Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Huon

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TCO (talk | contribs) at 16:00, 14 July 2013 (→Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Huon

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (53/8/0); Scheduled to end 09:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Huon (talk · contribs) – I am thrilled to nominate Huon for adminship. Huon has been an editor on the English Wikipedia since the beginning of 2006, and has of course made numerous edits since then. He has been particularly active in the last few months, focusing on WP:AFC and assisting editors that are new to Wikipedia on the help chatroom. Through his wikification, copyediting, and reviews of articles at AFC, Huon has brought a great deal of content into Wikipedia. Additionally, interacting with the new users at AFC requires an ability to handle hostility and confrontation civilly and effectively, which Huon has easily demonstrated.

While evaluating new articles it is often useful to be able to see deleted content, in order to evaluate the case when a new page is being proposed for a previously deleted topic. It is useful to be able to delete copyright violations, and perhaps block the occasional user who is just a bit too insistent on creating an article about their favorite band. A trusted user such as Huon would certainly benefit from being able to do this himself. Adminship would also provide him the tools to branch out in to other areas similar to AfC, such as reviewing speedy deletion requests or proposed deletions, where +sysop is required. I think he would be a great addition to the ranks of the janitor crew, and I hope you do too! Prodego talk 06:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gladly accept. Huon (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: At the moment I mostly see myself doing the more "technical" work: Creating redirects from pages that were salted, merging histories after copy&paste moves, or helping with prod and CSDs if there's a backlog. I could also use the ability to look at deleted content for my help desk and IRC help channel activities ("Why was my article deleted?").
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd say my best work is not the content I create myself, but my efforts to help others create content. I've been particularly active at WP:AFC/R, the AfC help desk and recently at #wikipedia-en-help connect. As an example I'd point to Organization Workshop, a recent DYK: I copyedited the draft and made some style edits, but I also discussed the draft at length with the author, User:Pronacampo9, on my talk page (see the archive for much of that discussion), pointing out where and how it should be improved. I couldn't have written the content myself, Pronacampo9 had no experience with Wikipedia and how we do things, but together we wrote a nice article (mostly Pronacampo9's work, of course). Other than that I do gnome work that's not very showy.
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: I've once been at AN/I for closing a move discussion that seemed almost unanimous but which I had myself contributed to - in retrospect a stupid mistake that taught me a less cavalierly approach to WP:INVOLVED even when an action seems the right thing to do. Other than that I've been in some at times rather heated discussions when I had to tell someone that their preferred article doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or something like that; my standard response to such kinds of stress is to write up a lengthy sarcastic screed, to cool down again while proofreading and to instead post something much more neutral and less sarcastic. For examples where the sarcasm still shines through see [1] and [2]. When I feel I myself may be an issue my standard approach has been to notify others and to back out so the issue may be resolved without me inadvertently antagonizing the other editor any further.
Additional question from Incnis Mrsi
4. Dear candidate! Why do you create redirects in your special way, not in the way most users prefer? Could you fix the problem with edit summaries, at least? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm not aware of having a "special way" of creating redirects. I just checked the last few redirects created by others via WP:AFC/R and couldn't find any significant differences in either form or function compared to my own. I don't use the AFCH edit summary because I usually don't use the script for redirect creation - I find it easier to create them manually, especially when adding custom comments and explanations. My standard edit summaries are "create redirect via Articles for creation" or, if I create the redirects for other reasons, simply "create redirect". The edit summary box offers auto-completion, so I'm pretty consistent. I don't see a problem with those edit summaries; compare the script edit summary. My standard edit summary for AFC/R itself is something like "accept X requests, decline Y requests", which again seems to convey exactly the same information as the AFCH edit summary. Huon (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to know anything about your summary box. And the question is about WP:Redirects, not articles, can you understand it? I want to see less contribs full of junk edit summaries, especially from sysops. Can you tune a script to produce a meaningful summary for the creation of a redirect scenario? Can you ask your friends, your nominator, or his friends to help you with this problem with your edit summaries? A “meaningful” one means “not worse than vanilla MediaWiki default edit summary”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summaries for redirects are roughly the same as those generated by the AFCH script for WP:Articles for creation/Redirects, the part of WP:AFC that allows IP editors to propose the creation of redirects. Compare for example these redirect edit summaries generated by the script. If you feel that's worse than the MediaWiki default, you should raise that issue at WT:Articles for creation or WT:R; I'm not directly involved in developing the script, nor do I even use it myself for most of my redirects (except that my default redirect edit summary probably was inspired by the script's, or by that of another user active at AFC/R when I began working there - I don't remember that detail).
Since I'm used to adding manual edit summaries for every non-script edit I'd prefer not to omit them for certain types of edits. Customizing the edit summaries by hand to include such a link would be more work than I'd be willing to invest, especially when I create ten or so redirects in one session. I am not aware of any consensus that edit summaries for redirects should contain a link to the target article, though I can see why that might be seen as helpful. If such a consensus were established I'd of course comply, but I don't think a single editor's preference is sufficient cause to change my edit summary creation methods. Huon (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You compare yourself with a heavy scripts user, not a sysop, not a candidate, and even without a single privilege in en.WP: are you serious? I see no merit in continuing this conversation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Buffbills7701
5. You have done a lot of work at the AfC. If you become an admin, will you spend more time away from the AfC?
A: Most of the reasons why I think I could have use the tools are an outgrowth of my AfC work, so I don't intend to do less at AfC, but to become better at doing it. Some of my attention may shift to other areas; for example I once was much more active at AfD than I am nowadays. But I don't expect such a shift. Huon (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. As an admin, you can block people. Can you tell me which of these usernames are fit for Wikipedia, and which are not?
  • Lugia2453's Doppelganger
  • The Secret Society
  • PikiWedia
  • Joebot
A: Much of this depends on context.
  1. If Lugia2453's Doppelganger is a publicly declared alternate account of Lugia2453, say for use from public computers, that would be acceptable. Otherwise it is likely either misleading, disruptive or runs afoul of WP:ISU, depending on whether it pretends to be Lugia2453, harasses her, or claims to be a meatpuppet (I can't think of another reason why someone else would create this account), and should be blocked with a close look at that user's contributions - if they show bad faith a block for more than just the username would be in order, possibly a SPI (genuinely new editors would be unlikely to name their accounts so as to harass established editors). Whatever is done to this account, Lugia2453 should be informed, be it to have a laugh at the pitiful attempts at harassment, to point to the likely sockpuppeteer or so that she can have a behind-the-scenes talk to that editor if it's a misguided good-faith acquaintance of hers.
  2. I see nothing wrong with The Secret Society; I don't think any real secret society would edit Wikipedia under that username, so in my opinion it doesn't imply shared use. At most a reminder about shared use at the user's talk page might be appropriate, coupled with a look at the contributions to see whether it's some joker who created the account to feel important (which would be more an issue of disruptive editing than of the username itself). If the user's contributions showed some connection to an organization that actually does call itself "The Secret Society", WP:GROUPNAME would apply. Tell the user at their talk page; if a renaming isn't requested within a reasonable amount of time (and the user is active), block with {{subst:uw-softerblock}}.
  3. I also don't see anything wrong with PikiWedia; it's too dissimilar from "WikiPedia" to be considered misleading in that regard. Official accounts can be expected to spell better than that. If the user claims otherwise and pretends to edit in an official capacity, that's too bad for him and the username becomes misleading, though I'd say that's more an issue of disruptive editing than of the username itself.
  4. Joebot is too close to User:JoeBot per WP:IMPERSONATOR. If we ignore that issue for the moment, a bot account run by a user named Joe under that name would obviously be appropriate; a non-bot account would be misleading. As with The Secret Society, request a name change at the talk page, block with {{subst:Uw-botublock}} if the request is ignored.
Off the top of my head I can't think of other likely scenarios that might be relevant. Huon (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, "Joebot" is impossible to create unless someone with 'override-antispoof' creates the account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from LindsayH
7. Hi Huon; thanks for stepping up to the plate. I notice that your editing increased by an order of magnitude about the beginning of 2011. Was/is there any particular ~ especially RL ~ reason for this? Not that i need to know of what your life consists, just that i wonder if it is more likely to stay at this increased level for the foreseeable future or drop back to the tens level per month it was previously? Thank you.
A: Well, I'm currently probably spending more time on Wikipedia than I should, so my activity level may decrease somewhat. The rise of activity in 2011 corresponds the end of a PbeM I played that previously took up much of my spare time; I don't expect to ever again invest as much effort into such a game, and I should stop here before I wax lyrical about the good old days of PbeM gaming that will never return. So even if my activity decreased, it would probably remain in the low hundreds per month. Huon (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz
8. On IRC, how often have you encountered administrators bringing discredit on Wikipedia? How would you reduce sexism, especially misogyny, on IRC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: I don't think I've ever encountered an admin bringing discredit to Wikipedia on IRC. I believe the admin most active at #wikipedia-en-help, the channel I'm mostly concerned with, is GorillaWarfare, who makes an unlikely misogynist. Sexism on IRC in my experience is uncommon; some of the helpers' banter in #wikipedia-en-helpers arguably is sexist, but such comments usually meet with quick reproval from GorillaWarfare or Anna Frodesiak. I don't think I've ever seen sexist comments by helpers in the -help channel. Reducing sexism on IRC, while certainly important, is difficult. For all I know, the IRC channels are not organizationally connected to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, and neither I nor admins hold any ex officio privileges on IRC; conversely I don't think conduct on IRC is sanctionable on Wikipedia (this also goes for, say, legal threats, NPA violations and so on). So far I'd say pointing out that sexist "jokes" are inappropriate and not funny has worked pretty well. I don't keep a list, but I don't think I've experience more than one such issue every few months. Huon (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Huon was quite helpful on a recent article I started, so I would certainly trust him as an admin ★★RetroLord★★ 09:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Obviously - Excessive knowledge of "admin areas" isn't necessary. I trust that Huon will learn about, say, history merges before he ever actually tries to do one. The only way to fully learn about one is to do it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also now supporting per Incnis Mrsi. If that is the worst thing wrong with the candidate.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    TCO and John do raise good points; however, I feel that the amount Huon has assisted others in creating content is sufficient. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think we need more administrators like this. He cares about the project. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 10:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support after checking deleted content, I found that nominations were quire reasonable. I only restored one article that was repaired after Huon's nomination. Also the logs show use of upload and move as I would expect and admin to be able to handle. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support after reviewing his contributions, I believe he would be trustworthy as an admin. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 12:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support without hesitation. Huon is a tireless helper for new users and seems absolutely dedicated to improvement of wikipedia. His patient, knowledgeable and drama-free assistance of all new editors really stands out amongst all other helpers, even when explaining for the umpteen-millionth time why someone's garage band article has been declined. I completely agree with the nominator that a mop would be exactly the right tool to enable Huon to better respond to queries about deleted articles and to better respond to instances of disruptive/promotional users, and due to the level-headed and fair-minded way I have witnessed him deal with any situations of conflict arising on-wiki or in IRC, I would not expect any problems in the exercise of any administratorial duties/privileges. This is one of those nominations where I can't believe it has taken so long. -nonsense ferret 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No concerns, will be a good addition -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per my nomination. Prodego talk 14:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as per the above. No objection to the candidate's edit summaries, as they are generally much better and more informative than my own. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support good nomination, good and helpful user. Keep up the good work Huon! Prabash.Akmeemana 15:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I figured this was coming. Huon has been extremely helpful, my go-to guy for advice about policies, how to handle sticky situations, everything. He's never steered my wrong. I think this one is a no-brainer. — MusikAnimal talk 15:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    MusikAnimal I have to agree with that! He has helped me countless times on the IRC, he also helps other users almost instantly, his knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines is outstanding! Prabash.Akmeemana 15:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I was a bit concerned, but after he aced my questions, I have to say yes. buffbills7701 15:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support An experienced and sensible candidate. Huon has been active on Wikipedia for a long time. I'm sure Huon will make a good helpful and trustworthy admin. IJA (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Rschen7754 17:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support I'm impressed with the level of trust everyone has given to Huon within the past six years. Minima© (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Absolutely. Huon will make a fantastic administrator. Kurtis (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No issues, seems like a top editor who will make a solid admin. GiantSnowman 18:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Full support despite silly oppose below. Someday we're going to have to decide how ridiculous we'll allow opposes to be before a 'crat redacts them if we ever intend to fix RfA and pass more candidates.--v/r - TP 18:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - I reviewed some of Huon's contributions and stats, and see no reason not to trust them with the tools. - MrX 18:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Fully qualified candidate. Good administrators are resigning at an alarming rate. An administrator who has used "Cauchy sequence" in a sentence and who reads anarchistic fiction may remind salvageable administrators to think. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Seems like Huon will be a good admin. Edison (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support from Drmies, incognito at their vacation address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.238.17 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please log in so that we know this is you. —Soap— 19:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, it's him. ;-) Kurtis (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Rock on, y'all. Thanks Kurtis. Typing on an iPhone is a bitch, but I got the netbook out for Huon, waiting on the laundry to dry. Keep up the good work, Huon: and when you get the tool, someone else can retire. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Will use the tools well; a net plus for the project. SpencerT♦C 19:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Extreme Support Since the very first day I met him, Huon is not only knowledgeable about Wikipedia, but demonstrates a high level of professionalism, modesty, diligence, commitment, community service, and kindness. His work ethics exemplify his true strengths as a Wikipedia editor; in essence, he truly embodies the passion, skill set, and mind set for becoming an administrator. --JustBerry (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Well versed in policy, all around swell fella, and will be a positive addition. I can see the additional tools helping out the work he does at AfC, which is one of the more frustrating and thankless areas to work around here. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, looks good to me, very suitable candidate. ~ mazca talk 23:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Fully qualified candidate with a long history of valuable participation. Of the opposes to date, the first is unpersuasive; the second is a bit too vague to evaluate, but if there was ever a problem in that area it sounds like it was an isolated incident; the third is the most significant, but no one's XfD record is perfect and I am confident the candidate will take the concern raised into account going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Candidate has matured with time; edit summaries no concern here either. Definitely a net positive; specialization is not a bad thing. Miniapolis 01:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, certainly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I have spent a considerable amount of time watching Huon help people in IRC. If he or she can remain professional and calm in dealing with some of the inquiries we get there then I have no worries about his or her ability to handle any of the challenges sysop are asked to address. Secondly, Huon has a good understanding of the way things work and who to ask. I have no other concerns and I really do not believe article creation to have a 1:1 relationship to how well someone uses the sysop tools. Mkdwtalk 04:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support as I see no good reason to oppose. I have interacted with Huon significantly on the IRC help channel, and observed his activities on Wikipedia proper. He is extraordinarily helpful and patient with even the noobiest editors, and I have every confidence he will make an excellent admin. Perusing the oppose section I find nothing that moves me. To start with, the oppose over redirect creation edit summaries just baffles me, the worst of the AFDs pointed out shows Huon making a mistake I would have made myself, the content creation issue is something I've never cared about with any candidate, and I'll take the absence of any "meaty" interactions with other editors as a sign Huon is doing something right. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support as obvious Anyone who has dealt with Huon on #wikipedia-en-help on a regular basis has seen ample evidence of his understanding of the 'concepts' behind policies, his dedication to improving the encyclopedia, and his ability to deal with new users in a very friendly and helpful manner. This is one of the few cases of someone who actually 'needs' a mop for the activities that he engages in on a regular basis, if for nothing else simply because the live help needs more active regulars who are able to address concerns requiring the bit, as opposed to having to try to ping someone. Specifically because of his activity schedule, having Huon as a sysop would help fill a significant gap in our ability to provide live support. Revent (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're voting for someone because of IRC participation? You're even saying it openly?TCO (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that I have not watched Huon make quite a few edits, I actually have, in the specific context of watching him copyedit and polish a draft. I've also seen a lot of how he has helped people with 'dispute resolution' as people commonly end up in IRC when upset.
    The actual point was that as someone who does AfCs and sits in the help channel, Huon deals on a regular basis with things that require the admin bit. (this often means using the admin stalkword to ping an admin and asking them to perform the edit, and at many of the times Huon is active it can be hard to get one) This actually ends up being pretty good 'live' observation of what someone would be trying to use the tools for, and I have yet to see him suggest something that was wrong.
    Getting a bit is not an award for generating content, it is the ability to perform maintenance tasks, and when someone's habitual editing practices often merit the use of the tools (do you know how many drafts get created in the wrong namespace, or people post blatant copyvios?) then is makes sense for that editor to have them.
    If you read the other !votes (this is not an election) you'll see that I'm by far not the only person who has made comments to the same effect about his IRC participation. It's not about sitting in one of the chat channels kibitzing and being popular, it's about being in one of the places that people end up at looking to solve blatant problems that need the tools, and 'filling a hole' in the availability of admins for that purpose. (And please do not take this as a comment that we were 'polling for who to nom' or anything, it was more along the lines of people saying "We were all wondering which admin was going to nominate him" when it happened. Revent (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, if that was TL;DR, Huon is someone that, based on what I have watched him spend large amounts of time doing, is someone who would 'responsibly' use the bit to do large numbers of uncontroversial things himself instead of adding to the backlog. Improving the ability to give 'live' response to simple new editor requests (renaming AfC drafts without leaving a pointless redirect, anyone?) would be a goodness...this is why my !vote is "as obvious". A bit for someone who actually does large amount of competent non-controversial non-bit maintenance already is much better that one for a content creator who will go back to 'doing what they enjoy' and be admin deadwood... Revent (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I've worked with this user and saw how sincere he/she is. So I can't find any reason to oppose this user.--Pratyya (Hello!) 12:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support: Having done "battle" against him at the Oral gospel traditions, I can say he is a great editor and will make an excellent Admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Admins are ideally pooperscoopers, those who will use the toolkit. The idea that someone who only contributes content needs the toolkit (and the backwards of that) is a little concerning, where content contributors sometimes have little/no experience with the areas admins would work in. Huon does enough non-admin-admin work to be trusted with the actual buttons themselves. He's also a big help with the AfC help desk, and helping new users in general. ~Charmlet -talk- 14:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Constantly assisting at IRC help channel; I may disagree with some of his interactions and high standards for AFC, but the willingness to assist without exception is one of the best reasons I can find for supporting Huon. Secondly, to detractors for "content" - Huon's interactions as a result of that assistance leads to better new articles and less junk ones. Adminship is no big deal afterall. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - I'll vote for darn near anyone that has the balls to file an RFA in today's totally messed up wiki world. PumpkinSky talk 16:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Extremely helpful user who regularly asks admins to look at a deleted AFC submission so he can help someone fix it. It'll be great if he can do that on his own now. Legoktm (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Huon is one of a small group of editors I've seen busting their guts day in and day out patiently helping mostly new editors in the IRC help channel, and I've just nosed around in his contributions and found plenty of policy-informed and subject-knowledgeable talk page and article edits. I see someone who ranges widely through the wiki improving articles, both directly and by the "teach a man to fish" method. As to the article-creation opposes: not all of us can or should be "content admins", and it didn't take me long to find Kyongae Chang, so I am doubly confident Huon will not be cold to the problems of content creators. He's given a good reason for why he could use the tools, and I agree. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that the best example? Here is what it looked like at creation: [3]. Note that the "sources" are now external links (and click them, they are THIN). After that, three years later, he made a one sentence addition with a reference: [4]. I'm not dissing a stub, but this is the BEST/MOST content work? BTW, I have some rather questions about that article: no secondary source coverage and pretty minimal incoming links (the only "real one" is the 2006-founded article on her lens: [5]. (I don't count the project tracking or the category-like mega list of every female astronomers.) All you really have is a 2-article, walled garden dependent on one Nature paper. And I wouldn't dis a little stub start like that if he had other stuff. But really, that's the best? I guess he wrote a paragraph of content in 2009. TCO (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually blown away how someone with this little accomplishment is trying to advise others.TCO (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Two comments. Firstly, no, that's not the best example. The best example of an article I cooked up from scratch would be this still rather uninspiring piece of work. Secondly, if you have an issue with me giving advice, you may want to look at examples of me giving advice. Admin bits or no, it would be a serious problem if the most prolific helper at the AfC help desk were incompetent. If you feel that way I'll have to accept that, but I'd be grateful for advice that would help me improve my performance. Huon (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for providing that, Huon. It is a respectable stub. Content still seems extremely...seldom...for someone spending so much time advising others on article starts (and judging deletions in the future). But, I straight out give you credit for that piece (it's fine). I looked at the two AFCs with "most comments" from your article stats page, but will spend some time looking through the tool you mentioned and give you feedback.TCO (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Out of all the time I have been on IRC, Huon is one of the most helpful and hardworking people I have ever seen. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 18:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Honestly, I already thought you were one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support to counter strongly-worded oppose by AfricaTanz that uses no evidence to support its claims. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Trusted user --cyrfaw (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Everything looks good to me, and the questions were answered satisfactorily. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Don't see any serious issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - I try to avoid RfAs, but I'll make an exception due to the exceptional nature of Huon. His helpfulness and dedication on IRC is amazing, and the help he provides users on my talk page goes above and beyond. A most worthy candidate. 930913(Congratulate) 02:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Positive contributor. TBrandley (T • C • B) 04:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, net positive. --Laser brain (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support no problems. Any issues regarding content creation are fine given the work at AFC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Helpful, reasonable and neutral minded. Excellent for me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - can't see any major issues.Deb (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Technical 13 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per oppose #6; the way Huon took part in the Tanzania discussions was admin-worthy. Kraxler (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Completely dissatisfied with the candidate’s views on #edit summaries, as well as in his general clue. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Incnis. I'm afraid I don't think you seem to quite understand Huon's points in his answer to you. His link to Buffbills7701's contributions was to show what the stock AfC/R reviewing script's automatically generated edit summary is. As you can see, by default it does not include the redirect target, at no fault of the user. It doesn't matter whether the user is a sysop or a one week old newbie; in all cases, the edit summary will be the same if they use the script. I don't agree with your other points in your oppose or question either, but this stood out to me as a factual inaccuracy misunderstanding that I wanted to correct. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Incnis Mrsi, Huon has reviewer and rollback rights on the English Wikipedia! Prabash.Akmeemana 15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Prabash, Incnis was referring to Buffbills7701, not Huon. Theopolisme (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So I don't have any abilities. My account was created this March! Would they really have me be a sysop? FYI, I only use scripts for the AfC. I sometimes use Twinkle, but other than that, I use no other scripts. buffbills7701 15:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)I was wrong. My account wasn't even in existence in March. It was April. I state my case that Incis Mrsi doesn't understand who he/she's talking about.[reply]
    I do not think there are inaccuracies. You assign a lower weight to my concerns, but this do not make them invalid. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If a tool makes poor edit summaries this is a justification to improve to tool rather than complain about the user. However complains about the attitude, which is a different matter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This oppose may just be temporary, as I am quite willing to be persuaded to change my mind. I haven't crossed paths with Huon recently, but I did a couple of years ago. It's so long ago that I'm quite open to the possibility that it is of no value in evaluating the candidate today. What I remember was what struck me at the time as being a WP:BITEy response to a new editor who had edited some pharmacology-related pages, where Huon seemed to be a stickler for format over content. I see no need to re-litigate that, but I want to see if any of it, and particularly the possible rigidity contrary to WP:IAR when it comes to content improvement (maybe especially as regards WP:ELNO), is something that anyone else has seen more recently, because I believe that administrators need to be supportive of content creation, rather than picky about rules. OK, I'm listening, so feel free to pile on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    here is a recent example of the candidate giving advice to a new user in a none bitey way. Not all that convincing by itself, but I'm a bit busy cleaning house to dig through all the user talk contribs.--v/r - TP 19:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw Newyorkbrad comment above that my oppose was too vague, and I want to clarify that I'm not actually trying to dissuade anyone, but instead trying to see what information might be brought forth in response to what I've said here. The opposes by TCO and John point to the relatively light content creation, and while I do not use content creation as a litmus test in my own RfA decision making, I think there is a potentially valid question about someone who tells other people what to do without having done much of it themselves, and that is actually similar to what I was thinking about above.--Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Huon declares his intention to work with PRODs and CSDs so I have examined his AfD contributions. This nomination was ill-considered. This nomination required clean-up rather than deletion. Huon didn't investigate this AfD's notability adequately. Huon does not have a good enough understanding of deletion criteria for CSD work. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't think that this shows that. An AFD nomination means that one doesn't think the CSD applies, and having a minority opinion in an AFD doesn't mean one would close them improperly. I understand a concern about understanding the deletion criteria but I feel looking at CSD nominations would give a more accurate picture of that understanding. Prodego talk 21:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Does not seem to have ever written an article. [Added 13JUL, evidently there is at least one actual stub start, see Ynvdatter above within the thicket of ~40 redirect creations. -TCO] Research behind my vote: looking at the edit count statistics page (including the two AFCs listed with most comments), the user's page, user's talk page, this entire page, and the list of articles created.
    A. I could not find a single real article that the user had created. I did not check all 43, but I looked at about 5 of them and there was the same pattern. [Added 13JUL, evidently there is at least one actual stub start, see Ynvdatter above within the thicket of ~40 redirect creations. -TCO] He just makes redirects and others write articles on them. When asked for his contributions, he just said "not my content". But he is advising users at AFC and wants to do more advanced deletions and the like. But has never had his own creations, his own skin in the game, his own proof of research/writing potential. I think elevating someone like this to the block button and the deletion button is a mistake. Actually, I think he should buckle down and write a few articles himself before doing AFC work (have seen some bad decisions come out of there...and for that matter he could better advise people if he had done it himself).
    B. Also, the little bit of interactions I saw with other users were all pretty lightweight--nothing meaty or interesting. (I just don't feel good about him connecting with some journalist or businessperson or scientist who has a lot of knowledge and writing skill to offer, but maybe does not know our Wikiways yet.)
    C. If someone wants to do the research to dissuade me, I will consider it. It's not been put forward by nom, candidate, or supporters on this page so far. I suspect the majority of supports have not looked into the fellow's work as much as I did. And I'm not asking for some FA/GA superstar writing. But there's not even a DYK. Not even apparently a piece of work that would be the equivalent of a DYK if it ran through the process and got the little award. Really...check out his articles...I couldn't find any paragraphs of text with refnotes coming in. I didn't even find any sentences of content. Again, I have not looked at all his diffs, but I did a reasonable survey.TCO (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating a new article or writing copy has little, if nothing, to do with the actual powers granted by the bit...in fact, having a bit makes absolutely no difference to a user's ability to do so. An editor who's focus is writing copy has little use for a bit other than hat collecting. (FWIW, this 'criteria' for granting the bit is IMO misguided to the point of being rather annoying, as someone whose 'focus' would be changed by getting a bit probably shouldn't get one.)
    Huon is one of the users who basically puts in the equivalent of a half-time job dealing with new users on IRC, and has demonstrated a quite high level of competence at doing so. If you are unaware, nearly all of the traffic in #wikipedia-en-help is directly from AfC, and 'working' there on a regular basis is essentially a crash course in explaining and 'citing' just about every content policy there is, as well as educating new users on 'wikiculture'. Huon is one of the best and most dedicated people at doing so that there is. (I have seen him mentioned by several admins as one of the 'best helpers', so it's not just my opinion. In fact, I'm pretty sure observation of him there was a large part of the 'motivation' for this nom.)
    As I mentioned in my 'support' !vote, having Huon as a sysop would be an extremely valuable contribution to our ability to provide live support, by giving us a better ability to deal with issues that require it. Honestly, watching someone deal with people 'live' provides a far better indication of their ability to deal with drama than reading what they have written on a talk page, where you have the opportunity to reread, ponder, and edit your statements. I've literally spent hours observing Huon's ability to do so, and have always been extremely impressed. Revent (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor who's focus is writing copy has little use for a bit other than hat collecting? Well said… so, let’s entrust the fate of articles and templates to the people who actually know little about creating and maintaining a wiki code, an actual code not a preloaded stuff, but who have fingers fast enough to command various scripts and to type replies in a chat. BTW, the only wikiproject without an actually helpful IRC community I know is English Wikipedia. Russian WP had once a very advanced IRC channel. And on #wikimedia-commons I also gave an advice if needed. And on #wikimedia-wikidata​. In short, everywhere but on #wikipedia-en​. Note that I do not know anything about personally Huon’s experience on IRC and hence can’t assess the point that he is allegedly one of the best men there. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are missing the point (which I think a lot of people agree with) behind the votes mentioning IRC... people are saying here that they have seen 'extensive' evidence of his competence in the help that he gives new editors. If you sit on IRC and give large numbers of new users good advice on content that is evidence to the people watching that you know what you are doing. Teaching a new user to 'do it' and why instead of 'doing it yourself' doesn't show up in your edit history, and Huon's ability to do so is as one of the best. It's also 'better' from the perspective of "new editor retention", and he is a person who would (because of his presence on IRC) be "given for free" large numbers of opportunities to use the tools to make new users 'happy customers' by doing trivial admin things right away. I can't speak for him, of course, but I have no doubt that Houn would be a "quiet" hardworking admin that would toil away at all of the trivial admin things that don't involve any drama (this would be entirely consistent with what he does now without the bit, see?)
    My comment about 'hat collecting' is that a person who enjoys content creation and primarily does that is unlikely to end up as an 'active' admin...and even less likely to be the type of admin that plows through piles of the simple maintenance things. There is an obvious 'issue' with the perception that many admins see the bit as a status symbol (a reward for content creation) and use it to give their opinions more weight instead of actually using it for 'maintenance'. (I'm not saying this is correct, just that the perception exists.) If your edits are mostly to content, though, instead of doing maintenance, why do you need a bit? I'm not saying that content creators cannot become good, competent admins...admins 'expert' in topic areas are definitely needed...but using "has this person created x number of new articles" has no relevance to "what will this person use the tools for".... Huon expressly said he would be using the tools for 'technical' things, and IMO he would be an excellent, non-controversial wiki-admin-gnome. Revent (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe he will be… but a technician who says something like I am not aware of any consensus that edit summaries for redirects should contain a link to the target article… I don't think a single editor's preference is sufficient cause to change my edit summary creation methods is not “my” candidate anyway. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, that is definitely a 'legitimate' opinion to hold, though personally I think opposing someone for not manually doing something that the "community approved" standard script doesn't do is a bit...lets say "an objection that also could be made against a potential admin who does use the script for that purpose," unless I am somehow misunderstanding you. I am curious how he could have passed this 'question' other than saying, "My, I'm sorry, I will immediately start doing this in your preferred non-standard way"? Revent (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason you weren't seeing much helping going on in #wikipedia-en might have been because the help channel for the English Wikipedia is #wikipedia-en-help. Theopolisme (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A. "Does not seem to have ever written an article". At Wikipedia we do not "own" an article but rather work together. He has made some great contributions!
    B. "interactions I saw with other users were all pretty lightweight--nothing meaty or interesting." Simply not true! He made me do hours of work! Later he changed his mind and supported my edits!
    C. The best way to know an editor is to have a disagreement. I have not the slightest doubt Huon will make a great Admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not informed about an apparent schism of en.WP’s IRCers. My negative stance is not directed towards anything but #wikipedia-en​. My sincere apologies to the community of #wikipedia-en-help​. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you are unaware, by far the most common "helpee issue" at #wikipedia-en-help is essentially "Please explain and help me fix the reason why my AfC was declined," and it really is easier (IMO) for an new editor than trying to parse the policy links from 'submission declined' templates or trying to figure out how to use talk pages. Second most common is probably "trivial non-controversial thing that needs a bit" like "Help, I created my draft in WP instead of WP_Talk!" Revent (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As per my comment below as well "I can't help but step in and comment on your decision reason. Huon has spent a substantial amount of potential editing time in helping users and guiding them with their questions on IRC. He appears to focus on quality, not quantity, and certainly helping others, not simply increasing his own edit count. It is clear that he has positive intentions on Wikipedia and certainly, as an administrator, would spend more time on taking care of administrator tasks. Even on IRC, he spends more time on #wikipedia-en-help in an attempt to take care of Wikipedia-related issues and less time in useless chatting with his fellow helpers; when he does spend time chatting with his fellow helpers, his conversations mainly reflect his good-willed intentions of making a difference to the larger community with his efforts. I think I have given you enough reasons as to why his edit count may be too low for you, please reconsider. --JustBerry (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)" --JustBerry (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Berry pinged me to re-examine my vote. Still opposed. If you look on the talk page, will see that I did go through a 500 contrib block from April now, additionally. I want to give the candidate credit for the things he does well. I have not seen his IRC work (have a lingering question if that should be considered, really, but no biggie). But based on the nice remarks at the Help Desk, I expect he was helpful at IRC also. I just don't see ANY substantial content. At all. He has been here since 2006 and has 1.5 stubs to his name. The 500 contrib investigation showed not a single sentence of reffed content added. It wouldn't have taken that much time from the IRC/Help Desk work, to write something himself. And it would have made him a better admin and a better helper. For that matter, realize as an admin, he will be dealing (likely, and certainly can deal) with content that is substantial, that sticks. Not Indian magazine editors and Phillipino cruise ship singers. But our core content. And he has almost no writing experience here. FWIW, I do appreciate that Huon has been calm here during the discussion.TCO (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Q2; "I'd say my best work is not the content I create myself,... ", but I cannot find any content that the candidate has created. Adminship is not a reward for creating content but I need to see evidence that a candidate has some understanding of the issues related to content creation as it is likely he will be involved in mediating content disputes if successful. --John (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I am appalled that he was nominated to be an administrator. He is quick to criticize and denigrate users. He short-circuits discussion on talk pages in favor of his concept of how things should be. He creates and/or perpetuates wikidrama. With all due respect, we do not need administrators like him. AfricaTanz (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems mostly to be directed at me, so I feel I should respond. Assuming good faith on the part of new editors is extremely important to me, and I would never nominate anyone for adminship that I wasn't sure would also have those values. Please post some examples of the behavior you are concerned about, either here or the RFA talk page so we can review them. Prodego talk 20:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the "quick to criticize and denigrate" part refers to Template talk:Tanzanian ministries and/or Talk:Rau (Tanzanian ward); if that's not what AfricaTanz meant, I don't know what is. Huon (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - per above opposes. I thank the candidate for their work and willingness to serve as an admin, but many of the concerns expressed convince me to oppose this Rfa. Jusdafax 21:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per User:John. I'll also add that one of the two real articles (not redirects or disambiguation pages) that they created is a BLP that was unsourced for 2.5 years. King Jakob C2 21:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was four years ago...Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose username from Moorcock novel; no apparent scholarly interests.24.22.129.215 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please log in to vote. Theopolisme (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose He is a good contributor overall. But I am not satisfied with the edit count. It does not matter at the most, but in case of adminship, I don't think 20,000 will suffice. Faizan 11:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't decided here, but 1/3 to half the existing admin don't have 20k edits, so I'm confused. It is so easy to pad edits, is edit count even important at all once someone is over 10k edits? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa! The bar just took a huge leap. The requirement has been steadily rising, but the average minimum right now sits at about 7,000. You're pushing that bar significantly at 20,000 and you're doing it at a time when folks believe that the RFA process needs to be easier and not harder. Please reconsider.--v/r - TP 12:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to pile on here, Faizan, but it does seem puzzling that the only basis for your oppose is a 20K edit count, which is really quite respectable. I looked back at some of the recent successful candidates, and I noticed that you supported Bilby, who at the time had 21K edits, and Mkdw, who had 18K edits. Perhaps you have other reasons for opposing that you're not stating, but if not, you might want to rethink. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help but step in and comment on your decision reason. Huon has spent a substantial amount of potential editing time in helping users and guiding them with their questions on IRC. He appears to focus on quality, not quantity, and certainly helping others, not simply increasing his own edit count. It is clear that he has positive intentions on Wikipedia and certainly, as an administrator, would spend more time on taking care of administrator tasks. Even on IRC, he spends more time on #wikipedia-en-help in an attempt to take care of Wikipedia-related issues and less time in useless chatting with his fellow helpers; when he does spend time chatting with his fellow helpers, his conversations mainly reflect his good-willed intentions of making a difference to the larger community with his efforts. I think I have given you enough reasons as to why his edit count may be too low for you, please reconsider. --JustBerry (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reconsidered, but I will remain out of the process for now. Faizan 15:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Huon&oldid=564239029"