Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Hersfold

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

Hersfold

Final (124/22/3); Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 23:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Hello, everyone. My name is Hersfold, and I've been active on Wikipedia for over four and a half years now, and I'd like to submit my name for consideration as a bureaucrat. I currently serve the project as an administrator and checkuser; I've held the mop for over three years, and the magnifying glass for close to two years now. I've also served on the Arbitration Committee for a time, but resigned a few months into my term as I became too busy with my college studies. I have now graduated from college, however, and find myself with considerably more free time that I'd like to dedicate to the project.

As you go through my contributions, you'll notice that I am not one to do a lot of article editing. Research really is not my cup of tea, but I try to make up for that lack by doing my utmost to contribute to the backstage side of things. I do a lot of work in sockpuppetry investigations, reviewing block appeals, assisting with account creation requests, and helping out new users where I'm able. Every now and then, I handle speedy deletion and protection requests, and generally tinker around with just about everything. I also run two currently approved bots, User:HersfoldBot (a transwiki bot to Wiktionary) and User:HersfoldOTRSBot (which works on Commons handling old OTRS paperwork), as well as a third undergoing approval, User:HersfoldArbClerkBot.

I am asking for the bureaucrat tool for two main reasons; first, as I mentioned, I have more free time now and feel I would be useful helping in bureaucrat's areas. Secondly, in reviewing block appeals, I've noticed that the vast majority of these appeals are from users blocked due to spam username concerns. These appeals are often left to stagnate, as the accounts cannot be unblocked without a name change as per the username policy. Having a bureaucrat actively reviewing these requests should help expedite the unblock process for these users, and (once we get them to stop advertising their businesses) get them to become useful contributors to the project. Thirdly, I'm also interested in getting more involved with bot work, especially as only one currently active BAG member is a bureaucrat. While I recognize that the primary responsibility of a bureaucrat is to review and close RFAs, I recognize that I am not a frequent contributor in this area and would remain away from closing RfAs for some time, most especially controversial ones, until I have re-familiarized myself with RfAs more and discussed with other bureaucrats about how to proceed in controversial cases. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: RFA (and RFB) is (are) the only area(s) in which our view of consensus very closely mirrors vote counting. It's generally accepted (for RFA's) that a support percentage of over 80% will be successful, and anything below 70% is almost certainly going to fail. However, as with most everything on Wikipedia, these "rules" are more like guidelines that simply serve as a guide to the bureaucrat closing the discussion. A discussion that falls within that grey area of 70-80%, or even one in the low 80's, can be marked as having failed if those opposing make very strong, compelling arguments about why the candidate should not be promoted. One can see just how compelling these arguments are by the associated discussion and !vote changes - did a number of editors switch from support to neutral or oppose? Did a number change the strength of their support (strong to weak, for example)? Going the other direction, did some opposers switch to being supporters after discussion on the opposing arguments? If there are a significant number of editors increasing their support following discussion of a opposer's viewpoint, that is a strong indication that a consensus is forming to promote the candidate, even if at the time of closing things are (by the numbers) borderline (an RfA can always be left open for several more hours-days to confirm that this is the case). Therefore, the criteria for promotion is not simply vote counting, as the guide tends to indicate. It's more gauging where the community's general opinion lies, or more properly where it would lie if discussion were allowed to continue indefinitely without anything about the candidate changing.

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

A: As with everything potentially contentious, discuss with others in a position to make the same decision. As I explain in my introduction above, I have no intention of getting myself heavily involved in such contentious RfA's to start with, focusing more on renames and bot work instead, however if (down the road) I were to come up to an RFA that was very borderline or embroiled in excessive drama or otherwise nasty, I'd talk things over with other bureaucrats. Crats, as I understand, have a mailing list for this precise purpose, and I'm frequently available on IRC as well for more time-critical discussions. In very contentious cases, it is never a good idea to jump ahead and make an impulsive decision. By discussing things with other, more experienced bureaucrats, all the surrounding issues can be weighed accordingly, more time is granted for the RfA to reach a clearer conclusion, and a more complete rationale can be drafted for when the decision to close is made. Some discussion on more clear-cut cases would certainly be beneficial as well, particularly due to my relative inexperience in this area, if for no other reason than to ensure there was nothing important being missed.

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've been an administrator for the past three and a half years and a checkuser for the past two, so I consider myself to be well versed with policies in many areas. I do my best to consistently enforce these policies and help others to understand them; in situations where I am confronted about an action I've taken, I do my best to consider the points being raised and review my own actions. If there is evidence that I have made an error of some sort, I will make an effort to correct that error as soon as possible. In the absence of such evidence, though, I will stand my ground, although may ask another editor or administrator for feedback on the situation. I believe that in this way I can ensure that all of my actions are consistent and fair, and I can learn and improve upon my actions where errors or other problems have arisen.

Additional question from My76Strat

4. Will you run a checkuser on an RfA candidate prior to assigning the bit for an otherwise successful candidate

A: Absent any stated need to do so, no. Checkusers are only done when abuse is suspected or to confirm the need for IPBE or something similar (user says they can't edit & can't figure out how to use the unblock-ip template, etc.). The purpose of RFA is to vet trusted members of the community for the admin tools. If there is reason to suspect they may be socking and that is noted at SPI or on their RFA, then I will conduct a check as needed in my role as a checkuser, however in such a situation I have to believe that they'd be failing anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from TCO

5. Name the article to which you added the most sourced content in the second half of 2010. Describe the extent and nature of the additions.

A: I am guessing that by the very specific time range you've given that you've already looked at my contributions and found that the only edits I made in the article namespace from July-December 2010 were vandalism reverts and other administrative tasks. As I disclosed in my introduction, I am not a frequent article contributor for a number of reasons. During that period, I was in the first semester of my senior year of college, and I was best able to focus on tasks that could be easily dropped on short notice, due to my employment as a resident assistant and focus on academic studies. The vast majority of my contributions support the encyclopedia in an administrative role; it is for this reason I'm requesting the bureaucrat tools, which are of no use towards article editing. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your assumption is completely incorrect. I looked at your contribs afterwards. I have asked the same question several times (see WTT's recent RFA). I find the "assumption" and then the way you answered the question confrontational. Look...you can't change how much you edited. And you probably find plenty of people (but not all) who agree that it doesn't matter if you write articles. But you could give a straight, direct, responsive answer. This seems like a pattern similar to your argumentation with the first oppose. It's exactly the sort of thing we don't want from 'crats. We want a "cool hand", especially as the powers of the position is being increased.TCO (reviews needed) 01:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if that was the case; it simply seemed rather leading to me. Article editing is something I'd like to do from time to time, but when it comes to actually doing it, I usually find something else to do instead. I think my response was fairly straight-forward, though - you asked me to describe my most extensive edit and I told you there wasn't one. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Σ

6. You see a new user account named Winbots come up on the account creation log. Please give various actions you would take, if any.

A: Eh. If I took any action, I'd probably post a message on their user talk page welcoming them to the project and advising them to consider a username change; if they agreed, I'd help them through the process (or just tell them to make a new account which would be loads easier). While the name does contain the phrase "bot", generally actual bot accounts are identified with the singular - I don't know of a single bot whose username is "*****bots". Thus there is potential for confusion, but in my opinion that'd be it. It's not worth blocking someone straight off the bat for. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Worm That Turned

7. A candidate self-nominates for RfA on Saturday morning and after 24 hours it is WP:SNOW closed. The candidate requests re-opening as they believe it was not open to the large portion of the community who do not edit at the weekend and they would also like further feedback from the opposers.

a. under what circumstances would you consider re-opening the RfA?

A: I was always under the impression that there were more editors during the weekend (no school, work, etc.), but given an apparently valid reason to reopen like that, I'd reopen the RfA for a few days at least (likely full time at the candidate's discretion), barring the cases below. I know some people will self-nominate for RfA just to see what sort of chance they stand or areas they need to improve on before a more serious run, and while that's more what Editor Review is for, I certainly see and acknowledge RfA as a forum for garnering feedback. There's also a (probably somewhat remote, given the SNOW closure) chance that the candidate may be able to defend their case well enough that some of the opposers begin to change sides, especially after more editors show up.

b. under what circumstances would you not consider re-opening the RfA?

A: If this was a clear-cut WP:NOTNOW case (i.e., the account is less than a few months old, has less than 1,000 edits, the usual), I'd probably encourage them to not reopen the RfA but seek some other means of gaining feedback, such as a Editor Review or Adoption, depending on how new the account is; I'd explain WP:NOTNOW and the general expectations for adminship and things they can do to increase their involvement and experience, etc. If they persisted, I'd likely reopen it, as it's not a huge deal. Second case could be if the candidate had recently (within the past month or two) had another RfA that was closed as unsuccessful, and the vast majority of the oppose comments focused on the lack of time between the nominations and lack of improvement from the issues noted there. In this case, the candidate has already had a full RfA to garner comments and other feedback from, and there aren't likely to be many new issues presented (most everyone will be focusing on "we just turned you down a month ago..."). The third case, and the last where I can imagine I wouldn't consider reopening an RfA (although this one doesn't exactly fit the scenario given), would be a case where sockpuppetry or other form of serious abuse cropped up and the supporters are dropping like flies as a result. Reopening an RfA there would only increase drama, and the cause for opposing there would be pretty obvious.

8. Could you give your opinion on whether "RfA is a horrible and broken process"[1] and whether reform is required?

A: Ho boy. Are there problems with RfA? Yes, I think there are. Do I think there's a better way to do RfA? I'd have a really hard time coming up with one off the top of my head; in part because some of the problems are difficult to identify, and also because some of the problems only crop up in the high-drama cases (which are going to have unique problems of their own anyway). Reform would be awesome, and I thank you and the others involved for working on doing so, but I have a hard time seeing what can be done to improve RfA that's still within the project's core ideals of consensus and community. I this is kind of a wishy-washy answer, but Wikipedia is the kind of place where we've developed our own unique little culture and bureaucracy, and like with any culture, significant changes to that are a bit difficult to comprehend no matter how flawed the system may be. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

9. Would you support a WikiProject that aimed to create a three-dimensional version of Wikipedia? Why or why not?

A: While I can certainly see a wide range of benefits of 3D displays of images and diagrams (exploded models of engines, engaging views of parks, more in-depth statistical charts, etc.) I can also see a strong potential for a new kind of vandalism - three-dimensional penises sticking out of your screen at you. :-/ On the whole I think it would be a benefit, but we'd need to keep the bad image list up-to-date constantly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

10. What improvements would you suggest to upol, as it is in its current form? Additionally, how would you handle a situation where the consensus on UAA with respect to a reported username goes completely against what the upol suggests? Would you go by the consensus at the UAA forum or would you stick to the username policy?

A: I don't feel as though there are any substantial problems with the username policy currently. I suppose that a few of the more major points could be added to the account creation page (no company names, etc.) but that's kind of a separate issue. As for the UAA issue, if the consensus was to block a username that appeared acceptable under the UPOL, I'd recommend those calling for the block try to discuss things with the user or open a username RFC on the topic. Going the other way, it depends just how blatant the violation was, and the nature of said violation. If it's borderline offensive, I'd probably let it slide or maybe talk to the user about it; if it's very obviously offensive or the username is the same as a company name (and the account was editing about the company) I'd likely still block the account. That latter one is also in part due to the policy on role accounts; accounts like "Random Things, Inc." can be seen as representing all of Random Things, Inc., which isn't allowed without approval from the Foundation. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Hydroxonium

11. Thank you for your dedication to the project and all your efforts. You are a highly experienced editor, so I would like to get your input. Some have said that the negative interactions that established users experience at RfA/RfB are very similar to the negative interactions new users get all the time and that this is the main reason Wikipedia has had trouble attracting and retaining volunteers over the last several years. It has also been said that this negativity occasionally creates vandals and troublemakers out of formerly good Wikipedians and drives away positive users leaving behind the negative ones, thus increasing the problem. Should the community, as a whole, attempt to address these issues in some fashion? What advice would you give to the community?

A: Yes, this should be addressed in some way. In general, the whole community needs to sit down and reconsider what we're all here for. I know it's the same purpose - to build an encyclopedia - but somehow that gets forgotten amidst all the edit wars and dramas and such forth and so on. Certain things that shouldn't be considered a big deal - adminship, for one, also rollback and new user's good faith in creating new articles - are treated as a big deal, which is frustrating for both experienced users trying to help and new users who don't have a clue what's going on. As I explained to one new user on my talk page earlier today, it's a Wiki - even if something get totally screwed up, it can be fixed again in a matter of seconds. Taking time to relax and remember that there are people on the other side of the internet as well will make the community work together loads better. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional questions from Cunard, copied from Hersfold's talk page

At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1, the closing bureaucrat wrote:

... I have to say that I do not regard this as a particularly borderline call. I think the discussion between users in this RfA shows a consensus for promotion.

The final tally of the RfB was 75/29/8 at 72.1%.

On the closing bureaucrat's talk page, an opposer wrote:

I think the rationale Scribe posted is symptomatic of a recent trend among bureaucrats to be too dismissive of legitimate opposition, while weighing unexplained supports too heavily. Just one editor's opinion.

The closing bureaucrat replied:

It is hard to please all of the people all of the time. If it can be said with certainty that users with x% support will pass/fail RfA, users complain that RfA is a vote rather than a discussion and that this is bad. If bureaucrats analyse the discussions and determine consensus according (leading to different outcomes for those with the same % support), results are criticised for being inconsistent and that this is bad. I suspect bureaucrats tend to be resigned to someone telling us we are wrong whatever we do, but (for the record) I am loathe to "dismiss" any opposition, though I do think examples of misconduct are weightier concerns than general worries about inexperience.

Earlier in the year, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 was closed as unsuccessful at a tally of 88/30/11 at 74.6%. Commentators at User talk:WJBscribe#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1 generally believed that the consensus was to promote Connormah.

12. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) wrote in the above discussion: "I think this demonstrates that bureaucrat discussions should be more of a common practice than they are currently, especially when an RfA is at the lower end of the discretionary area."

Nsk92 (talk · contribs) wrote: "HJ Mitchell make a good point that in cases where the outcome is likely to be a close call, having a crat chat would be useful ... Having crat chats in close cases like these is useful, both for more accurate determination of consensus and for greater consistency, particularly so that future RfA candidates better know what to expect."

Should bureaucrat discussions have been opened for the above two RfAs? When will you initiate a bureaucrat discussion instead of performing an independent closure?

A: I feel that any RfA below 75% - that is, in the lower half of the discretionary zone - should not be closed by a single bureaucrat acting alone. I certainly will not do so, especially given my relative lack of experience in the area. As I said above, any RfA that appears contentious would be better served being closed by at least two crats working together (obviously only one can actually make the edit, but you get the idea). This ensures that a) the single crat is not misinterpreting something important, b) that all sides of the discussion are being fully considered, and c) there is a second layer of consensus as to whether there is in fact a first layer (that may have been a little unclear). These two RfA's probably could have benefited from at least a short discussion amongst crats. However, I do believe that in spite of the lack of discussion these closes were appropriate. In the case of Bsadowski's, most of the opposition was focused on the lack of article editing, but a few other (what I consider to be) more serious concerns: HJ Mitchell pointed out "You have more edits to your own userpage than [...] any discussion page in any namespace"; zzuuzz pointed out a substantial lack of experience in several areas; perhaps most importantly, Tiptoety pointed out he had been removed as an SPI clerk despite claiming SPI as his best contribution to the project. While those more serious concerns are serious, they did not constitute a major focus in the oppose section, and there were not many people switching their !votes to a more negative viewpoint. On Connormah's, the major concern was unreferenced BLP's. As noted, this came up shortly after a wide-spread community focus on this, and indicated a more serious concern than a simple lack of experience; to whit, a misunderstanding/misapplication of policy. While there was vote-switching in both directions, there were a significant number of people in the neutral section that elected not to vote (or had gone neutral then switched to oppose later) as a result of those concerns. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The closing bureaucrat wrote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1:

... I note that (as has been the case for a number of years) there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator ...

The closing bureaucrat at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare (70.7%) wrote:

To quote WJBScribe, "there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator."

Several months later, an RfA participant wrote:

Last time I checked, the closing bureaucrats here have stated that "lack of content building" as an oppose rationale carries zero weight.

13. How much weight should be accorded to opposes based on lack of content creation? For example, if an RfA was in the discretionary zone, and many of the opposes referenced lack of content creation in their rationales, how much weight would you give such opposes? What weight would these opposes carry in relation to opposes based on (1) maturity, (2) inactivity, (3) lack of edit summaries, and (4) knowledge of policy?

A: As might be guessed by my own lack of content work, I don't think a simple lack of content work compared to other users is the most valid reason to oppose someone. What is more important for administrators (in my opinion) is a demonstration of understanding of policy, willingness and ability to communicate with others, and some basic experience in admin work. As far as I am aware, the issue of having X DYK's, Y GA's, and Z FA's as a requirement for adminship has not reached any consensus yet, or even a set ratio of content edits to other edits. However, it is not entirely invalid, and a lack of content work coupled with lack of other efforts to improve/help the encyclopedia is a big red flag. I'm rather hesitant to rank that particular argument against others, as if a significant number of editors commenting on an RFA feel it's a major concern, it probably is a major concern, but I'd probably rank knowledge of policy as the most important (as this covers issues like those raised in Connormah's RFA cited above, and more serious concerns like recent blocks), maturity as second (kinda covers ability to communicate, also general responsibility with the tools), edit summaries and content roughly tied for third (edit summaries also covers communication), and inactivity as last (as while it may make judging quality of work difficult, it in no way impacts one's ability to click a delete button - however a pattern of disappearing shortly after controversial actions would be a more serious concern). However, this is all very relative and dependent on the specific circumstances of each RfA. In Bsadowski1's case, he had demonstrated great responsibility and dedication to other projects, which helped offset the lack of content work. In GorillaWarfare's case, there were a number of opposers who stated their opposition was weak, and a number of the supporters directly addressed the content issue. Had the opposition is a bit more forceful and/or there were other issues brought up besides content work (there were a few in GW's, but no major themes that I saw), that RfA may have had a different result. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

14. What is your opinion about vote-striking during and after an RfX? Refer to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 12#Nichalp actions in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redmarkviolinist 3, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 16#Vote striking by a crat, reversal by a noncrat and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 16#Guidelines and strikings and !votes, oh my.

A: After an RfX is closed, votes should not be stricken, as the page needs to be maintained as a record or archive of what happened. During an RfX, any user is welcome to strike or change their own !vote at any time, of course; further, users striking !votes from accounts belonging to vandals, sockpuppeteers, etc. is appropriate; banned/blocked users aren't welcome to comment per the blocking policy, and vandals by definition aren't around to usefully contribute. However, strikings of the sort you're referring to should be avoided, except in extreme cases; this causes undue drama, and in general, users reviewing a RFA are capable of identifying obvious crap !votes on their own. Taking these one at a time - Nichalp's striking of Richard Cavell's vote (first link) was probably inappropriate. While I agree that the specific examples used in Cavell's oppose were not the best to choose from, most especially the picture, I can see that the point he was trying to get across was something similar to WP:NOTNOW - the candidate clearly was having some difficulty understanding how Wikipedia worked and had some maturity issues. A more appropriate response would have been to ask him to refactor his comment to make that point clearer, and use examples more relevant to adminship (the AfD links probably could have remained). The second link, with Bibliomaniac15 striking Peter Damian's !vote, I feel was appropriate, as the !vote was nothing but an attack and possibly a threat of some kind; there was no basis whatsoever in the candidate's contributions to the project or their qualifications as a potential administrator. Furthermore, Biblio's explaination at [2] was very thorough. Rank incivility is inappropriate in a forum that is supposed to be a reasoned discussion. The third link isn't a separate incident of itself, but a very well-thought-out comment/speech by Avi about the appropriateness of striking votes in various circumstances; I agree completely with his assessment of the situation. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

15. How would have closed the following RfAs? (successful, unsuccessful, bureaucrat discussion, or extension) If you intend to initiate a bureaucrat discussion, would your opinion be to promote or fail the candidate?

a. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare – closed as successful on 16 August 2010 at (87/36/8) at 70.7%

b. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1 – closed as successful on 28 July 2010 at (75/29/8) at 72.1%

c. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab – closed as successful on 11 July 2009 at (69/33/4) at 67.6%

d. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon 3 – closed as successful on 23 February 2008 at (89/52/14) at 63.1%

e. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Logan – closed as unsuccessful on 21 May 2011 at (76/29/4) at 72.4%

f. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slon02 3 – closed as unsuccessful on 12 March 2011 at (45/19/10) at 70.3%

g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman – closed as unsuccessful on 21 January 2011 at (76/36/10) at 67.9%

h. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ling.Nut – closed as unsuccessful on 3 November 2010 at (113/63/7) at 64.2%

i. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 – closed as unsuccessful on 17 July 2010 at (88/30/11) at 74.6%

j. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2 – closed as unsuccessful on 26 October 2010 at (123/59/21) at 67.6%

k. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 – closed as successful on 10 May 2011 at (166/63/10) at 72.5%

A: Due to the relatively low support percentage of each of these, I'd probably start a discussion on all of them unless otherwise noted below (again, I certainly would as I started out as a bureaucrat, but even once I'd gotten some proper experience under my belt I don't think I'd close any of these on my own per my previous comments (unless noted otherwise)). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A / GorillaWarfare: Discuss with opinion towards accepting. As discussed above, the primary concerns with this one are the lack of content work and large number of automated edits. There are a substantial number of support votes that meaningfully explain their rationales, many addressing those very concerns.

B / Bsadowski1: Discuss with opinion towards accepting as discussed above.

C / Davemeistermoab: Discuss with opinion against accepting. The low percentage aside, the concerns initially raised by Ottava are concerning, and there were a number of opposes referring to a lack of experience in relevant areas.

D / ^demon 3: Discuss with opinion towards accepting but open to being convinced otherwise. This one's a bit odd, because as WJB pointed out in the closing, it wasn't a "start-from-scratch" RfA - they'd been an admin before and resigned without being under a cloud. Thus I agree that the bar should be set a bit lower for this particular RfA. As further noted in the close statement, a lot of the opposes fail to offer concrete evidence of any of the assertions, and there's a good number that are simply "per X". However, the diffs provided by hmwith and indications that that was not an isolated incident would have given me pause.

E / Logan: Discuss with opinion against accepting, possibly close as unsuccessful of own accord. Many of the opposes focus on, in a word, maturity, or more properly an apparent lack of it. As I mentioned above, maturity is a fairly important consideration when reviewing admin candidates, and the oppose !vote left by Ironholds carried a lot of weight on both sides of the aisle.

F / Slon02 3: Close as unsuccessful, possibly discuss with that in mind. The opposers all focus fairly heavily on CSD mistaggings, and that's mentioned a fair bit in the support section as well. The support percentage is also very low, and the number of support votes is not very high for a 2011 RfA.

G / GiantSnowman: Close as unsuccessful. This is a fair bit below the general minimum threshold, and there are a good number of apparently justified concerns regarding CSD mistaggings and other policy misapplications.

H / Ling.Nut: Close as unsuccessful. This is well below the general minimum threshold, and unlike ^demon's 3rd RFA, there are diffs here showing evidence of insults and other poor attitude. Given that a fair number of supports do address the civility concerns, I may check with another crat first, but this seems pretty clear-cut.

I / Connormah 2: Discuss with opinion against accepting. As discussed above, the primary concern here is policy application, a fairly major concern.

J / The Thing That Should Not Be 2: Close as unsuccessful. The maturity and experience concerns are most prevalent, although there are a fair number of concerns about the lack content work as well. While, as I said before, I'd usually not count that as much, many of them are noting that those concerns were raised in four previous RfAs and had not been addressed. All this in conjunction with the low support percentage would result in an unsuccessful close.

K / SarekOfVulcan 2: Discuss with opinion towards accepting. As with ^demon's, this is a reconfirmation RFA, so I'd consider the bar to be a little lower than usual. Furthermore, a number of the opposes have nothing to do with the candidate but are opposing simply due to the RFA being a reconfirmation. While there is a very strong focus on using admin tools whilst involved in the oppose section, I'm having a hard time picking out any other issues in the opposes, and there were a number of votes changed in a more positive direction, which is encouraging.

Additional question from Kingpin13

16. Can you think of a situation where you would not flag a BRfA approved bot waiting for a flag at Wikipedia:BRFA/A and would instead raise an issue with the BAG? How much review of bot requests do you think bureaucrats should do in general?

A: I can't immediately think of one, no... The BAG is responsible for approving bots prior to flagging, and does include a few crats (granted, most of whom aren't active). I really can't imagine that a BAG member would approve a bot without clear consensus or if the bot wasn't ready or was somehow harmful, but in any of those cases I would probably discuss the matter with the approving BAG member. Particularly if a bot's task appeared controversial in some way, I'd want to be sure it worked well and had some general support from the community before sending it off to do its thing. As for reviewing bot requests, again, that is the job of the BAG which is largely a separate entity from the crat corps. While I believe crats should be involved in BAG due to their bot flagging abilities, I see it the same way as an admin not wishing to participate in AfD; it's just not everyone's cup of tea, and if you're not knowledgeable about programming, all the code is going to look like gibberish to you. A crat flagging a bot should at the least skim over the relevant BRFA just to make sure consensus exists for the bot, however. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats on talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Yes, definitely. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Has enough experience in relevant areas. --Rschen7754 23:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Support - Definitely experienced enough in admin areas. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - Experience with the user has been great. Cube lurker's oppose seems a bit petty. It's a fairly old and simple mistake and perhaps a knee-jerk reaction to defend oneself. We all make them.--v/r - TP 23:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
5. Support - Sure. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
6. Support - Experienced admin/cu. Cube lurker's example is 10 months in the past, no indication that a repeat has occurred. Jarkeld (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Support No cause for concern is evident. Cubelurker's objection is the kind of mistake that will eventually befall anyone who does this kind of administrative work in any volume, and it happened a year ago. --causa sui (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
8. Support Yep. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 00:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
9. Support - I will not withold my support on the basis of a single incident ten months ago. James500 (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
10. Support per general belief that any generally competent admin who wants the wrench should have it. Courcelles 01:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
11. Support He has a solid long term track record as an admin and has used advanced rights, as well, so I'm inclined to trust him as a crat. He has admitted his mistake from CL's example, and doesn't seem to have made a habit of it since then. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    Support - The reasoning behind asking for the wrench is sound. Opposing over once incident nearly a year ago is, in my opinion, in exceedingly bad taste. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    I've pulled my support and am now opposing the candidate per the answers given to questions 15D and 15K. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

12. Without hesitation, solid crat candidate.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  01:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
13. Support - Hersfold made a small joke three years ago that I didn't find particularly funny. However I don't yet regard that as sufficient grounds for an oppose, although I will expect a better standard of humour once he is a 'crat. Manning (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    Somewhat curious as to what that joke was... :-/ Thanks for the support though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    I regret to say I've forgotten. Or possibly I am imagining the whole thing. Still, that's no reason to abandon an irrational grudge now, is it? :) Manning (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    The irony of his missing the joke gave me a good chuckle. :-) causa sui (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    Well thank YOU Causa for getting it :-) The point, of course, was that utterly trivial crap from eons ago is no grounds for opposing an absolutely ideal candidate such as Hers. Manning (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

14. Support - Good answers. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
15. Support – My interactions with Hersfold have been good. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
16. Support No reason why not. So far none of the reasons raised in the oppose section carry any weight with me. Everyone makes a mistake here and there, and that was a long time ago. Further, I don't see what article work has to do with being a crat. Monty₈₄₅ 02:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
17. Crats do so little (and almost nothing controversial, as I doubt any of them would be dumb enough to desysop an admin outside of the upcoming policy addition), and Hersfold is obviously trusted with CU (and was elected to ArbCom in 2010), so I see no major problems. The opposers are picking at threads here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
18. Support - One of the most responsible and generally trusted users--ArbCom, CU--on Wikipedia. And one of the most personally trusted by me. Yes please. Regarding the... oh let's just call it pointy oppose below, not everyone is a good writer. Or to use an analogy I have used frequently at RfA: people go to theatres to see the actors. But you won't see or hear them without the non-acting technicians behind the scenes. → ROUX ₪ 04:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    I like your analogy. On the other hand, as a writer I go to see the play. It is given an extra dimension by the actors (occasionally also things not in the original...), but I do agree about the technical staff being necessary and usually unsung. Peridon (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

19. Support seriously. He has never abused the checkuser or edit filter manager rights, and he's created a fair number of bots too. He has been around for 4.5 years which is the sort of experience I expect to see from a 'crat hopeful candidate. I can't see any reason to say "that's enough privileges now, no more" because he has been a trusted user since he started Wikipedia. Minima© (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
20. Support --Chris 05:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
21. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
22. Support Sure. ThemFromSpace 08:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
23. Support - A great administrator. Will make a good bureaucrat. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
24. Support OK by me (barring the Sunday Times revealing all...). Peridon (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
25. Support - A good administrator. I have faith he'll make a good bureacrat. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
26. Support – Hersfold is experienced and has been doing good work for a couple of years. I think he's ready to take on the bureaucrat tools. HeyMid (contribs) 10:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
27. Support - No reason not to, really. Mjroots (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
28. Support - per editors Porchcorpter and causa sui. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
29. Support - Trustworthy admin who should get the extra buttons. —DoRD (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
30. Support, no signs of any risk, signs of benefit to the project, thus why not? --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
31. Support. Hersfold is more than capable. (Full disclosure: I've worked with him as an Arbitration clerk.) AGK [•] 14:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
32. Support per Roux. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
33. Support. Incident pointed out was quite a while ago. Great admin experience.--EdwardZhao (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
34. Support – Hersfold will be more useful to our community with extra tool. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
35. Support - Answers looked good, user looks good. Per Fastily. MJ94 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
36. What?!, in the course of nearly 32,000 edits over four and a half years, with three of those years as an admin, Hersfold made a mistake - and only about a year ago?! Gadzooks, one might almost think the man is human! Erm, I mean Support - I've seen Hersfold working in admin areas and supporting the rest of us with CU work, and have only positive reactions to what interactions I have had with him. I've also looked over quite a bit of his work, and I see top quality admin work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
37. Support. Clearly a trustworthy candidate, and the intelligent answers to the questions above demonstrate that he knows what he's doing. I'm confident he'll take on board the legitimate concerns expressed in the oppose column. 28bytes (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
38. Support. Very easy to approach and helpful at the same time. I also see no concerns to oppose. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
39. Support — No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
40. As a bureaucrat on three other WMF wikis, I can say from experience that for 99.8% of the time, it's an excruciatingly menial and trivial role, one which is nearly impossible to mess up to any great degree if your intentions are good. I view the default for RfB as to support unless I see something painfully obvious that would suggest the candidate does not have good intentions and minimal knowledge of how to click buttons. Juliancolton (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
41. Support, largely on the basis that the standard for RfBs should be lower than that for RfAs, not higher. Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
42. Support Hersfold is a great benefit to the encyclopedia. It would speed processes up if he continues to review unblock requests and is able to perform username changes. Ryan Vesey (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    Support Hersfold is great!--DissidentRUS (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    Striking because user has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. --Σ ^talk_contribs 03:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    Support (move to oppose) Like Julian, I think the default opinion for an RfB is "support". In fact, I think that all admins should become crats sooner or later because there really is no logical reason to elevate cratship to a demigod-status that only few users should ever reach. I do think Cube lurker has mentioned a case that is reason for concern in their oppose - even if it was a almost a year ago. Hersfold made a stupid mistake when he acted the way he did: he should have consulted the article's edit history before reverting a good-faith, well-reasoned edit. He should also have warned the other editor involved, instead of blaming the IP-editor. And he should have admitted that he made a stupid mistake. Especially the last part, the ability to admit when you make a mistake, is imho crucial for any crat. That said, I am still supporting because I was not able to see a pattern of such behavior in Hersfold's edits and as such will assume that this was a one-time mistake of someone who otherwise has a good track record of acting for the project's benefit. The same goes for "jumping through hoops"-example cited in the oppose section. While I do agree that it was not the correct approach to decline that unblock request instead of allowing the user to request a rename, I think Hersfold learned his lesson from it and won't make the same mistake twice. I am not worried by his recent lack of activity, because I do trust him enough not to lie when he says he will have more time now. And even if he is only semi-active, any additional editor with the tools can and usually will be a net positive for the project, even if he does not use them often. As for the article editing, I would like to refer to Roux's excellent analogy above. Remember, not everyone is an artist. Regards SoWhy 18:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    That position only makes sense if you also believe that all regular editors should become administrators "sooner or later". And please, no "trusted by the community" bollocks. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    No, it doesn't. es-wiki for example has a policy that gives all admins cratship and it has not ceased to exist or fallen into chaos so far, so there is no reason to think that making all editors admins is a requirement to make all admins crats. If we require all admins to be capable of judging and implementing community consensus, being fair in all of their actions and being able to follow the rules the community set for the project, which we ideally will, then cratship does not add anything new. The way we expect crats to behave is imho the way all admins should behave and as such all admins should sooner or later be granted those tools. I know that we, unfortunately, have a number of admins who fail those expectations but then again, I believe everyone is able to better themselves and once they do fulfill those expectations, why shouldn't they be made crats? I do realize that this is not a reflection of the community's opinion on this matter of course. Regards SoWhy 18:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    But there is every reason to think that what such a proposal would do is to widen the already unbridgeable schism between administrators and non-administrators. I suppose that would probably be considered a price worth paying by some though, to get their grubby paws on extra "rights". Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    I disagree. First of all, it's easier for a non-admin to pass RFA than for an admin to pass RFB, so the schism is larger between crats and admins imho. And I think even if one were to think like you do that people running for cratship are only doing it to "get their grubby paws on extra rights", then making cratship something every admin gets, means that there is no incentive to "grubby-paw" those rights. And if it's bundled as it is on es-wiki, it would not change anything at all, since cratship would cease to have a demigod-like status. That said, I do agree that there is, unfortunately, a sizeable number of editors (both admins and non-admins) who have forgotten the idea that adminship should be "no big deal" and that admins are not better or worse than non-admins (which is imho one of the mean reasons of the schism you mention). But this is not the place to discuss this at length, so I will stop rambling now. Regards SoWhy 19:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

43. Support. Cube lurker's points are valid, but not enough to oppose in this case, and four months of recent inactivity is more than offset by the clear evidence of good judgement and experience in relevant areas. Lack of content work isn't a serious problem - I'd much rather someone sticks to what they're good at than tries to work in areas they don't really want to just to win support. I don't see any evidence that Hersfold will misuse the (relatively few) additional tools. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
44. Support "Three-dimensional penises sticking out of your screen at you." Awesome. Keepscases (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
45. Opposes are patently unconvincing. T. Canens (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
46. Support I've never understood the silly pass-percentage for bureaucrat rights; they confer little power and less responsibility. The high percentage requirement just means we end up valuing blandness over competence. Hersfold is certainly competent; he may or may not be bland. CIreland (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
47. Support 900+ edits to help....Not at all convinced by opposes. The intention is there to help as a volunteer on wikipedia. plus one from me Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
48. Support - I was going to oppose over the recent levels of inactivity. In fact I had my oppose all typed out and was ready to submit. But then I thought about it and you know what? This isn't about voting for team captain or some such thing - it's about deciding whether or not we trust Hersfold's judgment to exercise the makesysop button. And I think we do. --B (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
49. Support - Good editor and admin. I don't know what content creation has to do with being a bureaucrat, and I don't know what's wrong with "hat collecting" if the user is good at what they do. AlexiusHoratius 21:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
50. Support Per above and below. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
51. Support The opposes do not sway it for me.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
52. Support. Fully qualified candidate, per many of the above comments. I have considered the opposers' concerns and find them unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
53. Support Hersfold has all the skills required for a crat and the pressures are considerably less than that for a member of ArbCom. He has explained that he has more time available now. Mathsci (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks, I appreciate the reconsideration. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

54. Support - No issues at all and a great job on the articles. Good luck!--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 23:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
55. Support Regarding content creation, he cleaned up"Bertrand Russell" as noted by his RfA nominator Neil, who wrote "look at the difference." (I note that Charles Sanders Peirce and Dedekind should be credited with the axiomatization of the natural numbers, not Russell and Frege, however.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
56. Support: Reasonable, level-headed guy. As for Cube lurker's concern, everyone makes mistakes. Not really concerned about lack of content contributions some opposers have mentioned; adding the crat flag doesn't add any powers I find worrisome in non-content contributors. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
57. Support. Qualified for the job.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
58. Yea, sure, whatever. Prodego ^talk 01:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
59. Support I've come across him a few times. Seen his interactions too. Sensible, displaying a slightly above average resistance towards flak. In all, a good choice for a bureaucrat. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 01:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
60. Support (Moved from neutral) Based on personal interactions and observations, validated by a diligent review of contributions. I find the generally collegial and overwhelmingly clueful interactions and contributions of this candidate significantly mitigate the legitimate concerns raised in the oppose consensus. While I respect that Hersfold has many reasons to be proud, my counsel would be to recognize that modesty is the best virtue that pride could possibly produce. Therefor, let it be so. My76Strat ^talk 02:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
61. Support -- I see no major reason not to. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 03:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
62. Support - I see no reasons not to support. The candidate clearly has an in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and his other user rights already demonstrate the required level of trustworthiness - adding 'bureaucreat' is a logical step. The debate by the opposers on the candidate's semantics are unconvincing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
63. Support —SW— ^express 05:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
64. Support Very encouraging qualifications and responses. His answers to questions 13-15 are comforting; this is definitely someone I would trust with the position. Technician Fry (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

    Weak Support.<move to oppose> An RfB should come down to one question. "Do I trust Hersfold enough to not run riot with these extra tools". The answer is yes. If this were an RfA, I'd be bothered by the concerns raised by opposers, I'd be bothered by the recent inactivity and mostly I'd be bothered by the perceived inability to receive criticism - I might even be neutral. But it isn't an RfA - it's an RfB, and the standard should be lower. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

65. Support. Excellent qualifications, good judgment, exemplary record. Just the kind of person we need working behind the scenes. -- œ^™ 10:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
66. Support - sufficiently qualified for cratship, generally shows good judgement; not impressed by the Opposes. Robofish (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
67. Support. The answers above are very solid, showing enough knowledge and clue to handle the requested tools - frankie (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
68. Support per the extensive answers to my questions. Hersfold's thorough answers in Q12, Q13, and Q15 are impressive and reassuring, indicating that he will be willing to close controversial RfAs and initiate bureaucrat discussions when bureaucrats can reasonably close differently.

    His answer in Q14 is reasonable but I'd caution against vote striking during an RfA. The concerns at one of the RfAs have merit. I hope Hersfold bears in mind the comment: "Not only would they be directly influencing the outcome by saying that votes had no basis, they would be undermining their stance of being objective by introducing themselves into the RfA."

    Hersfold's long tenure as an administrator and checkuser and his willingness to consult other bureaucrats when RfA results are unclear demonstrate that he is fit to be a bureaucrat. That he has little content work and has been inactive are reasonable oppose reasons. But these imperfections are outweighed by his dedicated work on Wikipedia as an administrator and checkuser. Hersfold, thank you for the copious amounts of reading you did and for your judicious, considerate answers to each of my questions. I wish you the best of luck. Cunard (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

69. Support. I trust Hersfold with the extra tools, and I trust not just that their judgments are fair and policy-based, but also that Hersfold has the confidence to judge independently. I base this on my somewhat incidental interactions with them, on what I've seen on the various drama boards, and on the answers to Cunard's third degree. I chime in with Cunard's comments above, and certainly also wish you the best of luck. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
70. Support - I look for two things in an RfB candidate (the few that we get); good judgement and specifically a good grasp on how to close RfAs. In my numerous interactions with and observations of Hersfold over the years, I believe that he has the judgement I'd look for. As to my latter requirement, the answers to questions above satisfy me. I'm also considering that there is a proposal to allow crats to be able to remove the admin bit, which has the potential to increase their responsibilities and makes the role of bureaucrat less mundane, and seeing that the proposal is showing strong support I'm assuming that any crat we elevate now will have that power. Yet I still feel confident in supporting. -- Atama頭 18:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
71. I find it quite refreshing to see an editor who takes a couple of months break every now and again during wikicareer of more than four years, and I like the AGF approach to blocked promotional usernames (I tend to give them softblocks so they can create a nonspam account if they wish). So far no-one has found a slip up in the candidate's recent activity, something however minor from the last four month's activity would be worthwhile proof that he is not an AI. But I wouldn't oppose for an isolated recent incident let alone an isolated stale one unless I thought there was a pattern. ϢereSpielChequers 18:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
72. Support Hersfold is perfectly capable of the duties of a bureaucrat. I note several oppositions refer to being a 'crat as a position of power. This is not so. Closing an RfA that is borderline can be contentious and seems to be authority or power, however closing any discussion is stepping up to the plate and judging the will of the community. This is not using personal judgment, which would truly be powerful. Tim Starling went with the name "bureaucrat" because the job is clerical work that takes selective access to perform some functions. The title is supposed to be unappealing, not authoritative. Keegan (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
73. Support.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
74. Support, no reason to worry about misuse of extra tools. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
75. Stephen 04:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
76. Support Absolutely. The 13% mainspace contribs boggles my mind a little, but then I remember all the other good work Hersfold has done and how trustworthy he is. Steven Walling 05:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
77. Trustworthy user. No problems here. Jafeluv (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
78. Support seams level headed, nothing that the opposes have highlighted worries me at all. Mtking (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
79. Support. Hersfold has clearly demonstrated his ability to carry out the duties required of a bureaucrat. The opposes so far make little or no sense given the role in question and/or cherry pick one incident out of many, many actions performed; last time I checked most of us were still human. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
80. Support seems level-headed, and the incident inspiring people to oppose doesn't seem so serious, and has been apologised for and lessons learnt. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 13:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
81. Support - by the time we get this far down the list, there's nothing I can really add except "me too". I've skimread the concern raised by the opposers, and I'm not convinced that Hersfold has any attitude problem. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
82. Weak support. Cube lurker's diff and the inactivity are concerning, but the diff is an isolated incident, and the "lack of article edits" opposes are absolutely ridiculous. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
83. Yep. One isolated incident isn't incriminating. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 18:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
84. Support No reason not to trust with extra tools Jebus989^✰ 21:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
85. Support - since I see no compelling reason for opposition. Hersfold is shaping up to be a worthy and competent bureaucrat. Furthermore, RfBs in general are something that Wikipedia could do with a lot more of, and the self-nomination in this case demonstrates a strength of commitment that, at least for me, sweeps aside concerns regarding inactivity. SuperMarioMan 21:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
86. Support - trustworthy admin. Agree with Alexandr Dmitri in regard to the opposes. PhilKnight (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
87. Support – I don't understand why a level-headed admin should not become a crat. —mc10 (t/c) 01:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
88. Support - Please, :P.. Give him the Fez Mlpearc powwow 02:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
89. I've seen Hersfold years ago and can recall him doing well as a sysop. Giving him additional privileges, I support as it's clear that he won't abuse the bureaucrat tools since I've never seen him abuse admin tools. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 06:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
90. Support – Hersfold was the first person to teach me the various wiki-policies and took proper guidance. Exceptional administrater and will be an exceptional bureaucrat. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
91. Support - I've known Hersfold for a very long time, and I would have absolutely no issue trusting them with a couple extra tools. SQL^{Query me!} 14:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
92. Support Hey guys, remember to invite me to this next time XD. Good candidate, always thought of him as a superadmin anyway, now he will be. :P -- DQ (t) (e) 16:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

    That's exactly the image we don't want to promote... Juliancolton (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

93. Support strikes me as reasonable though I believe I've had disagreements in the past. Answers above are very good. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
94. Support. Level-headed user, suitable for the job. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC).
95. Any problematic closures can be discussed; few oversights are permanent mistakes at this project. Weak support because of Pedro's concerns but any result that someone will inevitably take issue with can be discussed; he'd be a definite benefit in the role. Blurpeace 22:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

    I'm trying to think of a single bureaucrat closure that has been overturned by anyone—other bureaucrats, ArbCom, Jimbo—and I simply can't. Can you? Sure, administrators have gone on to be desysopped after passing controversial RFAs, but that's a different matter entirely. NW (Talk) 02:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

    By his response, and for him being an asset to this project for some time, I trust Hersfold enough to exercise caution whenever making such a closure. Your concern could be applied to anyone standing for this flag. We deal with problems as they occur at this project and the lack of follow through only indicates to me that none of it was a big enough deal, through silence or consensus, to do something. I don't expect Hersfold to be going on a personal value fueled charade anytime soon. Blurpeace 17:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Support. At least to me, this is less controversial than Maxim's RfB. Again, I believe in WP:RIG. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 01:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

    Moved to oppose. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 19:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

96. Support - Hersfold is well qualified for the position and easily able to handle bureaucratic tasks. He has broad experience throughout the project and understands our policies and guidelines well. I was particularly impressed with Hersfold's conduct during the ArbCom elections in 2009, specifically his answers to Rschen7754's and Avraham's questions. It shows that Hersfold knows the true meaning of being a Wikipedian. It is our cooperation that moves the project forward. As each of us are flexible towards differing positions, we take that much larger steps as we progress towards our goal. In general, Wikipedia allows users to work in the areas they want and this has worked well for us. I am grateful that users are willing to run the gauntlet that is RfB in order to perform tasks that need to be performed. For the most part, we allow users to choose the tasks they'd like to perform unless there is a compelling reason not to. Although the opposition has raised issues that Hersfold could work on (and I expect he will and encourage him to do so), I was unable to find a compelling reason to not allow him to work on these tasks. I wish the candidate well and expect he will perform to the best of his abilities. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
97. Strong support - I don't need to explain my reasons, they're right above me. I've seen Hersfold's work before, I am impressed. (also WP:100) Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 05:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
98. Support Bejinhan talks 06:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
99. Support (ec) - Nothing but good experience with Hersfold, he would be a fine crat.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
100. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
101. Support. In my mind, this RfB is turning into a textbook illustration of how RfB can go off the tracks over groundless opposition. When the process started, I looked at the incident cited in the first oppose, and decided I would keep quiet for a few days in order to see whether other editors would come up with more such incidents, indicating that it was a pattern rather than a bad day. Of course, that does not seem to have happened. Instead, we have people who are all lathered up because the candidate would have closed some past RfAs in the ways that they actually were closed by Bureaucrats at the time. I trust this candidate to do what the candidate has actually said they will do if confirmed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
102. Support More than qualified to push the 'crat buttons. I find the oppose reasons below uniformly unimpressive. Nobody's perfect, and crat standards have been absurdly high. We don't need to lose another perfectly qualified candidate for such weak reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
103. Support Yes! -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
104. Support, was always helpful and a trusty volunteer to me. mabdul 22:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
105. Support – Trustworthy and experienced. Airplaneman ✈ 23:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
106. Support - Has the experience, has the right attitude. Chasingsol^(talk) 00:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
107. Won't abuse the tools though I'm worried about hat gaining. Secret ^account 01:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
108. Support, this is someone who has proved themselves in so many ways. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
109. I support niche admins and have hardly ever been disappointed, the same should go for specialist bureaucrats. Regarding opposes, this is not an editor review, and it's not an admin review; I can accept that in RfAs a candidate must show that the goal of building and maintaining an encyclopedia has top priority. For crat tasks and the trust needed for them, it's irrelevant. The only concerns that may carry some weight here are RfA judgement questions, but I don't agree with those either, or at least don't find them significant enough: any crat will have to try to define community standards when judging consensus in an RfA. Crats will get different results, and most personal standards will differ in key positions, but that's a failure of our system, not of this candidate. Amalthea 12:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
110. Support. An experienced admin who shows no propensity to abuse the tools. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
111. Trustworthy person; also, per Tryptofish. -- Mentifisto 16:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
112. Support per Fastily - To comment on Pedro's oppose - Policy is supposed to reflect what actually happens be descriptive not prescritive. Reconfirmation RFA's are* closed more leniently - its just not written down. (* observed without taking a detailed statistical analysis) Agathoclea (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

     No, I'm not going to let (redacted) go without challenge. Policy is supposed to reflect what actually happens.... So vandalism is okay, uncited BLP slander is all good and copyright infringements at DYK are fine then? What a (redacted) poor argument. And if you'd be so kind as to point me to the "policy" regarding RFA and RFB I'd be much obliged ..... oh you can't. (redacted). Pedro :  Chat  21:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

     That response ... um, how shall I say this ... well, to say the least, it doesn't make Wikipedia in general, and RfA/RfB in particular, a more pleasant and charming place. We can do better. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

     I've been blocked for less, but then again I'm not an administrator, I'm just a disposable unit of work. There are deep and widening divides within the Wikipedia community, but this is clearly not the appropriate place to discuss them. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

     NYB - we can do better by people not making pointless little digs in the first place. Note how I am singled out yet others in oppose have commented to the same effect. Nevertheless I shall redact parts that are clearly offensive. I hope that doesn't come across as being sycophantic... Pedro :  Chat  06:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

     I hope using the common terminology makes my comment more understandable. That expression eluded me yesterday. I apologise if I made you feel singled out - your oppose was the one that struck me the most as I normally do take note of your opinion at RFx. Agathoclea (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

113. Support - good luck. Monterey Bay (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
114. Support - Hersfold will do fine. It seems to me that a lot of opposers are trying to impose their own personal rules (i.e. content creation) onto the candidate; said opposes are not at all relevant to this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
115. Support Right attitude, plenty of appropriate experience, can be trusted w/ the tools. Skier Dude (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
116. Support I worked with this user for many years and I have trusted his judgment for a long time. I believe he is the right person for the job. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
117. Support - I think he will do a good job with the extra mop. -Barras ^talk 08:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
118. Support trustworthy, good judgment and unlikely to break anything as a crat. Bencherlite^Talk 10:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
119. Support Seems sensible. The opposes don't raise enough concerns for me to not support. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
120. Support Generally, I'm not convinced RfB should be the big deal that it is, nor that there's a real need for lots more 'crats. Nevertheless, I have a high level of confidence in Hersfold's ability to handle these technical details and judge consensus where required, and approving quality candidates like Hersfold with a proven, positive track record when they come along is the smart thing to do for the project.  Frank  |  talk  11:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
121. Support I trust Hersfold at this level. Royalbroil 11:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
122. Support My observations of Hersfold is that they are practically incapable of performing an action that would, in their opinion, be detrimental to the project and that they are one of the people most likely to seek a third opinion (or work as part of a team) to be found on en-WP. They already hold positions of authority and trust, and have not shown systemic failures in any of these roles - up to the point of walking away from ArbCom when they felt they could not dedicate sufficient time to fulfill the responsibilities. This is a person eminently capable of executing the office of 'crat. None of the opposes provide, in my opinion, sufficient reason to overcome the obvious qualities that I feel this candidate brings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
123. Support I have no concerns regarding Hersfold's capability in wielding the extra tools. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
124. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 22:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per actions and most importantly attitude shown at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive636#problem_with_user_and_admin.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not seeing it - what do you find that is disturbing? --Rschen7754 23:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

   Started with improper vandalism reversion + WP:BITE. Followed with false arguments as to why he did what he did. Refusal to accept responsibility and attempted to deflect from his error by blaming the bitten IP. Then refusal to apologize. Not bureaucrat qualities.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

   I will certainly admit that some of my actions in that case were not what should be expected of an administrator (and by extension a bureaucrat). I got involved in the situation without fully understanding what was going on, and reverted what later on did seem to be a genuine constructive edit. At the time, I had seen the edit as vandalism and edit warring, and was a bit surprised at the vehement response I was receiving. At no time did I make any false statements. Looking back now, I feel that while I had been civil and made an effort to discuss the situation with the IP editor (talk page archive link), my initial action and response on ANI could have been improved. As I mentioned in question number 3 above, this is one of the contentious situations that I hope to improve from. The incident you're citing happened almost a year ago, and I feel I have made efforts in ensuring that I know a full situation before becoming involved in it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Wasn't this statement of yours false? The IP didn't make any attempt to discuss the edit and explain to us why it wasn't vandalism, he simply went straight here.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Misread some timestamps. I apologize, this has been a while. That statement was another example of me failing to fully understand what was going on during the situation. Again, however, this has been nearly a year, and I feel like I've improved on this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   I just went through several thousand contributions and have found no repeat of the incident. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   I intentionally used the word false as opposed to a more pejorative "intentionally lying". The biggest problem wasn't the mistake it was your continued reaction when it had been clearly pointed out you'd erred. Learning policies can be done in less than a year. I do not believe the core character issues that led you to react as you did can be changed so easily.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, um, this is starting to learn towards personal attacks now. I have admitted that I erred there. I have stated that I've made efforts to improve my conduct on the site. For you to continue to claim that I have character flaws with only a year-old incident as evidence is a bit out of line. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   No admin is perfect. This seems to me like this is being blown quite out of proportion. I am beginning to wonder if someone was quite offended at Hersfold's actions here and is not willing to move on. --Rschen7754 00:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   If that's some sort of jab at me, I've never had administrative involvement with Hersfold, nor have I been dwelling on it. However if an admins behavior leaves such an impression on me that I recall it immediately upon seeing his name at RFB, I have a responsibility to bring it up and allow the community to make it's decision with full facts at hand.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Fair enough. I can see you won't be swayed on this, so all I'll say at this point is thank you for your feedback, and I encourage you to review the rest of my contributions for evidence of how I've made progress since this incident. Happy editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   I participated in the discussion last year and, at the time, assumed that Hersfold was probably having a bad day. Like all of us, he's human, and I can't hold this one incident against him. —DoRD (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   There's an apology here. I really hate to see this kind of over-eager vandal fighting, or assumptions that the noobs must be wrong. Really hate it. But I am encouraged to see this apology here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Do you consider it an apology when it was not made on the IP's user page, or in thread the IP had knowledge of? If I insult you, and then tell my co-worker 'I'm sorry for what I said to Erik', I've still not apologized to you.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Well, the IP started the conversation there on the candidate's talk page and that's where the bitey behavior was. I mean, you have a point, but it's not as bad as that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose per Cube lurker. Any example where someone makes a big mistake, is confronted, refuses to admit they're wrong and/or apologize and ignores any additional criticism is a major turn off for me. Swarm ^X 00:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   With respect and esteem, I noticed when you appended Strong oppose. In deference to that respect, I have vetted this candidate further than otherwise necessary. I have not seen beyond the single incident, and frankly, I wonder what compelled you to show this strengthened resolve? Some members of RfA reform advocate !voting without the "Strong" or "Weak" modifier. This example gives credence to such a position, which I support anyway. Am I missing something? My76Strat ^talk 02:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Hey Strat. I am opposing based on a type of incident that I view with abhorrence, and the "strong" serves to reflect that. I did consider striking it as unnecessarily harsh, but refrained after witnessing additional communication flaws that further strengthened my opinion. For example, telling someone to "go away" on his talk page (utterly unprofessional and rude) and excessive badgering of the first opposer (his comments were quite "flamey"), and rudeness and WP:POINT accusations at another opposer (come on, really?), etc. I'd be happy to clarify further if need be (feel free to drop by my talk page, too). Regards, Swarm ^X 07:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you for that response. No further clarification is necessary, as I better understand your position, and its validity is congruent. I am simply inclined to a different conclusion in this particular instance. Best regards - My76Strat ^talk 01:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Cube lurker as well. Hersfold is not the ready to be a Wikipedia bureaucrat if he/she does not acknowledge his/her mistakes. Sorry. 89119 (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Hersfold is a him, for what it's worth. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

4. Almost no content creation.I looked at this summary of the candidate's mainspace edits: in the last year, he has less than 100 mainspace edits. This is a dormant editor. (And if he is capable of doing college work, he is capable of writing articles.) Adding in the behavior that Swarm calls out (not the IP-biting, but that he did not admit it at ANI) just makes things worse. I get the impression of a user who wants a position of power, but does not have the self-reflection to exercise it well. We exect our 'crats to have some perspective and part of that is self-awareness. Guys like The Rambling Man who just radiate fairness. This fellow worries me. It really seems like he's admitting he was wrong, just now, just because of being called on it.TCO (reviews needed) 01:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Good-hearted TCO, on the contrary, the candidate admited his error long ago, not "just now" because "of being called on it" (but indeed "after being called on it" by Cube Lurker). (I wish my error rate and need to apologize was so low!) Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   And this has something to do with being a 'crat how? Seriously, I want to hear this. So a crat, the person that judges RfAs, moves usernames, and formalizes bot status after a Bot hearing, that person needs extensive content creation for what purpose? I disagree with you on this for admins, but it makes even less sense for 'crats. You could make a case that the user isn't very active, but making it only on mainspace edits? Also, as to your statement on Hersfold possibally being power hungry, he's a CU. He has one of the most trusted positions on Wikipedia, we are giving him almost full access to personal information, with limited oversight. If he was any threat to the project he'd be able to do more damage in five minutes as one CU than every 'crat going rouge at the same time could do in five days.Sven Manguard Wha? 01:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Since you obviously knew that before you asked the question above, I'm curious why you did so other than to make a point. I'd also remind you that everyone here, including me, is a volunteer, and so while college work may show that I am capable of writing articles, it in no way implies I enjoy doing so and wish to regularly do so with my free time. As for the other comments, I would encourage you to look at my contributions rather than a toolserver summary of them, and I'm fairly confident you'll see evidence of my improvement since that year-old incident. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   I did not know before I asked the question. I'll take a poly and go under oath on that. (this is a standard question of mine.) The oppose stands. You give me a bad vibe on many fronts. Come across as argumentative and someone who wants administrative power, to boss the workers, but not do the work...and not a lover of the product we are making.TCO (reviews needed) 02:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   That last line is so totally inappropriate that I'm unable to put into words my disgust for it, and right now, for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Because we all know being a bureaucrat on Wikipedia = unimaginable POWER. Juliancolton (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

5. Welcome back and try again in a few months. I wanted to support, since I've seen you around and thought you were doing a good job. I also think your reasoning for needing the tools (for username changes when reviewing username blocks) is an admirable one. But right now I see too many question marks. The event above with the IP is probably just an unfortunate accident, but the lack of "mea culpa" at the time is a bit perplexing. It was 10 mos ago, but 4 of those months you haven't edited, so it's hard to judge how much you've changed. Your resignation as ArbCom member is completely understandable, but does leave one wondering whether you will stick with things now. I spent about 20 mins looking through your recent contributions; of course generally great but at User_talk:Vicsig you appear to be making a usernameblocked user jump through hoops, rather than helping him - how do you expect him to react to that? And 2 days ago, at Padmanabhanagar and User_talk:Abhishek191288 you imposed a 48 hour block for edit warring without prior warning; the situation appears to have been debatable; the user's talk page indicates someone who generally engages in reasonable discussion - but who now seems to have retired as a result. Your response to people bringing it up on your talk page is to say the user should have known due to his "edit warring blocks" (when he seems to have only had one such block), and that you don't consider 3rd party appeals. I may be wrong, but smells a bit like the same sort of overhastiness as with the IP situation above. Happy to be swayed the other way, but right now would love to see you spend another 2 months or so doing something with your existing tools around the Wiki and impressing us all with your reasonableness and thoughtfulness, so we can support you with more enthusiasm for a role that for better or worse expects that you have near-universal trust that you can read situations well - even though I admit the bar for making noncontroversial username changes could be lower than that. Martinp (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for the comments, I appreciate the feedback. I am a little uncertain as to what you mean with User talk:Vicsig, though - the user there hadn't requested any unblocks prior to that one, and for username blocks we ask that users tell us what username they'd like to use with the {{unblock-un}} template or one of its redirects (for some reason the template there doesn't have that template, but that could have been worked out). As for my activity (stick-to-it-ness, whatever) I do not forsee any extended periods of inactivity at any point in the future just now; I'm currently working on finding employment, but once found I should still be able to maintain a regular schedule. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose for many reasons. I prefer my admins to be content creators. I also expect them to show long term to the project and Hersfold has been absent for a very long time. I'd also prefer crats who don't have advanced permissions as it smacks of hat collecting and finally, I'd like crats that understand policy. Claiming that you can't unblock a user who needs a name change until after the change is .. well .. its nonsense and not policy based but its a reason why they candidate wants to be a crat. No thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   I didn't say users can't be unblocked until after the change; when an unblock is done following a username block, it's often so the user can to go WP:CHU and file the request. A user blocked for that reason won't be unblocked until they tell us what username they'd like to use, and while there probably isn't anything about that in policy, it is common practice. I can link to a number of user talk pages as examples if you'd like. I'd like the tool in part so they don't have to file the paperwork for a name change, which may be confusing and frustrating to a new user, particularly after a block. And again, while I have been out for a while due to my college commitments, I have no plans to go inactive again for some time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   This is an astonishing response. How can you claim that you didn't say that the accounts can't be unblocked when you did. Your actual words up top where you explain why you want the tools are Secondly, in reviewing block appeals I've noticed that the vast majority of these appeals are from users blocked due to spam username concerns. These appeals are often left to stagnate, as the accounts cannot be unblocked without a name change as per the username policy. So, you actually do say that the accounts can't be unblocked. I'm very disappointed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   You're paraphrasing Hersfold's quote incorrectly; you are leaving out the exception. And the username policy is not what drives this. Wikipedia's content license is what drives this. The content license requires all contributions be attributed to an individual. Any account that can be perceived as a group and edits is in violation of the content license. That's why the account cannot be unblocked. Now, I've seen lenient admins who try to discuss this first or send an email but that is a courtesy and not the rule.--v/r - TP 17:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   With the greatest possible respect, a direct quote is not a paraphrase and its fairly clear that Hersfold was saying that you needed a name change to be unblocked when that isn't actually true. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   If you're blocked for a username concern, you do have to get a username change at some point in order to be unblocked. Generally it's shortly after the block is lifted, but just before (see my reply below) saves time and confusion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   I should've made it more clear. I was talking about your sentence immediately after the quote. You had left out the exception that was in the quote.--v/r - TP 18:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Perhaps I was unclear - they cannot be unblocked without consenting to and agreeing to request a username change. If they are unblocked with this understanding and then fail to request the rename, they (according to policy/current practice) can be reblocked, often for the reasons TParis mentions. Any unblock is provisional until the rename is complete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   And this process requires a Crat how? Your comment up top only makes sense if you were proposing to change usernames at the same time as dealing with the unblock and thats not the process we should be following... Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   That is what I'm suggesting. As I explained, if a user has agreed to a username change as a condition of unblock, then it would save time for all involved and a fair bit of confusion and frustration for the blocked user if the rename is carried out before they are unblocked. If paperwork has to be filed at CHU, that can be handled by the crat. I know some administrators will seek out a crat before unblocking a user blocked for username concerns for just this reason (and especially if they were having difficulty understanding the unblock template). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Basically, it's avoiding instruction creep. If we can do something that needs to be done anyway with less paperwork and without confusing new users who found themselves blocked shortly after joining, I'm all for it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   I think we're all getting stuck on a minor technicality here. The policy says one thing, the process to adhere to policy requires another. We're basically on the same page. -Promotional usernames require a rename to comply with username policy. A block may be lifted temporarily to allow the user to request this change.- We're all on the same page at this point, although Hersfold is suggesting that he would apply a quicker process in his own unblocking of these users whereas he would implement the username change during the unblock.--v/r - TP 18:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose Hersfold seems to crave these roles on wikipedia. He was OK as a clerk, but less so as an arbitrator. Enough. He should concentrate on his studies in real life. Mathsci (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Switching to support, since, after due consideration, Hersfold evidently has all the skills required for a bureaucrat, a position which has none of the pressures of ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   I'm undecided atm, but only on whether or not I vote oppose or neutral, however is there proof to back up the statement that he "craves" these promotions? Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   Honestly, I think that a truly power-hungry user would never step down from ArbCom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

7. Oppose - As someone mentioned - in the last year only a hundred article edits. IMO If your not contributing to article space you don't qualify for any authority positions. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   So you think he should he loose his admin bit as well? meshach (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   So because the bureaucrat bit use tools that aren't directly related to articles - so why does username changes, closing RfAs (promoting admins) etc. need ANYTHING to do with editing articles? It's about the behind the scenes work. Not upfront work. That's what some of the fuss is at RfA and RfB "You need to edit articles to use tools that aren't related with articles." I don't edit articles because I don't want to and that's not my thing. Other people may edit as they please - just because they don't like what you like to do doesn't mean you should oppose them for it. I'm a behind the scenes guy; and it looks like Hersfold is too. So why not give Hersfold the tools he needs to be able to do more behind the scenes work to better the users behind the encyclopedia that we know as Wikipedia. It's simple really. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 01:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   The dichotomy here of course is that some of that "behind the scenes work" such as blocking other editors isn't behind the scenes at all, and can be rather damaging. To believe otherwise is to live in a state of blessed ignorance. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   Blocking trolls, vandals, sockpuppeteers etc. doesn't really seem harmful to me. In the end; he really does do article work. Every Checkuser he makes on sockpuppet investigations prevents vandals; trolls and other people who want to disrupt the wiki by screwing with articles etc. Every rangeblock he calculates prevents more disruptive people from getting past their blocks by socking from screwing around. Of course there is always unavoidable innocent users caught in the rangeblock; but that's exactly what IPBE is for (which he works in), what ACC is for (which he also works in). You may not see it; but it makes a big difference when he prevents people who are here solely to disrupt the wiki. If it weren't for our CU team we have on enwiki; all hell would break loose. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 01:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   There are many administrators who have been guilty of blocking productive editors on little more than a whim, so please don't try and take the piss. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   Therefore are you implying that Hersfold is an administrator that goes out and blocks productive editors? --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 17:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   How do you work that out? Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   Indeed. And I agree with Malleus--here we see it again, the idea that the only people who are blocked are trolls, obvious vandals, etc. It's really not that simple, and there are plenty of cases where actual decisions have to be made by people with buttons: is an edit vandalism? how many edits does it take to make an editor disruptive? what is disruptive? what are good-faith but bone-headed edits? or, who painted the lion? I am not going to oppose Hersfold on the basis of not being a productive content writer right now--I trust that they have enough common sense and knowledge of writing content to make decent decisions, but this "behind-the-scenes" stuff is overrated. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   What's puzzling me about this whole conversation is that we're not even talking about giving Hersfold the block and delete buttons. If anything, he's less likely to be blocking and deleting if he's got 'crat tasks to keep him busy. 28bytes (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   ... which is precisely why I said the bar should be lower for bureaucrats, not higher, as they have far less ability to cause damage. Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   In a strict sense bureaucrats are a subset of admins: you have to be an admin to be a bureaucrats. Are you saying that the roles should be unrelated? meshach (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   Obviously they should be unrelated. Where is it written in stone that bureaucrats have to be administrators? Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   It is a logical progression, given that crats have the ability to make admins. It removes the concern of a non-admin crat making themselves an admin without consensus, anyway (I know, presumably they wouldn't have been given the tools at all if they would do that, but meh). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   It's not a logical progression at all, or even logical for that matter. I know, for instance, that Xeno has been expressing a desire to relinquish his administrative rights for some time now. As a general principal, those doing the promoting should not belong to the same family that they're promoting. The honest approach would be that bureaucrats mustn't be administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   Malleus is right about bureaucrats not having to be admins. There's no policy that bureaucrats have to be administrators, WP:BURO says "Bureaucrats are not super-admins, and have no authority beyond these technical competencies and the domains of requests for user access levels (RfX), bot flags, and account renaming." Bureaucrat powers don't overlap with admin powers either, unlike (for example) admin and rollbacker. The only reason why every crat has been an admin is precedent, and because we set the bar so high for crats that it's doubtful that anyone who hasn't ever been an admin would ever succeed. -- Atama頭 04:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

8. Strong oppose Voicing my actuall opinion or reasons I dont think it will do any good since he has many support votes, so why waste my time devising any coherint arguement. - oh wait i do have something i would like to say - if someone can be nominated to a higher position of authority then they can also be nominated to loose that authority - how do i go about begining a "Request for loss of administrative rights for User:SarekOfVulcan" ? --S-d n r (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)S-d n r (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   If you have problem with SarekOfVulcan, dispute resolution is that way. But that does not explain why you think the candidate actually discussed here, Hersfold, should not be promoted, so unless you can tell us a reason why you oppose, you have pretty much wasted your time here anyway. Regards SoWhy 19:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   A request for bureaucratship has a very high threshold to cross before it passes, higher than requests for adminship. That means that even with what may look like overwhelming support, each credible oppose can proportionately carry a lot of weight. If you have legitimate concerns that might show why giving bureaucrat responsibilities to Hersfold would be a bad idea, then you should explain them. It might also convince more people to oppose, or even sway supporters toward opposing. If, instead, you simply dislike Hersfold or are using this discussion as an opportunity to attack Sarek, then I agree that your oppose is a waste of time. -- Atama頭 19:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   thank you for your response Atama - as for the response by SoWhy, well i looked at the link you posted and it does not do the thing i requested so in your own words "pretty much wasted your time here anyway" - i will repeat it again how do i go about begining a "Request for loss of administrative rights for User:SarekOfVulcan" ?--S-d n r (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   WP:RFC/ADMIN is the way to start a discussion to have the tools removed, and would be a necessary first step (at least) before taking the matter to WP:ARBCOM to have the action actually performed. Currently, the only way to remove the bit is to have a steward perform the action, and they won't do so without the request of the arbitration committee. I think you'd have trouble doing this, however, as Sarek recently went through a voluntary confirmation RfA and passed, even though there were a number of concerns about not adhering fully to WP:INVOLVED. -- Atama頭 20:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

9. Oppose. I have worked with Hersfold many times, and I think he is an excellent administrator. The opposes above about content don't bother me, although they might if this were an RFA. I do have other concerns though:

   I was highly disappointed with the answer to Q13. Edit summaries are nice and all, but in no way is the proper use of them just as important as creating good content. Creating good content is one of the few (not sole) ways one can demonstrate proper understanding of policy, and I am disappointed that Hersfold would choose to rank it so low. It is fine if he would choose to support an RFA despite a lack of content work; I just think that it is not a bureaucrat's place to give substantially less weight to an opinion that a candidate needs more content work to properly understand policy.I hope that sentence made sense; it probably didn't.

   15d: I think that Will's argument from 2008 is completely wrong, and I was disappointed to see Hersfold repeat it. If a former administrator wishes to go through RFA rather than simply seek the tools back at BN, that's their choice. However, they shouldn't get an easier time at RFA because of it. In addition, while some of the arguments at that RFA were poor, others were ample reasons to oppose. While diffs were not in abundance, I was disappointed that not a word was said about how...unified the opposition was. It is reasonable to close that RFA as promote, but not with as little analysis as was provided either in Hersfold's answer or WJB's closing statement.

   Not entirely a fan of promoting the idea that "a bureaucrat is an admin+", but I suppose it is a relatively new concept hereabouts that such a thing is not the case, and certainly not one that is universally accepted (though it is strongly supported per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient). Still, the lack of even mention of that idea makes me wonder how in-touch Hersfold is with RFA today.

   So, the only things holding me back from supporting are (possibly not entirely major) concerns about judgment at RFA. Unfortunately, since that is such a large part of the bureaucrat's job, I don't feel comfortable in supporting. NW (Talk) 19:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

10. Per NW. Bureaucrats main domain is RFA, and it's important they are able to judge community consensus correctly. Reconfirmation RFAs should never, ever have lower pass rates. Both ^demon and SarekofVulcan should have failed. If they were poor admins, this will rightly be reflected in the result. To ignore that as a bureaucrat is not appropriate. Also, only opposition for serious issues, such as plagiarism, vandalism, incivility etc should be given weight in closure. Not edit summaries, which are highly over-rated. Also, while not related to bureaucratship, it has been pointed out that article work is lacking. Per Spartaz, functionaries ought to still regularly get stuck into writing/improving articles, even on a smaller scale, so they still remain part of the community rather than above it. AD 23:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    That really depends on your definition of a reconfirmation RfA. I'm not neccessarily in disagreement with you, but having followed many of these RfCs on recalls and RRfAs there is a question about whether consensus must be to sysop or consensus must be to desysop. The true question is what to do if there is no consensus. Personally, I think 'no consensus' should reflect status quo. In SarekOfVulcan's case, there was no consensus and so I believe that no action should be taken. Now if a reconfirmation RfA should require desysop before the RfA could commence, then no action would default to the desysop. Again, it depends on how you feel these unprecedented discussions should happen. In SarekOfVulcan's case, he retained the rights during the RfA. No action would revert to him keeping the tools. Just my two cents.--v/r - TP 14:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

    Actually both Sarek and HJ resigned their tools prior to their reconfirmation RfAs. 28bytes (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

    Did they? Then my bad, I take all of that back.--v/r - TP 15:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

11. Oppose Quoting from your opening statement "While I recognize that the primary responsibility of a bureaucrat is to review and close RFAs, I recognize that I am not a frequent contributor in this area and would remain away from closing RfAs for some time, most especially controversial ones, until I have re-familiarized myself with RfAs more and discussed with other bureaucrats about how to proceed in controversial cases." I would prefer that you first increase your contribution at RFA so that the community can see your participation and tendencies with real, active RFAs rather than judging you based on the typical Monday Morning Quarterbacking "How would you have closed RFA\XXXXX". If closing RFAs is the primary responsibility, the community should have an opportunity to judge your actions and behavior in that area. Even though it is your stated intent to focus on other responsibilities, we can't give you a partial bit without you having this power also and I think that we must know more about you specific to RFA before I could support. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
12. Oppose regretfully I saw this RFB earlier in the week and I've taken time for a cautious review - largely because I hold Hersfold in high regard and didn't want to knee jerk into support. In addition I'm really peeved with the stupidly high standards at RFB, and the recent discussion where we could have lowered the bar was closed (poorly and without a full reading IMO) to keep the status quo. Nonetheless I really disagree with your comments re: ^demon. With all due respect to yourself and WJB I see no guideline, policy or indeed well defined precedent prior to then that former admins get more lenience than non admins - and I can't support that as a stance. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
13. Oppose You made it clear that you didn't come here because you wanted to close RfAs. That being said, I feel your answers to 15D and 15K are completely unacceptable, and therefore I am pulling my support. I still think that the content-related opposes are horses**t, but here I think you're wrong on the policy, specifically as it deals with the 'crat position. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
14. Oppose - I don't think the user has enough experience with regards to RfAs, the primary area for crats in my opinion, to become a crat.--Rockfang (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
15. Oppose. My main problem is illustrated in this discussion thread from earlier this month - briefly put, there was a minor kerfluffle in SPI, and the candidate made some rash actions (in his own words, "I have reverted the last few blatantly disruptive attempts to re-open this closed case and protected the page") based on a completely faulty reading of the WP:RTV guideline. While Hersfold recognized his mistake and was admirably forthcoming in admitting this later on, it only came after causing quite some frustration to editors who were completely in the right. The big problem here is that WP:RTV is a pretty critical guideline in the area of Hersfold's self-professed focus, and his unfamiliarity with such a basic tenant of RTV (namely, that RTV only applies when the editor actually leaves "finally and forever", or, in layman's terms, "vanishes") does not sit well with me. The position of 'cratship really requires an innate familiarity with policy and guidelines - like genius, it may be 99% perspiration and snout-counting, but the 1% of inspired policy wonkery (there's a phrase you're probably not going to encounter too often) is absolutely critical to smooth operations - and something like this leaves me wondering what other policies and guidelines have only been skimmed through. Badger Drink (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
16. Mmmm Initially I was neutral with this comment:- "on the one hand we have an editor who is a checkuser and was voted onto ArbCom, clear signs of someone to be trusted. On the other we have the incidents referred to in the oppose section by Martinp and Cube lurker, the edgy responses to some questions in this RfB, and the recent patchy and rather low level involvement in Wikipedia. As with Martinp I think I'd be happier with Hersfold showing more commitment to the project over a more extended period of time before being granted any more privileges or rights. There's no rush." Now moved to oppose due to concerns about judging community consensus in RfA. I think there are too many niggly concerns starting to mount up. Again I would suggest just a little more time spent on building up experience in the areas in which a 'crat works RfA, and in getting more community confidence. There's no rush, and applying again in four to six months with the appropriate experience and knowledge would make all the difference. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

    The only area in which I don't have a great deal of experience is RFA, and I've already stated that I would work with other crats before closing any RFA's myself. I have a fair bit of experience in working with bots, and while I haven't worked directly on CHU much, I am involved in unblock requests where a good many username change requests come from. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

    Your clarification is accepted. It was RfA that I was thinking about. I have amended my comment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

17. Oppose I have respect for your work that I have seen you do in the past; it seems that you really haven't been here very often during the previous 18 months and even then I only see sporadic work...Modernist (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
18. Oppose regretfully per NW. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 19:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
19. Regretful oppose (switch from support) Once I noticed the candidate's questions to Q15, I pondered whether I should change my initial support because I really think Hersfold is a trustworthy, clueful editor. In the end, I felt it would have been unfair to all those I opposed in previous RfXs if I supported a candidate who imho is wrong on a key issue just because I like them. The issue here, as NW and Pedro eloquently pointed out above, is the question of judging RfAs and RfBs, one of the crats' main jobs. I do not think that reconfirmation RfAs should ever have a different standard than normal RfAs and the fact that Hersfold argued that they should is imho incompatible with a crat's job to judge an RfA based on community standards and consensus. While I do agree that some !votes at a reconfirmation RfA might be considered weak or even discounted (such as !votes opposing such RfAs on principle), the standard shouldn't change. Call me a flip-flopper if you want but while I stand by everything else I wrote in my previous !vote but I simply cannot in good conscience support this request anymore. Sorry... Regards SoWhy 11:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
20. Oppose – not a lot of activity during the last 12 months. Not a lot of familiarity with RfAs, as per nom and user Midnight. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
21. Oppose Hersfold is a nice guy, but I simply see no need for him to have the bureaucrat bit, and I don't think he has enough experience in the relevant areas. He freely admits that he has little experience in RfA and does not plan to work too much there. He also has very little experience at BRfA (outside of his own BRfAs, he's barely edited there). If you want to get involved in the BRfA process that's great, but getting bureaucratship is not a requirement for getting involved. Personally I think that you should be doing things the other way round. Also per NW and my disagreement with the answer to Q15d/k. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

    Nobody needs to be an bureaucrat or even an administrator, it's simply an offer to help out with some of the less glamorous jobs that need to be done. Clearly there's an element of creating busywork within Wikipedia in an attempt to justify the number of administrators and bureaucrats, but that's no fault of the candidate. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

    I'm not sure what you're getting at Malleus, there's plenty of busywork already, and it dosen't take admins or crats to do it. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

    I'm simply pointing out that there's an organisational structure in place, albeit one I don't myself agree with, and that Hersfold has put himself forward for a position within that structure. Which has nothing at all to do with whether he or anyone else needs to have extra buttons. Nobody needs to have extra buttons, but Wikipedia clearly needs someone to have them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

    Would you prefer the wording "no purpose to him having the bureaucrat bit"? When I say there is no need, what I mean is I can't see that Hersfold has been in enough situations where he could have used the tools to justify him having them. For example, if he wants to get involved in BRfA he should (and would) do so. Instead he says he would "like to get involved" in an attempt to get some tools he hasn't proven that he actually needs (or would use). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

22. Oppose <from support> - I have to say I didn't want to be here. I think RfB should have a lower standard than RfA, and I do trust Hersfold with the tools for renaming users. However, the 'crat flag is a package of tools, and Hersfold has given some answers that I feel are not quite up to the standard I'd expect from a 'crat (especially on reconfirmation RfAs). I do accept that he has more free time and is ready to help out, but he has had very low activity for a crat over the past year, is not particularly active in RfA (something I see as essential for a 'crat), along with my previous concerns. I'm sorry Hersfold, I think you will make a great 'crat in the future, but I do not think you are ready just yet. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral (Moved to support) - If it turns out that the single incident linked by Cube lurker is the only mistake Hersfold has made, I can see many reasons to support. I'll review contributions further, but I think it is rather harsh to oppose on that basis alone. My76Strat ^talk 00:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm - on the one hand we have an editor who is a checkuser and was voted onto ArbCom, clear signs of someone to be trusted. On the other we have the incidents referred to in the oppose section by Martinp and Cube lurker, the edgy responses to some questions in this RfB, and the recent patchy and rather low level involvement in Wikipedia. As with Martinp I think I'd be happier with Hersfold showing more commitment to the project over a more extended period of time before being granted any more privileges or rights. There's no rush. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved to oppose due to concerns about judging community consensus in RfA. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now, per Cube Lurker's oppose and Hersfold's responses to the issue, the whole thing just doesn't set well with me. It's a red flag that prevents me from supporting, but isn't enough for me to oppose. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
2. If I wasn't an IP I would oppose. On 29 May the candidate accused me of sockpuppeting because I edited while logged out. The fact is that failing to log in is an innocent error of omission which everyone makes at some time (administrators not excepted). I agree with Drmies' comment:

   "There are plenty of cases where actual decisions have to be made by people with buttons: is an edit vandalism? how many edits does it take to make an editor disruptive? what is disruptive? what are good faith but bone - headed edits? or, who painted the lion?"

   I would say to the candidate what he said to me:

   You clearly don't get the point.

   His record on accusing innocent people of being sockmasters just makes the admin corps look stupid. 93.96.149.196 (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   Can you provide links to diffs? Or, what IP were you using at that time? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   In the following exchanges, third party comment is shown in normal type and the candidate's contributions in italic. His rant against me is recorded in his contribution record at 17:29 on 29 May, 2011. This diff [3] shows how hypocritical he is. He tries to laugh off his mishandling of the Sbs108 sockpuppet investigation but the sequence of events shows that at 15:28 on 14 October, 2009 he was informed that SSS108 had resumed editing. Instead of running a checkuser, however, at 23:28 he upsets the innocent party Sbs108 with the following comments:

   Regardless of who you are, you were just using another account to evade your block...You're seeming pretty argumentative right now. Checkuser won't show anything except this account and the one you just used to evade your block. (User talk:Sbs108, 14 October, 2009.)

   The candidate's excuse is that after messing up he had left involvement in the case. That's an argument a burglar could use - You can't charge me, officer, I've left involvement with the house I broke into.

   Examination of his contributions shows him to be aggressive, impatient, uncivil and unsympathetic.

   Dang it. (List of airship accidents, 8 January, 2007).

   Keep forgetting the blasted signatures. (User talk:67.80.151.62, 10 January, 2007).

   In other words, knock it off. (User talk, 71.192.13.138, 12 January, 2007).

   IP dude and Stevietheman, knock it off please. (Talk:Louisville, Kentucky, 12 January, 2007).

   Whatever a "dude" is, it doesn't sound very complimentary.

   Dang it. (Joe Trohman, 15 January, 2007).

   Due to the warnings you have already received, you are now being reported to Administration. Have a nice day. (User talk:216.107.197.133, 15 January, 2007).

   Testing...yay! Thanks very much! (User talk:208.198.210.253, 16 January, 2007).

   Looking at the difference between the two, I'm really not sure. It's possible I may have hit the wrong link by accident during an anti-vandalism run. Unfortunately, it has happened more than once. (User talk:Hersfold, 25 January, 2007).

   And so it goes on.

   "What you don't see means nothing to me. Its a biased judgment, reverting my note was improper, the note wasn't inflammatory, it was exceedingly brief, doing no harm. Your header implied the discussion was irrelevant, but what I wrote there was very relevant." [third party comment].

   ...please refrain from making unhelpful comments. (User talk:Hersfold, 2 September, 2009).

   ...removing the rest of this, as I thought, there's nothing I care about, and if I read it I'm likely to block you. (User talk:Hersfold, 2 October, 2009).

   So if you want to avoid being blocked by Hersfold, just make outrageous comments.

   I did read it, thank you for the (double) (triple, let me edit dammit) edit conflict...Finell hasn't said a damn thing about it. (User talk:Hersfold, 2 October, 2009).

   ...knock it off. (User talk:120.146.71.41, 15 July, 2011).

   I believe a great deal of this is being quoted out of context. The only diff you do link to seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the socking case.In that case, I had every reason to believe that the user was abusing multiple accounts given the evidence I had in front of me at the time. Jeske Couriano noted this himself later on: "Chummer, at first blush we had to assume, even with good faith and given your behavior, that you were a sock." (link). There are mistakes made in sockpuppetry investigations, and when there is evidence to that effect, they will be remedied, as they were in the SBS case. As for the other edits showing me as "impatient," etc., let's note first that they're from 2007, before I even became an administrator, and secondly that all of these "impatient" edit summaries are actually comments to myself or probably justifiable frustration of a high school senior at vandals receiving their final warning. I'm also not at all sure how me requesting an autoblock removal is at all problematic. If you have a genuine problem with me, I would ask out of respect to me and everyone participating in this RfB that you provide actual diffs to your allegations, as well as making those diffs from a time period that's at least a few years after I joined the project. You'll find that will be much more effective in making your point. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I would have supported if I had known you said "dang it" in an edit summary four years ago. Very troubling behavior. And you called someone "dude" which is simply shocking incivility. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

3. Need to think about this, as the timing makes me feel a bit off. I like Hersh and all, think he's a great contributor and all, just now sure about all the hats though. — Ched :  ?  15:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

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