Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Husond 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Durin (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 15 November 2007 (Response to Xoloz). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Husond

Voice your opinion (talk page) (9/4/0); Scheduled to end 03:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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


Questions for the candidate

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. Yes, I have read many of those discussions. I understand that the current model of WP:RFA fastens consensus to support percentages for most discussions. Candidates with less than 70% support from the community would most likely see their applications closed unsuccessfully, as otherwise would prompt outright flux of complaints towards the closing bureaucrat. Candidates with over 75% support (preferably over 80% support) would most likely see their applications end successfully (again, complaints if not). For candidates falling in the 70-75% I would have to peruse the positions of the participants with extra care, and be particularly attentive to any grave concerns presented by those opposing in order to determine the final outcome.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Somebody has to close contentious discussions. Any complaints would be given due attention and my acts explained. I do not expect any massive criticism from my actions though, as I always weigh them very carefully and would ask a fellow bureaucrat for a second opinion when in doubt.
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I believe that I have been around for quite some time. I have participated in many discussions, closed many discussions, and have communicated with many users. I have also made a few mistakes but they were quickly fixed. I strongly believe that making mistakes and witnessing the mistakes of others will greatly increase one's capacities to avoid future errors. I like to learn from others, I like to listen to others and I like to be fair with others.
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. I do, I am willing to diversify my tasks on Wikipedia with the inclusion of those.

Optional question from K. Scott Bailey

5. Can you envision a scenario where you would promote a candidate with just below 70% support, but the opposes mainly cited one issue that you considered irrelevant to the conduct of an admin? Conversely, could you envision a scenario where you would fail to promote a candidate who had around 85% support (say, something like 77/13/4), but the opposers/neutrals brought up concerns about the candidate that you considered quite grave serious?
A. Yes, I can envision a few extremely unlikely but still possible situations of those kinds (and I would always request a second opinion from another bureaucrat if I were to close them). I would probably choose to extend the ending time of those RfAs so that more feedback could be gathered. Grave concerns usually don't take long to sway an RfA into the negative if they're really grave, and the support usually doesn't take long to overcome the opposition when the latter is unjustified.
Follow-up You have extended the time on the just below 70% nom. The count now stands at 56/25/6 (from 34/15/5 when you extended). You genuinely feel that at least 1/2 of the opposes are quite weak, and that the candidate is well-qualified. What do you do? Same for the 85%er. (Changed the concerns to serious, from grave.) You extend, and it goes to 93/16/6, yet you still feel the concerns expressed are serious and well-founded. What do you do? K. Scott Bailey 03:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I would close the first one as unsuccessful and the second one as successful. It's not just the closing bureaucrat who has to meticulously weigh the concerns presented at those RfAs. If after the time extension the community persists in providing such outcomes then I must abid by its decision even if I disagree with it.
Important follow-up After re-reading your answer here, am I to understand that you actually can not envision a time when you might discard frivolous, but non-sockpuppet-type opposes (i.e. "He failed my article at FA" or the like), passing a candidate that was otherwise well-qualified in both namespace and mainspace experience? K. Scott Bailey 15:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Honestly, I don't think that those frivolous opposes would ever have the capacity of making a valued user's RfA to collapse. In fact, I have always been pleased to witness that, as in a chemical reaction, the community reacts to frivolous, bad-faith opposes by staunchly defending the candidate and increasing their support.
Enough can creep in to push the candidate from the standard pass rate of around 80% to under 70%. I've seen it happen, and more than once. I would greatly appreciate a more direct response to my scenario. It is extremely important to me that I know how you would deal with that type of situation. K. Scott Bailey 17:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC) --Never mind. Your response to Durin's well-reasoned oppose tells me all that I need to know.[reply]
Follow-up Do you agree that 70% is already extremely marginal for an RfA? If you could envision 69% "in some cases" and promote, well, what about 68%? And 67%? Are you concerned about the divisiveness that has occurred here because of under 70% promotions? How much latitude do you think a bureaucrat should be entitled to take in such "special case" promotions? -- Cecropia 04:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I do agree and I don't think I would ever promote a candidate with less than 70% support. I don't think that a bureaucrat should be entitled to any latitude below the 70%, but rather a group of bureaucrats could, if in accordance, promote a candidate who fell in the 68% or 69% (if under most exceptional circumstances that would naturally require sound explanation and justification). Again, very unlikely scenarios that I don't think I'll ever encounter.

Optional questions from User:J-stan

6. First of all, let me commend you on being so bold as to go up for RfB. More admins should do the same. Now to the question: What are the major concerns from your previous RfB, and how have you addressed them?
A. Thank you. I faced multiple concerns on my last RfB, some of which I was sad to verify that were due to misinterpretation of my own words. But some users with valid arguments were unsatisfied that I made little allusion to the notion of consensus in my nomination, thus believing that I had no regard for consensus. Other users opposed me because I made an unorthodox closure of an WP:AFD which was subsequently taken to WP:DRV, thus believing that I am prone to fail when reading consensus. In order to address these concerns I became much more prudent when making decisions, and I started to seek second opinions more often when closing tough discussions. Additionally I try to stay away from anything unorthodox. There was also a concern that I was not involved in WT:RFA and that I produced no input regarding the whole request for adminship process. In response to that, I paid more attention to the ongoing (perpetual) discussions about the reform of RfA, and even participated in the recent request for comment related to it. But I must say that I am not a reformer of RfA as I haven't found any of the reform proposals so far as practical or as an improvement to the current model, nor I can come up with a good proposal of my own. But I'm glad that many users are still brainstorming for alternatives that may respond to the flaws of WP:RFA.
7. Do you feel we need more bureaucrats? What would you say to someone who opposed based on apparently nothing else except that they felt we don't need more 'crats?
A. I think that we neither have lack nor surplus of bureaucrats. I do not agree with views such as "we have enough bureaucrats" because 1) that can't be determined 2) it's nitpicking and 3) surplus of bureaucrats can bring no harm to Wikipedia.
Optional questions from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)
8. Your main contribution to meta discussion about crat related matters in recent months is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#View by User:Husond, where you express the view, "Face it, on Wikipedia any non-random, non-abstract, non-unrecognized form of consensus will always require a number or percentage. The closing crat will always need his or her priorly established number, over which would lie consensus." Do you think this opinion is compatible with that of the number of editors who belive that consensus is not numbers?
A. Not necessarily incompatible. I don't take any of the radical approaches that either "consensus is numbers" or "consensus is not numbers". I think that consensus and numbers are different concepts that walk side by side here. You will inevitably look for a percentage when you try to determine consensus among users who present antagonistic but equally valid arguments, because you need it as your own pattern of self-coherence. Yet the percentage where the consensus resides isn't a strict number, it varies within a limited range always accompanying consensus. Side by side, not irreconcilably.
9: There's an increasing pressure on bureaucrats to allow users to usurp usernames that have made some, albeit few, edits. In what circumstances (if any) would you be willing to perform such usurpations?
A. I currently have no formed opinion in this matter. If I become a bureaucrat, I prefer to gain some experience in changing/usurping usernames before I have a position.
Optional questions from Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)
10: What experience do you have in bot and username changing related work? Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I am a tech dummy, so my only bot experience so far was giving suggestions to bot developers for a few tasks where a bot could prove useful. I would not flag a bot unless it's absolutely clear from users at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval that it should be approved. As for the username changing work, I've never been a clerk at WP:CHU, but I understand the process (including account usurpation).
11: What's your opinion on opposition based on "time since last RfA", and how will you treat such oppose votes? Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I personally find valid the argument that some time should exist between RfAs. I believe that it forces a candidate to reflect on the concerns presented by users opposing them, as treating them with levity may result in another unsuccessful RfA and a few more months waiting for the tools. It also allows more time for their peers to evaluate progresses. And, it prevents WP:RFA from being clogged with consecutive, cloned-like RfAs by persisting candidates who'll inevitably be viewed as power-hungry.
12: "Vote" or "!Vote"? Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Personally, I use "!vote". I like to make clear that I am aware that RfA is not a vote, even though most users who write "vote" (without !) are also aware. It became an habit. I recall seeing some users nitpickingly frowning upon the usage of "!vote", but that's really not one of my concerns.
General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

  • As the issue of under-70% RfAs is being debated here, I have moved a discussion from my Talk Page to WT:RFA on that issue so all can read and comment. As usual, do not take this as a statement about Husond or this RfB, on which I am not expressing a position. -- Cecropia 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support K. Scott Bailey 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC), Back to support--Switch to oppose, per non-response to my follow-up, as well as response to Durin's oppose, which assumed much bad faith, in my view.[reply]
  2. Beaten my personal threshold of 1 year of adminship before requesting bureaucratship for barely 4 days! You did that on purpose, right? ;-) Seriously now, the main opposition (lack of RfA involvement) has been solved, and I am one of those who think there is nothing wrong, at this moment, with more bureaucrats. -- ReyBrujo 03:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seems okay. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 04:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Per answer to my first question (the second was more of a viewpoint question, I just wanted to see what you thought of that.) Husond shows that he has reviewed concerns raised by opposers, and has adapted for them. Now let's hear it for the first RfB since the July rush! J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support (I opposed last time, but now believe Husond would be an excellent addition to the team) particularly per his comments at RfC/RfA and his excellent response to Kscottbailey below. --JayHenry 05:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support (pending the answers to the excellent questions from DHMO.) Having interacted regularly with Husond I find his judgement to be sound. Very sound. He has proved time and again his excellent qualities as an administrator and this will, of course, continue. Every interaction with Husond has revealed how civil and helpful he is, to new editors, experienced editors, new administrators and seasoned administrators. I can see no occasion where his judgement has been less than excellent and I trust, at a fundamentally deep level, his ability to judge where consensus lies as evidenced by his regular input to community discussion and his ability to communicate across the expertise level of all editors here. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support as last time. Excellent candidate. Demeanor and judgment well-suited to the task. Xoloz 14:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support - as last time. The candidate is still an excellent one, who will do well as a 'crat. --tennisman 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Suppoert I supported last time, and will support again. There are no issues with Husond. Cheers!--SJP 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Many of the issues raised at the previous RfB do not seem to have been rectified, and the issues regarding demeanor and consensus still appear to be present in the few short months since the previous attempt. Alansohn 14:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: I concur with Alansohn. Issues regarding consensus still, in my opinion, remain. In particular, this nominee states contradictorily that he could envision a situation where he could promote at 69% (answer to question 5) but then later states "I don't think I would ever promote a candidate with less than 70% support". The answer to question 1 is very much like his answer to question 1 from the first RfB, and gives me no confidence that the nominee is capable of evaluating consensus. K. Scott Bailey put forth a good scenario in question 5, and I think the nominee failed in properly assessing the situation, and defaulted to numbers instead, noting a fear of complaints in answering question 1. 10% of RfAs fall into the grey zone. A bureaucrat must be able to successfully contend with complaints, and not fear doing their jobs due to complaints. Also, in his position at WP:RFCRFA he notes "Face it, on Wikipedia ... consensus will always require a number or percentage" The nominee also noted that the lack of participation at WT:RFA was a concern raised in his first RfB, yet since the first RfB there's not been a single comment from him at WT:RFA. He instead indicates his involvement at WP:RFCRFA as response. I find this unsatisfactory. Maybe WT:RFA is a coffee lounge, but failing to interact with the people who make up this realm of Wikipedia is a guaranteed pathway to failure. While the nominee has been considerably more active in adding his votes to RfAs in the last few months, the complete lack of interaction with his peers at WT:RFA leaves a gaping void. --Durin 15:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please Durin, don't transform my views on consensus into mind-puzzling and contradictory notions. Again I'm afraid you would prefer a candidate who defined consensus by using your own words on that matter, but then I can be of no help. WT:RFA is an area where once again I remind you that I naturally have the choice of not joining in. I am not willing to take part in endless, repetitive discussions where I have little to add. The day I see a good proposal coming from WT:RFA then you can be rest assured that I will provide comments. Until then, I don't know why do you insist in requiring my direct involvement in WT:RFA, as my participation there wouldn't have greater relevance than any other user's. Is your intention to make a simple request for bureaucratship an appendix of WT:RFA or do you just wish to voice your dissatisfaction with the entire WP:RFA process by opposing a candidate who doesn't seem interested in reforming it? Either way, I don't find your position any productive. Húsönd 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time around you accused me of making a retaliation oppose. This time, you accuse me of having an agenda and using your RfB to promote it. This sort of behavior just confirms my belief that you are ill suited to being a bureaucrat. WT:RFA is not just about reforming RfA. Had you taken an active role there, you would know that. --Durin 17:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your history here, and your relative lack of activity over recent months (per your retirement), I think it reasonable to suggest there is an "agenda" underlying your comment; indeed, most long-time commenters have established positions of this nature, including myself. I interpret Husond's remark only as a suggestion to new readers, who might not know of the tensions involved here, to investigate the issues before resolving an opinion of your opposition. And Husond is not alone in his view that RFA talk is largely unproductive, though it takes courage to say so.Xoloz 17:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have to be active to have an opinion on this candidate, nor does having an opinion constitute an agenda. If it does, then your support is every bit as much you using this RfB to parade your own agenda. Nobody needs to 'investigate' me (and I find your assertion in this regard quite offensive) or you in order to determine the veracity of our statements. Simply put, I find this candidate ill suited to being a bureaucrat. Let's practice just a little assumption of good faith, shall we? --Durin 18:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As often happens between us, you have apparently failed to read my comment closely. I said that my comment represented an "agenda" much as yours does. See that part where I say, "myself included..."? I repeat, established commenters, including myself, often have previously-stated philosophical positions of which newcomers may be unaware. I would encourage any newcomer to fully investigate such nuanced comments before offering an opinion, again including my own comments. Surely, you wouldn't desire commenters who made judgments without having been made aware of all the facts? As to your absence, while it does not render your opinion more or less valid, it is a fact which anyone (bureaucrats included) might choose to consider before evaluating the relevance and currency of your remarks. Folks who aren't around sometimes are not aware of all recent pertinent developments that might occur in a given area of policy. As I suspect you'll be prone to misinterpreting these latest words of mine (communication between us has been historically difficult), I'll direct your attention to my consistent use of conditional phrases above. Xoloz 19:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I have reverted Durin's removal of the above comments as "personal attacks" [1]. Húsönd 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I attempted to remove the comments in green above as containing personal attacks, lack of assumption of good faith, and discussion about me that was inappropriate to the RfB. Husond reverted the removal. This sort of action is indicative of how Husond would be as a bureaucrat. Draw your own conclusions. --Durin 19:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't possibly believe that it's valid to remove comments from someone challenging your opinions, Durin. You have opposed every candidate in every RFB in which I've seen you participate and it's not an assumption of anything for someone to point this out. --JayHenry 19:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this meta discussion about me appropriate to this RfB? --Durin 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Though it is better to keep these exchanges short (if possible), you did offer reasoning in opposition at this RfB. The discussion isn't so much about you (from my POV), but about your reasoning. Xoloz 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see...you raise my "history", my lack of activity, me having an agenda, my philosophical position, me having "nuanced comments"...and I'm supposed to think this isn't about me? Excuse me? Regardless of how your are couching it among conditionals, you are attempting to undermine my comments using a variety of disparaging methods. If you have an issue with me, take it elsewhere. This is not the forum. I'm quite confident you are capable of initiating an RfC. If you have an issue with my stance, address my stance rather than meta positions about me. Do you disagree with my comments regarding Husond's elevation of consensus? If so, why? Do you disagree with my comments regarding his participation at WT:RFA? If so, why? If you can't constrain your comments to those two points I raised, then please take your comments elsewhere, as those are the only two points I raised. Thank you. Frankly, I can't believe I am getting this much grief for stating a position with respect to this candidate. --Durin 20:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, per above reasoning in my striking of my support, regarding answers to my questions, and response to Durin. K. Scott Bailey 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Remarks lead me to believe that this candidate will, in closing RfAs, allow numerical noise to distract him from the arguments and evidence presented. I do not believe he would be a useful addition to the current pool of bureaucrats. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral pending answers to my questions. 03:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Change to support. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I nearly switched to oppose, and may yet. My biggest problem with your candidacy is that we have plenty of "by-the-numbers" admins, and not enough that will be bold and toss frivolous oppose comments, which happen all too frequently at RfAs. However, you seem to be a really good administrator and a solid contributor to the project, so for now, I will not oppose. K. Scott Bailey 04:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)--Afer consideration, and discussion with Cecropia regarding the 70-79% policy, I am switching back to support.[reply]
    I understand your position. But allow me to ask you to reflect on the fact that most users expect a bureaucrat not to be bold, but to be able to analyze their consensus. After all, WP:RFA requires more responsibility than other discussions, as a promotion cannot be undone by the closing bureaucrat (in contrast with admin decisions that can be promptly undone). Thus a bureaucrat must avoid letting his or her personal view of a candidate be the one to dictate the fate of their RfA. As the community trusts in a bureaucrat to close RfAs and even use their discretion within a reasonable leeway, so must the bureaucrat trust the community to make a good decision. Forcing a decision outside that reasonable leeway is an abuse of the community's trust, and that I cannot allow. Húsönd 04:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My neutral is more about the fact that I have grown weary of the "70-79%ers", for lack of a better term. Being a bureaucrat is a very responsible position. But it most certainly should not be about simple ballot counting. K. Scott Bailey 05:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Husond_2&oldid=171739422"