to Wikipedia and would make a good admin. Number 57 22:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
81. Support. Has clue, isn't jerk. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
82. Support Competent and a net positive. There's always more admin work than admins, I see no reason why HouseBlaster won't make a good addition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
83. Support. Cremastra (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
84. Support based on what I have seen of their contributions. Noah, BSBA^Talk 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
85. Support – skilled, good-tempered, and has a clear scope of work for the tools. The opposes based on low content creation, while expressing a valid opinion, do not persuade me, and the other one is best not acknowledged. –FlyingAce^✈hello 01:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
86. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) — Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
87. Support originally based on the strength of their nominators, but I've had a look at the concerns raised by others. In particular, Tryptofish made a comment implying that the candidate had issues with attribution- but a further inspection of their sandbox revealed that this candidate is meticulous about following policy and the licensing requirements, even when it's not strictly needed or when nobody's watching. And true, they didn't write their GA from scratch- but they correctly identified areas a pre-existing article needed expanding, were willing to do the tedious job of tracking down sources to support claims already made in the article, and, in general, did a lot of needed gnome-like edits. And, again, the conversation LightBurst brought up shows a very patient person with a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've never had the pleasure of encountering HouseBlaster before, but I'm sure they'll make a great admin. (Even if he's chosen to devote himself to categories. Ah, well. We can't all be perfect) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

    You mentioned me, so for those reading this, that was in the General comments section below. I explicitly asked HouseBlaster to reply, and they corrected me on that attribution issue, and I already acknowledged that correction, so that's not really a "live" issue. And to correct something you said about that discussion, below, he didn't track down those sources, so much as reformat sources already found by others. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

    Yep, sorry. I suppose I could had made it clearer the confusion had already been cleared up, but, seeing as it inspired me to go look through the candidate's sandbox and other contributions, I figured I'd mention what led me there. And I stand by my other comment. The article in question went from having just fourteen sources, a citation needed tag, and a page number needed tag, to having 19 sources, all of which now have specific page numbers (most of which were lacking, or only pointed to overly broad ranges, in the original version). Again, I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough in my support that this is what I was referring to, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to make sure my rational is properly explained. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

88. Support will be a clear net positive with the tools. Gizza (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
89. Support - I've never felt that content writing is an important prerequisite for adminship. We are encyclopedia editors, not just writers, and editing an online encyclopedia open to all involves a wide range of needs and skills. The candidate is an excellent all-around editor and the other objections raised are weak sauce. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
90. Support. Administrative backlogs are a big deal, and the candidate's editing history shows that he would use the administrative toolset to reduce these backlogs. I reviewed the discussion at WT:BAN § Semantic markup and felt that the candidate demonstrated strong communication skills in patiently and cordially explaining accessibility principles that are sometimes misunderstood on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 04:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
91. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 08:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
92. Support Very good candidate, displays a need for the tools and a very calm, considered approach. I don't think a lot of content creation experience is needed for many admin tasks. Wikipedia is maturing and inevitably it will attract people whose contributions are concentrated on the many background tasks which keep the place clean, tidy and functioning. Those tasks are important and allow the content creators to concentrate on their vital work.Neiltonks (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
93. Support not a jerk, has a clue, has a clearly articulated need for tools. "Only" 28.3% of edits in mainspace translates to 8.3k mainspace edits, which is nothing to sneeze at. At that point, only concrete evidence that they don't edit well in mainspace will convince me that they don't understand content creation. Their own contribs to their GA may be minor but it nevertheless proves they understand the collaborative process. I do find some aspects of Tryptofish's oppose thought-provoking and so advise the candidate to be extra careful if and when they ever do branch out of CfD, and to be receptive to the input of others and not pedantically stick to policy. Go ahead and make us proud, HB! Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 11:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
94. Support No concerns, good candidate, best wishes Josey Wales ^Parley 12:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
95. Support GMG^talk 13:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
96. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
97. Support - Yep. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
98. Support - I usually prefer to wait for some Opposes before voting (and RFA is not a !vote because it really is a vote), to see whether I agree or disagree. I do not think that extensive content creation experience is essential for all admins. It is necessary that many of our admins have mostly content creation experience, and they do. So I respectfully disagree with the Opposes. I think that it is useful also to have admins who are proficient in various gnomish tasks having to do with organizing the content. This is an editor who can be trusted to use the tools to organize the content. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
99. This is Wikipedia. If we got rid of all admins who are by the book and occasionally struggle in delicate social situations, we would need some new crats to carry out all the desysops (mine included!). The candidate will be fine. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
100. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
101. Support - A limited but cogent case for the janitorial tools. I'm not entirely comfortable with the rainbow-colored contributions pie, but we're not all content people. I wish we had a one-year probationary period for Admins sometimes. Carrite (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
102. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
103. Suppport Unconvinced by the opposes - as Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI says above, the 28% mainspace edits that have been the source of so much brouhaha translate to over 8,000 edits in mainspace. I find the candidate's contributions to more than show both their experience and need for admin rights. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
104. Support, no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
105. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
106. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

     support, good luck!--Martin 03:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Not extended confirmed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

107. Support. Enough good people vouching them here. Don't really see the opposes as raising serious enough issues here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
108. Support - The oppose !votes seems to be a WP:NOBIGDEAL because of the area HouseBlaster is planning to work on. Unless they make Category:Users who never add rcats when making redirects I'm all for this person gaining the toolkit. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
109. Support. I am thankful that there are people who don't find Categories for Discussion as deathly uninteresting as I do. HouseBlaster has been a benefit to Wikipedia in the past, and adminship would enable him to be more beneficial.
     Significant content contribution is, of course, a plus factor for an RfA (and equivalently limited content creation is a minus). But editors who have successfully become admins despite limited content creation have not been running amok making the encyclopedia worse. SilverLocust 💬 06:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
110. Support Tentatively, as there is always need of people even if just to clear out backlogs and maintain things. However, I do feel content writing is a heavily important thing to be familiar with, as not understanding it can lead to problems and disagreements that may otherwise not happen, like being quick to discount and throw away articles. I heavily suggest that HouseBlaster create some more and especially longer articles after becoming admin to see things from that point of view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
111. Support—Kurtis ^(talk) 09:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
112. Per my general comment. I am not too concerned about the lack of content creation, although I would like to see more of it from HouseBlaster as an admin; indeed, as has been noted elsewhere, there have been times when a user passed RfA with relatively meager content work, and then went on to become a sterling content creator after getting the mop. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 10:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
113. Support - I wrote a long justification that meandered through my personal bias against categories and category work, nodded to the opposes, and then tried to put aside my bias citing examples of the candidate acknowledging mistakes and being helpful, eventually concluding they're worth supporting. Instead, I'll leave this summary and say "worth supporting!" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
114. Support - I don't know HouseBlaster outside of seeing them do some clerking, but from looking through their edit history I saw an incredible feat of long-term patience and kindness when aiding an elderly new editor who wanted to write an article about their great great grandfather, and it shows the virtues of someone I think would make as a good admin. BugGhost🪲👻 13:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
115. Support the interaction Bugghost mentions above shows a willingness to help explain Wikipedia's intricacies to users who usually just get some cursory templates thrown at them before they're banned for CIR or something, which is much more important in an admin than pure content-making ability. AryKun (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
116. troppuS a worthy addition to the team. The rationale of the oppose voters below, while very detailed and long (which, I must add, I do greatly appreciate as I found it really helpful in better understanding their reasonings and logic behind their opinions), are largely not of any concern to me. There is absolutely no reason for administrators to have to be polymaths nor jacks of all trades, nor have ten-year old accounts, nor must they have dedicated their entire lives to a random Internet project. If an editor's promotion will ultimately be a net positive, as it is in this case, then there is no good reason in my mind to hold any objection. An an editor involved solely in content creation myself, I must say idc at all about administrators not being all too familiar with content themselves; there are a lot of examples of fantastic administrators who prioritise other fields like maintenance and what have you. In fact, I would assume most administrators are not avid content creators given the apparent technical and managerial associations with the role, but perhaps that assumption is incorrect a-ha. Tryptofish's points below I think are the strongest, but, to me, the cited edits are minor goofs/questionable decisions at best. The rest of HouseBlaster's edit history is quite strong, and the rest of their talk page interactions seem more level-headed. To make my argument stronger I will cite random confusing unedited-since-2006-policies that deletionist AfDers love to cite in their dissertations: WP:NOBIGDEAL, WP:THISOPINIONISFACT, WP:HOUSEBLASTERFORADMIN, WP:IFN&£✈️ ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 15:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
117. Support In regards to content creation. Yes, the percentage of article is only 28.3% according to xtools, but the total is over 8k with almost 3k in the mainspace this year alone. Not a lot of build an article from completion, but a random sampling finds lots of good, basic find a reference and fix the information edits, not just reverts. Not everyone has to be a dedicated article writer and in fact I would prefer to not to lose article writers to admin work. We're a hive of activity here and the workers can specialize. <silly>Yezz. Specialize. Like beezz. Pollinate the articles, good worker beezzz. We need the seeds of new ideas!</silly> Oh, uh, and there is no Plant/Pollinator conspiracy to take over Wikipedia. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
118. Support Leijurv (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
119. Support. There is a clear use-case for the tools, and it's an area that could definitely use more admins. I see no evidence that HB would abuse the tools in any way. I flinched at the question to Doug, but I can only see it as an awkward way to express a genuine sentiment that I can't argue with, and so perhaps I can set it aside. I'm also a little unhappy about the volume of content creation, but I looked into the GA and the DYK in some detail, and I saw substantive content edits, not just gnoming, and I had no quibbles with the edits I checked. I assume this is going to be successful, but regardless, I urge the candidate to return to writing as often as possible. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
120. Support I have waited several days to see if any serious issues come up, and none have. I have read all of the opposing comments. Their rationales contain glimmers of reasonable concern, but their ideals have been taken to an extreme that I cannot support. Yes, in principle admins should write content. But admins are primarily there to defend the encyclopedia and its editors from all manner of garbage. HouseBlaster seems to be compentent in working with categories; I do not give a darn about categories and I'm glad to have someone else take care of them. Criticizing the candidate for having only 28% mainspace edits, when that alone (8,355 per xtools) is more edits than I've ever made, seems like a deliberate misuse of statistics. As is cherry-picking other random xtools stats. Finally, there is no way I can let being promoted an admin after four- or five-year experience is not that uncommon, especially back in Wikipedia's early days slide. In Wikipedia's early days, before the Encyclopedia turned five years old, nobody had five years of experience. Back then, the community made a teenager a 'crat with one year of experience (and "teenager" might be stretching it). Our requirements have since risen and several years of tenure is now the norm, but that is still an illogical indicator of fitness for adminship. Toadspike [Talk] 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
121. Frostly (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
122. Support LGTM ~Δ _{(delta • t • c)} 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
123. Honored to support Zingarese talk · contribs (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) 19:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
124. Support: No big deal :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
125. Support, I am convinced by the editor's record and the counterarguments that have been made to the points of opposition. BD2412 T 21:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
126. Support. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
127. Support, because of an excellent track record in closures at WP:CFD. I simply do not agree with opposers that admins need to create a lot of content in mainspace themselves. Adminship and creating content are two different roles that can be combined in one person but do not have to. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 21 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)

   Replies moved to RfA talk page, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/HouseBlaster#Responses to Lightburst's oppose. jp×g🗯️ 23:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

   Boy-o. That is a lot of words to type. GMG^talk 15:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

2. Firm oppose I apologize, but 28.3% of the candidate's edits are to the main space, which is clearly quite insufficient. The fundamental responsibility of any Wikipedian here is to write and protect articles and content creators. The candidate has demonstrated very limited experience in content development, which I view as a huge red flag. I don't see how this editor can be an effective admin without having the necessary experience in this area. I firmly stand by my vote! Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 07:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Regretful oppose I believe that content creation should be something to consider. While its extent is open to debate, I frankly find 5 mainspace creations (1 deleted, 1 dab page, 1 start, and 2 stubs) with 1 GA (currently around 1300 words, 63% authorship) too low to overlook. I don't doubt HouseBlaster's behind-the-scenes contributions, but I hold that mainspace should come first as without it, all the other spaces would be meaningless, and there is simply no other space to better teach editors Wikipedia's fundamental policies. Aintabli (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

   Oppose since the user does not have recent experience in reverting vandalism/disruptive edits, as well as reporting users to ANI/AIV. Adding to the two opposers' statements above, I find that the user obsessively creates categories and templates mainly. The only pages the user could create are redirects.(I fear that once the user grabs the mop, it would be busted within hours.)41.230.158.78 (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Not extended confirmed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I've been here long enough that I remember a former admin, who worked tirelessly with categories, and did very good work there, that made her widely liked and respected when she became an admin, and for quite some time after. But as she moved into other areas of admin work, she made some really awful blocks of editors who should not have been blocked, and she got into a ridiculous edit war with RexxS, which ended up leading to the things that eventually caused him to leave Wikipedia for good (and he is much missed). That admin ended up getting desysoped by ArbCom, for good reason. I don't want that to happen again, and neither should anyone else. I like HouseBlaster personally, and my oppose is not a comment on him as a person, or even as an editor. It's specifically about whether he is a good fit for the job. I've tried to test out my thinking in the General comments section (which I wish more editors would read, while this trial process is being tested), and I've thought hard about this, but I'm ending firmly here. If we could unbundle category deletion (does WMF really care about permission to view deleted categories?), this candidate would be fine, but we can't do that, and we can't hold admins to just working in the areas that they say they will work in. A pattern that I consistently see is that HouseBlaster is a nice person, but his first impulse is to defend himself as being right when criticized, and he constantly treats Wikipedia as something to be done according to a set of rules, rather than with nuance. "I'm right, according to the rules" is something that will go badly when a difficult admin action is questioned. This edit, [1], is cringeworthy, and don't bother badgering me if you don't comprehend why. (And note that the diff also contains a bunch of line-break corrections. Not anything wrong with doing that, but it's going to be part of a pattern.) Look at this edit to a policy page, [2], and ask yourself how much of an improvement it really was, how helpful it would be to do that on other pages. (It continues that pattern with the line-breaks.) There was a lengthy discussion about it here: [3], and I'll readily say (as I already did in the General comments), that HouseBlaster was collegial, that I learned some things from it, and that I came around eventually to accepting some parts of the edit. But other editors besides me pushed back against that edit, and HouseBlaster was insistent that his edit was Correct^TM according to The Rules^TM, a position he never really moved off of. I'm not someone who opposes because "not enough GAs", but I do care about a potential admin's understanding of what goes into content decisions. Below, I also asked about the GA HouseBlaster cites as some of his best work. I pointed out that a lot of what he did was re-format references that had already been added by other editors into "sfn" format: [4] – not all of what he did, but a lot. I explicitly invited him to reply, and I find his reply revealing. He points out that he had added 62% of the character count to the page, which may sound like he wrote a majority of the text, but actually reflects, in part, that re-formatting. So the pattern I'm seeing is of someone I like as an editor, but who tends to be a bit rigid and insensitive to how others may feel, and who is very bound by the rules and by quantitative measures of worth. Sadly, I end up here. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

   A minor point, but the first diff has linebreak changes because of the user script used for replying. I tested this with my user talk sandbox: [5] 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Tryptofish (and other opposers), including Lightburst, unfortunately. Reading some of supporters' rationale, have we compromised some of our standards just to resolve admin backlog and all? Sure, a user being promoted an admin after four- or five-year experience is not that uncommon, especially back in Wikipedia's early days. However, we've seen such users promoted so suddenly merely because they seem well social and technical and don't produce same drama that other certains admins and longtime editors have done, including one Wikinews admin who recently self-nominated unsuccessfully for bureaucrat-ship (again) and checkuser tools. We've seen also promotion of certain users who've not done much content editing and/or creation. If the nominee (HouseBlaster) becomes promoted, I guess I wouldn't be surprised mainly due to huge majority. Nonetheless, I can't help wonder whether trying to avoid the potential same cycle (referred by Tryptofish) is either futile or risk-aversive or.... Anyways, I know that RFAs are not places to address current state of WMF and Wikimedia projects, but (if Tryptofish is right, then) certain potential cycles of promoted "qualified" users who may not be qualified in other words be seen as a symptom of Wikipedia slowly crumbling, affecting other Wikimedia projects and then WMF like a domino effect. George Ho (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

   I wouldn't say 4 or 5 years is sudden at all, unless we expect people to dedicate decades of their life to what is essentially typing on the internet. AryKun (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

   In Wikipedia's early days, users were promoted after 4 or 5 months of experience, not 4 or 5 years. Most of Wikipedia's currently active admin cohort (because there have been so few promotions since the standards have risen) were promoted with around a year's experience or less without any drama and have done/are doing a fine job as admins. Gizza (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

6. I share Tryptofish's concerns. – Joe (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
7. Oppose, I mean by terms of content creation they haven’t really done much, and to be fair looking at their recent edits a majority of their edits go to stuff about CfD. Their most edited mainspace page has been edited 37 times, which I would not consider high compared to some other admins. This month only 6% of their edits have gone to mainspace. I’m sorry, I hope this won’t discourage you in the future. 48JCL 20:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
8. Oppose Mainly per Tryptofish. Intothatdarkness 13:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• I'm incredibly happy to see this. :) HouseBlaster is pretty much the reason I'm even an admin. Their shove was the last one I needed. [6] I've also seen them doing loads of good work across the project and they often go above and beyond when interacting with newbies. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• An out-loud "Nice!!" in reaction to seeing this. Major net benefit to the project. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Good candidate and good nominators. I think they'd do fine. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Responsible for an improvement to RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  A short summary for people who weren't around almost two years ago: RfAs still lasted 7 days but people could still !vote until a bureaucrat got around to closing or starting a crat chat. This could sometimes take hours and this change fixed this arbitrary deadline. I was an enthusiastic support at the time although it was not a SNOW discussion, plenty of people opposed for various reasons. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  that RfC was almost two years ago? gosh, I'm old Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I started editing in 2018 and I feel this way too often when reading old discussions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Meh, that's nothing. I've been editing since 500 BC. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Given the nominators and the fact that CFD is chronically backlogged (and coupled with Blaster's experience in the area), I don't see a reason against this. Best wishes with the RfA, @HouseBlaster:! (Also: great username.) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Only ever had positive experiences with the candidate. I do hope they do more content creation; I enjoyed reviewing 1934 German head of state referendum for GA status. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Don't always agree with their actions at CfD but have found the candidate to be fairly well reasoned all things considered. Barring something unexpected coming up here, I believe they'd do well with the tools. Let'srun (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• This is not a !vote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is it a !!vote then? –FlyingAce^✈hello 03:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  A ¬vote, perhaps? Cremastra (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Ceci n'est pas une !vote. – Hilst [talk] 11:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's not a !vote, This is a !vote Conyo14 (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I see you've played knifey-spoony before! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Undoubtable asset to the CfD team. Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 04:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  +1 HB has been very helpful to me in CfD and made things run efficiently and productively. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the candidate or their work as our areas of focus don't have a lot of overlap, but from a cursorary look at their user page, I don't see a lot of content creation experience, which is totally okay. The candidate has clarified what area of the project's back end they do the most at and that area needs more admins. I fully support a trend where admins may run and be successful without content creation experience but a large focus on the neglected stuff. I look forward to hearing from the candidate and their answers to the questions! Thanks for running! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• I am concerned about the lack of content creation simply because admins do get dragged into that area no matter what their initial intentions might be. This is an area of activity that's relatively easy to fix, but it is nice to see how a potential admin behaves "under fire" (so to speak) when dealing with content creation (and related areas like AfD, where at least they have been active in the past).Intothatdarkness 13:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I share your concern about minimal main space participation (28%). Articles started are two stubs, a start and a D-page. And they are active in AfD. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Intothatdarkness: They have a GA: 1934 German head of state referendum. Does that resolve your concerns? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  One GA is not enough. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're free to have that opinion, even if it's in the minority. Most people have varying definitions of what "counts" as content creation and I'd say HouseBlaster easily meets what most people like to see at a minimum. One example would be my RfA. I also had one GA. Our situations are slightly different because I had a higher mainspace percentage and I have also created a larger total number of articles. But I also didn't have what most people see as a substantial "need for the tools", which is an area I think HouseBlaster is stronger in. I don't think mainspace percentage is everything. Serious content editing usually takes more time per edit than other activities. For example, I recently nominated one article for AfD. It's not an area I often frequent so it doesn't really reflect on my pie chart. But that one AfD gave me 5 Wikipedia namespace edits just for creating the page and adding it to the appropriate deletion sorting lists as well as a user talk page notification. A lot of admin candidates aren't going to have super high mainspace percentages because they're also doing these other maintenance activities. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I had no GAs and I had over 300 supports. There are various ways to assess a person's knowledge and experience with content. Counting GAs isn't the best when there's no explicit guidelines as to how many someone should have to satisfy the masses. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Clovermoss I took that into account when making the comment. Admins get dragged into mainspace discussions as part of the job (no matter their plans prior to a successful run), so I look for prior behavior (or lack thereof) there. I don't rely on GA alone for that, although it is helpful. Intothatdarkness 11:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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: [7]. Second, there is the very lengthy discussion here: [8]. 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 Rules^TM, 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)

  What is cringeworthy about [9]? It's an open question to a user about how to deal with their possible death. It may be uncomfortable, and I don't know if I'd have worded it exactly like that, but that doesn't make it cringeworthy. On the contrary, actually. Renerpho (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  A possibly useful bit of information is that the editor to whom the question was posed never replied to it. Although I have no doubt that some editors will reply to that, "so what does that prove?" Communication online is certainly a tricky issue. My own gut reaction to your question was to want to say, "if you gotta ask...". I think that it's breathtakingly tin-eared (as is your comment, but you aren't the candidate). For me, I expect administrators to know how to get those things right. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 18 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: [10], and the page now:[11]. 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: [12], combined diff, and, I think, representative. You also added an image: [13]. 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: [14]. But when I look at your sandbox at that time, those paragraphs were actually largely copied from another page: [15] (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)

  Thanks for the reply. First, let me make clear that, when I compared the two permalinks of the page, I wasn't concerned with article length, so much as with the state of the article. I don't think I got the timeline wrong, but your are right to correct me about the fact that you had written the content under the old pagename, before the renaming, which is something that I did not realize. So you did contribute circa three paragraphs yourself, which I don't want to underplay. But the fact remains that the "62% authorship" that you proclaim, based on number of characters, is made up to a significant extent of the list of sources here, which you added by converting the preexisting sources into "sfn" format. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 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 foot 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)

• @Just Step Sideways: Not only do I agree, but that was a part of my point. Which includes that there's no provision to acknowledge that, and the defacto RFA doesn't acknowledge that. North8000 (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I kinda realized after posting that that I was possibly misreading your intent, and I meant to say as much but I guess I got distracted by something shiny. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 15:50, 18 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)

  except candidates neither have the power nor the background making it an exercise in futility and being told what we want to hear. Suppose some candidate said they wished to end all IP editing. There's no useful guidance that provides. They don't have and never will have the ability to end IP editing, and it has no bearing on how they will act as an mop holder today. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Whether candidates just write what we want to hear is hard to know. I suppose it's a common feature of all elections. But I assume a candidate is honest until I see reason to believe otherwise. As for your made-up answer: Hypotheticals can be useful. If a candidate said they wanted to end IP editing, that'd tell me they don't like how that's currently done. I'd also be concerned that they don't seem to appreciate the contributions from IPs, and whether they really support the basic principles of this project... Or maybe they bring up a problem with IP editing that I've never considered? If a candidate brings up an argument that hasn't been heard yet, chances are they came to it by themselves. The argument may be sound, or fringe, but either way I'd find that interesting. Renerpho (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Having interviewed many people over the years in real life, asking a person an open question about something they care deeply about about, can be very revealing and insightful about their character and motivations. HB passed imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Why do we need insight into an rfa candidate's character and motivations? These "ask me anything"-type questions are part of the "the problem with RFA" IMO. They're part of what makes RFA into a weird public job interview reality show. Levivich (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that for some commenters, evaluating their trust in a candidate may include getting a feel for the candidate's personal characteristics. But I don't think we should be turning the request for administrative privileges process into one akin to a job interview, with questions delving into personal motivations. We can get a sense of a requestor's character through their editing history and interactions with others. If a given commenter doesn't think there are enough contributions yet to evaluate the requestor, they can oppose conditionally until enough edits have been made to make a determination. isaacl (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Having now participated in a few RfAs, I sense a key issue - once it is clear there is technical competency - is whether the candidate has common sense. That was the purpose of my question. The last few RfAs who answered it gave common sensed answers and I voted for them. If you have shown to be able to handle technical sections of WP, then I think you can learn any part of WP, so I don't mind if your experience is specific to a certain area. However, if you do not have common sense, then I do not think that being an administrator is advised, either for the candidate or WP? I am happy not to ask it again if not helpful:) Aszx5000 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  My comment was in response to the idea of asking questions to understand a candidate's motivation, which I feel is separate from evaluating their judgement. Though I appreciate the "what would you decree by fiat" question is one that people like to ask, I think one that is more bound by practical limitations and less blue sky would be more revealing of a candidate's judgement. isaacl (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• To cite Aintabli: 5 mainspace creations (1 deleted, 1 dab page, 1 start, and 2 stubs) with 1 GA (currently around 1300 words, 63% authorship) since 2019 is indeed low. And considering HouseBlaster is a member since 2019 it doesn't look like content creation will suddenly be among their priorities any time soon. So we have a solid con here. Whether it is important enough so as to decide whether they should gain adminship or not is another topic. Super Ψ Dro 14:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Zombie comment... It's hard to determine priorities for now and the future, y'know? We've had at least two "recent" admins who had no GAs at the time of their RfA and who have gone on to focus a lot more on content. At least one of them is no longer active in administrative areas because it makes them less happy than writing things. I know that's not every case when admins usually write less content after promotion, but sometimes people realize that focusing more on articles can be a way to make friends and have fun. But anyway, this is just my weird viewpoint, mostly because my own priorities have been shifting. I'd hope that HouseBlaster might consider some greater focus on content in the future. The Night Watch (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• I saw this on ANI regarding the 2003 RfA of Deb, who I think has been a well-regarded admin for over two decades on WP. In the same way that Wikipedia was an idea that should never have worked on paper (an encyclopedia that anyone can edit), but did spectacularly in practice, most administrators do good work. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Buster7, Reading Beans, KylieTastic, wanted to answer this but like KT was reluctant to insert it into the vote. People notice opposes. And a lot of people are reluctant to oppose, which means that instead of opposing they simply don't weigh in. People who are comfortable doing it, and so do it regularly, stand out. If the editor had simply not voted in those RfAs, no one would find it the least bit remarkable. That editor is willing to take a risk and does it regularly here. I don't always think they have a great point, but I absolutely think they're well-intentioned, and I admire anyone willing to stand up and speak instead of sitting on their hands. Valereee (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee, sometimes, people (bot don’t !vote, do they?) don't !vote because they do not know the candidate so well and so cannot join the “crowd” and not because they would prefer to “sit on their hands”. Best, Reading Beans 04:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Look's like I am late. I don't have XC so I will not leave a support (or oppose) but this and prior RfA prove that goof RfAs are common. Rrjmrrr (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)