Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Husond 3

< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Statement by closing bureaucrat

I have some comments and observations to make about this RFB. I have considered the merits of closing this under WP:SNOW and leaving it open. While I appreciate the merits of leaving it open and understand that the candidate is well aware of the withdrawal process, I feel it is best to end this. There is a growing concern as from the community, as evidenced in the discussion section, neutral section, and the candidate's talk page, to close this RFB. I first considered closing it last night. Not only does piling on seem to be occurring, the % rate is now 13% and it would take another 200 votes, all supports, just to get this to lower end of the crat discretion range for RFBs. I am also not seeing any major new reasons for support or oppose coming in at this point. Hence, I feel it is in the best interests of the community and the candidate to close this RFB at this point. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Husond

edit

Final (5/33/6); Closed by Rlevse at 10:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Husond (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - I humbly request to be reevaluated and reconsidered for bureaucratship by the community. For some time I have wished to broaden my scope of activity within Wikipedia by including the tasks currently reserved for bureaucrats. Such tasks require trust, experience and responsibility, which I believe I am able to provide. Your feedback and evaluation of my suitability for this position shall therefore be, like before and always, most appreciated and valued even if this application is deemed unsuccessful. I have learned from my previous RfBs last year and I am hopeful that this time I might be capable to meet the community's expectations. I thank in advance your time, thorough analysis, and sovereign decision.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Arrr!--Húsönd 01:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. Yes I have. Consensus is the criterion. A candidate is promoted when clearly approved by the community, and not promoted if the community rejects the application or cannot provide a clear approval. Bureaucrats read consensus. In situations where a thin line lies between consensus and no consensus, they are expected to use their wisest discernment before making a decision. For which in this case, perusal of the opposition's concerns and their careful scrutinization would have to be taken into even greater consideration.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. As a fairly well-behaved admin, I prefer taking decisions that are not prone to be criticized and avoid decisions prone to draw discontentment. But of course sometimes I have to take decisions that I know beforehand will displease some users no matter what I decide. In those cases, I reflect and opt for the least controversial decision (which is usually the fairest, wisest and yielding to consensus). Since bureaucrats do not possess the ability to revert a promotion and therefore cannot fix a mistake, I would not promote unless absolutely certain that consensus for promotion exists. In fact, I do not expect much criticism if I just strictly abide by the consensus. Which I always do.
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. Because that's how I have been taught to be. I believe that communication should be conduced by friendliness, respect, civility, balance, courtesy, constructiveness, and genuine receptivity. That's how I approach people on real life and so far I haven't been yelled at too much. On Wikipedia it has proved no different. I am always open to provide feedback when requested, give/hear advice, and interact in the most productive way I possibly can. Fairness comes from a consistent consciousness and respect towards others, which then reflect on one's attitudes. I strictly act on behalf of fairness, as I find the feeling of having been unfair one of the hardest to bear. As for knowledge of policy, I don't think there's one I am not aware of. Of course there's some I know better than others, but they're all easily accessible for verification should I have a doubt on a particular application of one of them. Which does not happen very often.
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. Yes, but I would exercise caution at WP:CHU until I feel comfortable in that room. If promoted, I would probably spend at least a week monitoring WP:CHU before renaming anyone.

Optional questions from MBisanz

5. Not too long ago the first Bot-RFC was filed. How do you reconcile this process with the WT:BRFA process? How would you as a crat interpret a Bot-RFC in deciding whether or not to involuntarily deflag a bot?
A. WP:RFBA is an area where I do not plan to dwell in the immediate future if promoted. Still, I personally regard user conduct RFCs as a promising start of a mechanism for effectively giving the community the power to hold users accountable for their mistakes. Yet, I found this particular VoABot II RFC particularly unclear. As I know that bot, the first thing I wanted to find out there was if that malfunction had been fixed. But, just like another user recently asked on the talk page, the answer cannot be found on the RFC. I therefore assume that the problem was solved outside the RFC. When it comes to bots, I am not sure if an RFC would be necessary. The users who run them are generally receptive of complaints and reports of malfunctions and fix them promptly. Obviously, if a group of users can assert that a bot has a malfunction and its controller refuses to halt/fix it, I would deflag it be it through a consensus at RFC or WT:BRFA, or even if just shown clear evidence that a bot is malfunctioning and its controller will not resolve the problem even after being requested to. But all of this only after I've worked with bots for a while, I would request another bureaucrat's assistance or second opinion for bot-related issues until I am comfortable in that area. I hope that this was the answer you were looking for, as it took me some time to decipher your question and I am not sure if this is what you needed to know. Did I mention that WP:RFBA is an area where I do not plan to dwell in the immediate future? :-)
6.Of the 2,000+ prior RFAs, only three have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime ABCD by Raul654, HolyRomanEmperor3 by Linuxbeak, and Cla68 by Taxman. How would you as crat have acted those situations and under what circumstances and by what process would you extend an RFA in general?
A. Actually I think I vaguely recall another RfA extended by Cecropia, but I'm not sure anyway. The extension of these RfAs was adequate and wise. I agree with an RfA being extended if new information that may significantly alter the outcome of the RfA surfaces close to its scheduled end. Of course the information must have a very serious nature that would justify such procedure; extension should not be applied simply because a couple of users decided to oppose in the last minute.
You are correct, I missed a couple that have since been pointed out to me, I've updated the question [1] for next time, good catch. MBisanz talk 15:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from NuclearWarfare

7. Why do you believe that many people opposed you in your previous RfBs and what steps have you taken to allay some of their fears?
A. Most people were concerned that I was too focused on numbers for deciding whether or not to promote a candidate. I realized that some of them feared that I could become a crat-bot (erm, bot-crat?) and close RfAs looking at approval percentages only and without giving due attention to the actual essence of the discussion and, particularly, consensus. I took their concerns at bay and reformulated my views on the process. Some people were also displeased with a recent episode where I had shown little control over my frustrations. Although I'm already a very peaceful and tranquil person by nature, I have since my last RfB strived to prevent even those rare occasions when a little bit of anger manages to escape my control. Finally, there's some people whom I have had disagreements with for a long time and who will oppose me no matter what I do. Not much I can do in this case. Except perhaps hope that they forgot to watchlist this RfB.

Optional question from RyRy (talk)

8. You find an RfA that has been running for over a week and you thought about closing it. The support percentage was 69%, and the oppose percentage was 31%, and almost all of the opposes were because of the candidate canvassing (asking for supports) about his or her RfA, with a few diffs showing proof of canvassing. How would you close such an RfA?
A. Unsuccessful. Not even a close call.

Optional question from Gonzo fan2007

9. Why do you feel we need one more bureaucrat?
A. Because in every work, two more hands are always welcome.

Optional question from Kbdank71

10. In your answer to Q1, you said "Bureaucrats read consensus". How do you read consensus?
A.

General comments

edit
RfBs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

edit
Support
edit
Proud to be the first supporter. Husond is a well-trusted and clueful admin who clearly understands and has what it takes to be a crat. Plus, he celebrates ITLAPD. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Have to switch to oppose, sorry. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong Support. I was as dismayed as anyone else about the exchange with eco below but everything I've seen of Husond tells me that he is a solid editor with an independent streak and will be a useful addition to the bureaucrat set. I remain convinced that he will make a good bureaucrat. We all go off the deep end sometime and I'm sure he has good reasons.--Regents Park (one for sorrow) 01:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Husond is independent minded, fair, and very to the point in everything he does. No question in my mind that he would be almost perfect as a bureaucrat. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 02:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For those interested, the diffs for the incidents that ecoleetage refers to are: [2], [3] (The User:SchfiftyThree RfA); [4] The User:Duuude007 block and unblock; and [5] the associated talk for the User:Champlaintest incident.
  2. Support I supported fourteen months ago, and I see nothing to suggest that my confidence and trust were mislaid. Joe 02:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral Support Keepscases (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per the above. Plus, I do not honestly think this administrator would go around abusing the tools, rogue closing RFA's, doing bad renames, et cetera. SQLQuery me! 17:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Name sounds like "Husnock". May I remind everyone that Husond is not Husnock. --harej 19:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ????---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the editor feels he is being confused with another? Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I don't think Messedrocker would be that confused. I think he just decided to add some irony or levity, for a change. Yet I do remember being confused with User:Husnock in the past. Húsönd 04:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. I don't trust his judgment. He offered an RfA nomination to Arcayne, who had just two weeks before come off his sixth (non-overturned) edit-warring block in the prior seventeen months. In addition, Arcayne is, in my opinion, a very difficult editor who is wholly unsuited to adminship. Husond very clearly did little to no research about Arcayne before offering the nomination, indicating he was unaware of the recently expired block. Combining the blocklog with the more subjective quality of Arcayne's behavior, this offer of an RfA nomination to an editor who would not be a good administrator indicates lack of sufficient judgment to be a bureaucrat. In addition, we do not need any more bureaucrats. (I would not like to turn this into a discussion about Arcayne's suitability to adminship, just that the blocklog is a sure RfA-killer, and Husond didn't even check that, showing a lack of judgment and thoroughness.) seresin ( ¡? )  02:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose Per synergy. Protonk (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Strong Oppose Switched because of the appalling exchange with Eco below. Shameful. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose – Highly vindictive user. His handling of the Burma issue in May this year (User talk:Husond/Archive 24#Myanmar to Burma) leaves a question mark on his neutrality. While we were both involved and guilty in different respects, his vindictiveness leaves a lot to be desired. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nichalp, could you please give an example of Husond's vindictiveness? That is a strong accusation and you should back it up with an example. (The talk page link you provide shows a dispute rather than vindictive behavior.) Thanks! --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 13:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, see Husond's reply to Ecoleetage. He has shot himself in the foot, I'm afraid. Maybe not classical vindictive behaviour per se, but all the same, the same comments I raise concerns about. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I hate digging back into past histories of any talk or article to provide diffs. If you insist however, then I shall. I simply do not trust his judgement to act in a neutral manner when he has a strong bias, or for that matter WP:AGF. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trusting him to act in a neutral manner is a reasonable issue (and, since I was involved with that whole Burma/Myanmar renaming issue, I can totally understand where you are coming from). But vindictiveness is a strong word to use since it implies that Husond harbors grudges and acts on those grudges, and is a far more serious matter. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 17:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Harbours grudges may not be the same as vindictiveness, but the link I pointed out is an analysis by WJBScribe, where Will took up the issue, and did mention that Husond's conduct was worrisome. His refusal to assume good faith in that situation was my concern, including his reaction to WJBScribe. Had I not been an admin, he might have just blocked me (as Balloonman has demonstrated below with some worrying reports). I do know you were involved in the issue, perhaps if he had handled the issue in the manner that you had, things would not have snowballed to such an explosive issue. Now, I do not want to reopen old wounds in this RFB for an issue is content-related and editorial-based. And, hunting ANI archives is a tedious thing to do (where you can find additional details). I would rather invest it on more productive areas of WP. To Husond, please don't take it personally, but I do think you could have handled it in a more professional way. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That said and done, I have no personal grudges against Husond. If he is willing, I would be glad enough to open the issue again, and we can debate the naming issue so that it reaches a logical conclusion. Right now, its status quo. I'm willing to wipe the slate clean. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Nichalp, for the clarification. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 23:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose I hate opposing without providing links, but I don't have reliable enough internet access right now (thanks Ike) to look for it. I was reviewing a potential coachee a few months ago when I ran across an encounter with the potential coachee and Husond. I rejected the coachee because he was invovled in some extremely controversial subjects... and had too recent of a history of being blocked and edit warring. One of the people he was involved with was Husond. At one point Husond blocked the individual in what I felt was a questionable block. While we all make questionable blocks, this one caught my attention because it was against a person Husond was currently involved in a content dispute with where there were some words exchanged. IMO, when one is personally involved, one shouldn't apply the block---even when justified.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC) EDIT: The issue was in relationship to User_talk:Beamathan#A_Plea and User_talk:Beamathan#Topic_ban_lifted. Reviewing the case again, I remember that Beam struggled with civility. Husond blocked Beam in April. And it went down hill from there. On Husond's talk page, Rudget wrote on May 10, I don't doubt that you two will clash again at some time in the future, and I have therefore implemented a restriction on this talk page for any rude behaviour he may conduct here. If there is renewed incivility coming from Beamathan's account, as I say, contact me again. Nine days later he blocked Beam for what he deemed to be incivility---when there is a history of dispute between an admin and a user, I find it to be an abuse of power to use the buttons directly. One should always step away and let a more objective user get invovled---especially for civility issues where the admin in question feels like he/she is the target of the incvility. His failure to do so, raises serious concerns in my book for his judgment.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC) EDIT 2: I also find it disconcerting that this is his 3rd RfB, and he hasn't taken the time to learn one of the primary areas for 'crats. I could understand a first timer, who hadn't really thought about it becoming a crat, going through a process making the promise to "spend a week there", but somebody who has obviously been interested in becoming a crat for a while? Show some initiative. If you haven't spent time there since your first two RfB's, why should we trust that you will do so if you pass?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Balloonman, the Husond/Beam affair is a bit more complicated than that. Beam was warned about incivility by another admin (User:Ev) (cf., [6] ) before Husond placed the block here. Another admin (User:Ev) was about to block him (here, Husond just got to him first. It's not as if the block came only out of a dispute between Husond and Beam. Whatever the history, or the right and wrong of the block, it is incorrect to say that it went downhill from there because Beam and Husond did develop a good working relationship after that with Beam often turning to Husond for advice (cf., [7]). I had no personal involvement with this matter (though I did have many an enjoyable discussion with Beam after this incident) and researched this because I was piqued by your oppose. Whatever Husond did with Beam seems to have worked well enough with Beam. Unsigned comment by RegentsPark
    I realize that they now tolerate one another. But the fact remains, when an admin is personally involved with an issue, said admin should step back and let another perform the dirty work---even if it is an obvious case. That way you avoid any appearances of impropreity. The block and the activities of Ev, were in reference to the April 6th block. I had no problems with that one. After the April 6th block, things deteriorated between the two of them, to the point that other admins were intervening (see Ruget's comments on May 10 advising Husond to contact him if problems continued.) The block I had a problem with was when Husond blocked Beam on May 19---IMO, he should have adhered to Ruget's advice and contacted Ruget or another admin to intercede. They may have overcome their differences since then, but between April 6 and May 19, most of their correspondense was deteriorating. The fact that his second block/ban was overturned and Husond was warned by another admin not to perform "adminly" activities with Beam give this concern credence. They may have eventually restored amicable relations, to which I commend them, but this was only after creating unnecessary additional drama, that could have been avoided.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to add a little comment to your detailed analysis, Balloonman. Your oppose is quite valid as that was definitely not one of my finest moments. But I should say that from all the incidents I've had on Wikipedia, I am particularly thankful for this one. After all the ruckus, it was Beamathan who had a most unexpected attitude by offering me an olive branch. I felt quite ashamed for having had such an ugly conflict with a user who after all was friendly and looking forward to mend any grudges. More than the undue precipitation or admin misuse, I learned something much more important that day. Yes, your oppose is valid, and for what it's worth I'm glad it is. Húsönd 15:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you feel that way. I did notice that you guys appeared to be getting along better, which is always a positive.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the additional diffs Balloonman. I should have researched further. For the record, Beam taught me a valuable wikipedia lesson - that edit wars often improve content because the number of eyes on disputed content goes up and the final content is more carefully written. Everyone should edit war a few times :-) --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 15:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Balloonman's case is way too strong and convincing. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Checking out two of the links cited here shows abruptness and apparent haste, which disincline me to think the needed aptitude is found here. Please change my mind. Shenme (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Admin work has been satisfactory, but several signs of haste and thoughtlessness lead me to believe being a bureaucrat would not aid the project any. Balloonman and Seresin's cases are also very concerning. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Serious concerns raised by Balloonman and Synergy. Indeed if Husond was running for Adminship, I would oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose. Switched here from "Neutral leaning toward oppose. Situation involving Beamathan was a poor judgement call and it was only a few months ago. Never block someone with whom you are having a dispute. Useight (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to Strong Oppose due to his interaction with Eco below. That is not the demeanor (is that the word I'm looking for?) I want to see in a admin, let alone in a bureaucrat. Useight (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Strong Oppose In addition to the previously cited problems (which should be bad enough), here are some more: Husond’s obnoxious humiliation of User:SchfiftyThree by nominating him for RfA and pulling the rug out by switching to a “Moral Support” when it became obvious the RfA would not pass; improperly blocking User:Duuude007 (he unblocked the editor after discovering his error but didn’t bother apologising for making that mistake); improperly blocking newbie User:Champlaintest based on a single act of relatively benign vandalism (the unblocking admin noted the user received no warnings or had a history to justify that response). As for his day-to-day involvement on the project, his work appears to be a bunch of Huggle reverts on minor editing – I don’t see any evidence of an admin who is actively helping people or adding content to the project. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbelievable. Flabbergasting. I think I'll take the rest of the day to decide whether I will simply point out your inaccuracies, or if I'll just release to the public domain the e-mails you've sent me after your unsuccessful RfA, which in this latter option would show something far more akin to the definition of the word "obnoxious". Húsönd 16:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I switched my vote to Strong Oppose based on this vindictive and sarcastic commentary and the threat to release private and confidential correspondence (please read WP:HARASSMENT about that). Ecoleetage (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I know how to do it without transgressing WP:HARASSMENT. Anyway I'm glad you came out to show the real you. I'll have to decide later if I'll allow others to learn the real you, too. Húsönd 16:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am withdrawing my comments and my participation from this debate. This is supposed to be a discussion of the candidate's merits and not about my deficiencies as a human being (of which there is not enough bandwidth to support such a talk). The "real" me abhors drama and confrontation, and I am genuinely sorry that Husond interpreted my input as a personal attack, which it is not. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Balloonman has raised sufficient concerns and I found the above exchange with Ecoleetage to be extremely offputing. I would expect a crat to have a much cooler head and more judicious temperament than Husond demonstrated here. Nsk92 (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Absolutely not. He does not have the temperament for cratship. Synergy 17:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The exchange with Eco above is enough for me to Oppose. And no, I'm not the least bit interested in the content or tone of any off-wiki communication with any user, and I respectfully request that such not be provided here or anywhere, in whole or in part.  Frank  |  talk  17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Nope, per Eco (and Frank). Reason #6,574 why I don't do email: I might get threatened to have an email "revealed" on wiki during an RFB. Keeper ǀ 76 18:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. At the risk of pile-on - I wasn't going to vote, but the exchange with Ecoleetage demonstrates clearly that while Husond is a handy admin and valuable editor, he is not well suited to be a bureaucrat. Avruch T 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. The stuff in the opposition is unbecoming of an admin, let alone a bureaucrat. Sheesh, the "discussion" with Eco above is borderline scary. Wizardman 18:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Never per Balloonman and the blatant drama mongering with Eco above. SashaNein (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sorry, no. The response to Eco above would probably pass unnoticed in the hurly-burly of everyday life, but within the context of an RfB it shows staggeringly poor self-control. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - Clearly no self-control, shown by the poor interaction with Eco above. Tiptoety talk 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per "discussion" with Eco above. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Judging from your comments above, you are most certainly not fit to be a bureaucrat. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per Synergy --Admrboltz (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - was going to neutral until I saw the reply to Eco above. Xclamation point 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per hostile and threatening reply to Eco above. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Strong issues with lack of judgment in respecting consensus. Retaliatory attacks after a previous oppose only make the matter worse. Alansohn (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Oppose I was going to go neutral from Eco's RFA, which was my only interaction with the user when he struck me as unnecessarily abrasive, but the dialog here sealed the oppose. "Oh yeah well you were ruder and I'm going to disclose private comms to prove it" is not conduct becoming of an admin, nevermind 'crat. TravellingCari 22:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Conversation with Eco in the opposition section --Banime (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Oppose There is no way I can support someone running for bureaucratship who threatens an editor like above. LittleMountain5 review! 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak oppose. “I know how to do it without transgressing WP:HARASSMENT” is (sort of) like saying you know how to start a war without breaking any laws. Bureaucrats should be held to a higher standard. Bwrs (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - Don't want to pile on, but per the discussion with Eco. macy 00:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I warned you I would, so this can only be expected. I think Husond should keep this open as for advice. —§unday {Q} 01:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Sorry but Balloonman's argument is too good.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 04:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose per the exchange with Eco above, which I find to be "Unbelievable. Flabbergasting." JPG-GR (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose No where near ready, and I wonder whether he should even retain his current admin status. The best thing candidate can do is withdraw this application and consider finding ways to improve his conduct, even if it is through a self-filed RFC, because the concerns here are too great to ignore. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
I didn't like the way this was handled, and that was only from a few days ago. I'll do more digging soon (hes been really active as of late). Synergy 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Switching to oppose. Synergy 17:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, leaning toward oppose. I've yet to find substantial work in bureaucrat-related areas. I will keep poking around and probably move off the fence in the near future. Useight (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Switching to Oppose. Useight (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Digesting all of the links provide so far - they are balanced by what appears to be solid work. Will return. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Switching to oppose. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral - I was going to support this candidate. However, the diff I saw Synergy posted above did catch my eye. I didn't want to vote oppose due to a conflict of interest in my current RfA, but if I were in a neutral position, I would have opposed, not because I think you're a bad editor or a bad admin per se, but I think at the moment you need to spend some time with WP:CHU. As long as there are no other major issues, if you can work on those couple of areas where you lack experience or confidence in, I have no other problems in supporting you some time in the future. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral — The above links are concerning, but not enough for me to oppose since I've only had good interactions with you. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. My position is similar to Cyclonenim's, as I can't recall anything negative in our (admittedly limited) interactions to date. I think the candidate's contributions to the project, both as an editor and an admin, are overall a net positive - but that's not sufficient to support for Bureaucratship, unfortunately. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per Useight and UltraExactZZ. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Seeing as RFA and CHU are rather well staffed atm, I'd be looking for future crats to have a better understanding of bots. This isn't saying we have too many crats, or that we can only have a certain number of crats, but I'm looking for evidence of intent of broad participation in the various crat fields, and Husond seems to already be saying he would not be much involved with bots or names. Further, the behavioral issues appear to be rather recent, and while I could overlook an issue from 6 months ago, one so recent raises questions for me. MBisanz talk 14:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral to avoid pile-on. This isn't going anywhere Husond. Please end this.--chaser - t 01:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Husond_3&oldid=1088101077"