Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:51, 3 July 2007

Husond

Voice your opinion (talk page) (22/0/0); Scheduled to end 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Husond (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - I've been thinking about a request for bureaucratship for some time now, so I hereby humbly submit myself for your consideration. I regard Misplaced Pages as one of my most enjoyable daily activities, and I plan to remain here for a long time. I would like to further diversify my participation in this project by being given access to functions limited to bureaucrats.
I understand that some users might oppose this request on the grounds that I have been on Misplaced Pages for just one year, and been an administrator for merely seven months. But I also believe that I already have the experience needed to perform the new tasks that I am requesting. Particularly, closing requests for adminship. I have participated in many, many RfAs and my nine nominations resulted in nine admins. I also have experience in closing WP:AFD and WP:RM discussions. I always carefully analyze consensus, or the lack of it. I am always open to discuss my decisions, and learn with my mistakes.
I trust my fellow Wikipedians to make a sound evaluation of my preparedness, and grant me bureaucrat status if they believe that I am ready for a job that means such a great responsibility in this house. Húsönd 17:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom, I accept.--Húsönd 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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, and this is also an important reading. I understand the current criteria for promotion to be an analysis of the outcome of an RfA, where: over 80% support will result in almost certain promotion; 70%-80% support will result in an extremely attentive scrutiny of the outcome, with great regard for the concerns raised by the opposers (they will likely determine the final decision, within the closing bureaucrat's discretion); less than 70% support will result in an almost certain unsuccessful request.

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

A. As I deal with other discussions where users present valid but antagonistic and totally irreconcilable positions. I can't please them all, but I can meticulously examine all the positions and fairly decide which would better conform with Misplaced Pages's policies and be more beneficial for the project. If still in doubt, I can always ask for a second opinion.

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 I am peaceful and friendly by nature. I always hear what others have to say, I am genuinely interested in any feedback (even if it's negative), I always admit when I err, I always fix my mistakes, and I always learn with them. And I do that with a smile. Sometimes, others won't be that smily. But again, I am peaceful by nature. :-)

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. I do have. I already visit multiple areas of Misplaced Pages every day as a routine. I would gladly make those part of the routine.

Optional question from Pascal

5 RfBs are not so common so it's surprising to see two of them started within an hour. I'm guessing this is a coincidence but if it isn't, can you explain why you and Majorly decided to run simultaneously?

Note: Majorly has already indicated that this is a coincidence. Shalom 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Husond's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Oh crikey, support, emphatically. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Support more 'crats are needed. A look at your blocks/protects/deletions shows no incidents which concern me too much. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Heimstern Läufer (talk). I trust Husond's judgment and understanding. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Someone has to pass RfB, not a bad candidate. Moreschi 18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong support Husond will make an excellent bureaucrat. Acalamari 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
6. There's no way I'm going to miss this :) Support, by the way! Phaedriel - 18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Husond's a great admin. He should be fine as a bureaucrat. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose No edits in the MediaWiki and Help talk namespaces. —« ANIMUM » 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) After due consideration, I'll strongly support. :P —« ANIMUM » 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Do I even need to think about this? Qst 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Support, of course. A very helpful user and excellent admin. There's no doubt he'll help a lot with the bureacrat tools. — Malcolm 19:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Support, a long track record of fair and balanced judgment as an administrator. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Support good candidate, dont really need to say much else.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. I just hope that you and Majorly prove the exception to the fact that sofar, no RfB's have passed in ages (except for Cecropia's, and he was a former bureaucrat). You'd make an excellent bureaucrat based on your administrator actions so far. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong Support - One of my Favorite..he has been a great contributor for so long and its about time he was given the B'Crat tools cause he would make good use of it.. Good Luck..--Cometstyles 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Well reasoned "nomination" statement pretty much says it all. This editor is more than capable of handling the responsibilities of bureacratship and is a trustworthy candidate. Agent 86 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. Trustworthy. Andre (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Support I have seen nothing from Husond to worry about. If the worst item on your record is a few mildly controversial userboxes (which have all been kept), than you're doing very, very well. As I have said before, Misplaced Pages:We need more bureaucrats. Shalom 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Exceptionally qualified for the position, and I very much trust Husond's judgment. Based on your actions as an admin and editor, I have no reason to believe you'll make anything but a great bureaucrat. - auburnpilot talk 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
19. Support, I like his RFA track record, his demeanor, and the way he sees RFA. Wizardman 21:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
20. Absolutely no doubt whatsoever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
21. Support A solid WP:RFA contributor, has a really good attitude for a 'crat in my opinion. Best of luck, GDonato (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
22. Support, a poisoned chalice, but absolute unequivocal support. The Rambling Man 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Suggested he ran a while back - he's a great candidate, very into the RfA process, nominated a lot of users, and I think he'll be a fine bureaucrat. Majorly (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)