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

Huon[edit]

Final (108/18/0); ended 17:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

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

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

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

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: At the moment I mostly see myself doing the more "technical" work: Creating redirects from pages that were salted, merging histories after copy&paste moves, or helping with prod and CSDs if there's a backlog. I could also use the ability to look at deleted content for my help desk and IRC help channel activities ("Why was my article deleted?").
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd say my best work is not the content I create myself, but my efforts to help others create content. I've been particularly active at WP:AFC/R, the AfC help desk and recently at #wikipedia-en-help connect. As an example I'd point to Organization Workshop, a recent DYK: I copyedited the draft and made some style edits, but I also discussed the draft at length with the author, User:Pronacampo9, on my talk page (see the archive for much of that discussion), pointing out where and how it should be improved. I couldn't have written the content myself, Pronacampo9 had no experience with Wikipedia and how we do things, but together we wrote a nice article (mostly Pronacampo9's work, of course). Other than that I do gnome work that's not very showy.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've once been at AN/I for closing a move discussion that seemed almost unanimous but which I had myself contributed to - in retrospect a stupid mistake that taught me a less cavalierly approach to WP:INVOLVED even when an action seems the right thing to do. Other than that I've been in some at times rather heated discussions when I had to tell someone that their preferred article doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or something like that; my standard response to such kinds of stress is to write up a lengthy sarcastic screed, to cool down again while proofreading and to instead post something much more neutral and less sarcastic. For examples where the sarcasm still shines through see [1] and [2]. When I feel I myself may be an issue my standard approach has been to notify others and to back out so the issue may be resolved without me inadvertently antagonizing the other editor any further.
Additional question from Incnis Mrsi
4. Dear candidate! Why do you create redirects in your special way, not in the way most users prefer? Could you fix the problem with edit summaries, at least? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I'm not aware of having a "special way" of creating redirects. I just checked the last few redirects created by others via WP:AFC/R and couldn't find any significant differences in either form or function compared to my own. I don't use the AFCH edit summary because I usually don't use the script for redirect creation - I find it easier to create them manually, especially when adding custom comments and explanations. My standard edit summaries are "create redirect via Articles for creation" or, if I create the redirects for other reasons, simply "create redirect". The edit summary box offers auto-completion, so I'm pretty consistent. I don't see a problem with those edit summaries; compare the script edit summary. My standard edit summary for AFC/R itself is something like "accept X requests, decline Y requests", which again seems to convey exactly the same information as the AFCH edit summary. Huon (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[moved in-line discussion to General comments]
Additional questions from Buffbills7701
5. You have done a lot of work at the AfC. If you become an admin, will you spend more time away from the AfC?
A: Most of the reasons why I think I could have use the tools are an outgrowth of my AfC work, so I don't intend to do less at AfC, but to become better at doing it. Some of my attention may shift to other areas; for example I once was much more active at AfD than I am nowadays. But I don't expect such a shift. Huon (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. As an admin, you can block people. Can you tell me which of these usernames are fit for Wikipedia, and which are not?
A: Much of this depends on context.
  1. If Lugia2453's Doppelganger is a publicly declared alternate account of Lugia2453, say for use from public computers, that would be acceptable. Otherwise it is likely either misleading, disruptive or runs afoul of WP:ISU, depending on whether it pretends to be Lugia2453, harasses her, or claims to be a meatpuppet (I can't think of another reason why someone else would create this account), and should be blocked with a close look at that user's contributions - if they show bad faith a block for more than just the username would be in order, possibly a SPI (genuinely new editors would be unlikely to name their accounts so as to harass established editors). Whatever is done to this account, Lugia2453 should be informed, be it to have a laugh at the pitiful attempts at harassment, to point to the likely sockpuppeteer or so that she can have a behind-the-scenes talk to that editor if it's a misguided good-faith acquaintance of hers.
  2. I see nothing wrong with The Secret Society; I don't think any real secret society would edit Wikipedia under that username, so in my opinion it doesn't imply shared use. At most a reminder about shared use at the user's talk page might be appropriate, coupled with a look at the contributions to see whether it's some joker who created the account to feel important (which would be more an issue of disruptive editing than of the username itself). If the user's contributions showed some connection to an organization that actually does call itself "The Secret Society", WP:GROUPNAME would apply. Tell the user at their talk page; if a renaming isn't requested within a reasonable amount of time (and the user is active), block with ((subst:uw-softerblock)).
  3. I also don't see anything wrong with PikiWedia; it's too dissimilar from "WikiPedia" to be considered misleading in that regard. Official accounts can be expected to spell better than that. If the user claims otherwise and pretends to edit in an official capacity, that's too bad for him and the username becomes misleading, though I'd say that's more an issue of disruptive editing than of the username itself.
  4. Joebot is too close to User:JoeBot per WP:IMPERSONATOR. If we ignore that issue for the moment, a bot account run by a user named Joe under that name would obviously be appropriate; a non-bot account would be misleading. As with The Secret Society, request a name change at the talk page, block with ((subst:Uw-botublock)) if the request is ignored.
Off the top of my head I can't think of other likely scenarios that might be relevant. Huon (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just FYI, "Joebot" is impossible to create unless someone with 'override-antispoof' creates the account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from LindsayH
7. Hi Huon; thanks for stepping up to the plate. I notice that your editing increased by an order of magnitude about the beginning of 2011. Was/is there any particular ~ especially RL ~ reason for this? Not that i need to know of what your life consists, just that i wonder if it is more likely to stay at this increased level for the foreseeable future or drop back to the tens level per month it was previously? Thank you.
A: Well, I'm currently probably spending more time on Wikipedia than I should, so my activity level may decrease somewhat. The rise of activity in 2011 corresponds the end of a PbeM I played that previously took up much of my spare time; I don't expect to ever again invest as much effort into such a game, and I should stop here before I wax lyrical about the good old days of PbeM gaming that will never return. So even if my activity decreased, it would probably remain in the low hundreds per month. Huon (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz
8. On IRC, how often have you encountered administrators bringing discredit on Wikipedia? How would you reduce sexism, especially misogyny, on IRC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I don't think I've ever encountered an admin bringing discredit to Wikipedia on IRC. I believe the admin most active at #wikipedia-en-help, the channel I'm mostly concerned with, is GorillaWarfare, who makes an unlikely misogynist. Sexism on IRC in my experience is uncommon; some of the helpers' banter in #wikipedia-en-helpers arguably is sexist, but such comments usually meet with quick reproval from GorillaWarfare or Anna Frodesiak. I don't think I've ever seen sexist comments by helpers in the -help channel. Reducing sexism on IRC, while certainly important, is difficult. For all I know, the IRC channels are not organizationally connected to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, and neither I nor admins hold any ex officio privileges on IRC; conversely I don't think conduct on IRC is sanctionable on Wikipedia (this also goes for, say, legal threats, NPA violations and so on). So far I'd say pointing out that sexist "jokes" are inappropriate and not funny has worked pretty well. I don't keep a list, but I don't think I've experience more than one such issue every few months. Huon (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment:, Huon does this have anything to do with me? Prabash.Akmeemana 15:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have preferred not to discuss specific instances, but since you explicitly asked, there was one incident where I considered your behaviour inappropriate. You realized that yourself, apologized immediately, and I've never seen you behave in that way again. A lone instance of inappropriate behaviour certainly doesn't make someone a sexist, especially not if one is willing to change, but if that behaviour were the norm instead of a one-off, that would likely drive away other helpers. Huon (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Tryptofish
9. Huon, I'm asking this question to give you an opportunity to swing me to support. Since you've been very active giving other editors advice (which is a very good thing!), I'd like you to link to (or summarize, if it's from IRC) one or two reasonably recent examples where you gave advice of a specific type. I'm not looking here for the most typical kind of advice, along the lines of "the guidance that you need is at (link to policy or guideline), and if you do such-and-such as it says there, you'll be fine." Instead, I'm looking for where you saw a situation in which a good-faith editor had come up against a problem, and you helped them by coming up with a flexible solution or work-around that was still policy-compliant, but which went against the usual ways of doing things in order to contribute some good content, in the spirit of WP:IAR. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: It's a little difficult to come up with such examples. The AfC help desk almost exclusively and the IRC help channel mostly deal with questions of the "why was my draft rejected?" type, where the appropriate response is an explanation of the rules, not circumvention (and help with addressing the issues, of course). The most "flexible" solution in that regard is to accept the draft myself (after addressing the concerns raised in the review itself, if applicable) if I think it was declined in error, but I'd call that "fixing a mistake", not WP:IAR. An example would be the Bossalinis & Fooliyones article; see here for the help desk thread. A less successful example in the same vein is WT:Articles for creation/GradSave which I rewrote to quite some extent to de-spamify it, but apparently not yet sufficiently so. I was sorely tempted to accept that draft myself, but when multiple experienced editors say the draft still has spam problems, that seemed imprudent. I intend to make another attempt at further rewriting, but probably only after the RfA. An example where I effectively did invoke IAR was User:Eurosong/Laughable/Shaun Elliot Tobias; the subject of that draft was unhappy with it being found via Google, it was clearly abandoned for over a year, the issue was raised on IRC, so I tagged it for G13 speedy deletion even though that criterion technically doesn't apply to drafts in userspace. That's not an example of content creation, though.
I'd say there are two main reasons why I can't come up with me using IAR in content creation: Firstly, I am something of a stickler for the rules and prefer to do things by the book if at all possible. Secondly, the rules obviously should not stand in the way of creation of good content, and in my experience they largely don't - if they did, my preferred solution wouldn't be to circumvent the rules on a case-by-case basis but to get the rules changed. Huon (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional questions from TeeTylerToe
10:. Where would you say #wikipedia-en-help would fall on a scale between egalitarian and dictatorial? Wikipedia's irc channels seem to have their own (separate?) cadre of irc ops. In your experience when they intervene have they seemed reasonable to you
Comment: Part of the nominator's job is to keep an eye on the questions for the candidate. This particular question is a debate about how well an offwiki resource that Huon has no role in managing, and most users here have no idea how is run. Since you are asking Huon to evalute how 'dictatorial' a small set of people are, I feel this question may not be a fair one to ask. Can you clarify how this question will help you evaluate Huon's suitability for adminship so that he can better understand the question?
A: There's obviously a clear distinction between the users looking for help and the helpers (who are "voiced" with mode +v to be easily distinguishable), though some users have become helpers after initially seeking help themselves, and of course sometimes the helpers themselves may look for help too. Getting a voice is rather simple; all it requires is a cloak; the prerequisites are 250 edits, a three-month-old account and an email address. That's almost the entire hierarchy in that channel, and I'd say it's necessary to prevent less-experienced users from accidentally giving bad advice. And giving advice is what that channel is all about; we don't give orders to the people seeking help, nor do the ops order around the helpers. The channel ops are indeed an entirely separate cadre; I don't quite know how IRC ops are selected, and while most ops are also admins, that's not a strict requirement. Ops are usually indistinguishable from other helpers and only assume the mantle of op (mode +o) if some user (say, a spammer or a troll) needs to be removed or quieted so as not to disrupt others looking for help. In my experience the ops do a very good job at that, minimizing the channel disruption while kicking only as the very last resort. A possibly outdated list of ops is at meta:IRC/wikipedia/Operators. Huon (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
11:. What experience do you have with editing disputes? What role do you think Admins have in editing disputes? Have you noticed any trends in admins role in editing disputes?
A: Over the years I've seen (and participated in) disputes ranging from the question of what images of the Forest Theater to use in the Carmel-by-the-Sea article via the intended scope of the List of Indian inventions and discoveries and the content and tone of articles such as The Exodus, Jesus and his historicity up to my disputes with AfricaTanz on the titles of articles on Tanzanian districts and ministries. Most of those disputes were resolved without admin intervention. An admin's role in such disputes should primarily be to faciliate discussion, at worst by protecting the article if the dispute is just back-and-forth reverting, or by blocking edit-warriors for a short amount of time. If a more formal process such as a requested move has been initiated, an admin will have to determine the consensus when the allotted time is over, and if applicable implement that consensus. Of course admins can also contribute to the discussion, but they shouldn't use the tools to implement a solution they themselves have advocated - they should let an uninvolved admin handle that. The disputes I have kept an eye on saw so little admin intervention (I believe The Exodus was protected once, and that's about it) that I wouldn't be aware of any trends rearding the role of admins. I kept (half of) an eye on WP:AN/I over the past few months, but I can't say I noticed any particular trends regarding admins and editing disputes. Huon (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
12:. What are some examples where you have seen contentious issues come to a community recognized consensus on wikipedia? How do you interpret consensus policy?
A: Probably the most contentious issue I've seen reach a consensus was the name and scope of the List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Consensus is a function of the support a certain position enjoys in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the number of editors endorsing that interpretation of policy. If on some issue I disagree with the majority interpretation of policy (say, whether or not some subject's coverage in sources is significant enough for notability) that's too bad for me and I'll have to either present new and better arguments (which would make me a participant and thus too involved for tool use, especially in the AfD context) or acknowledge that the consensus differs from my personal opinion and accept (and, as an admin, implement) the consensus. Opinions which aren't based on policy (say, WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), however, can be dismissed as irrelevant. Huon (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
13:. What makes a reliable source on wikipedia and what makes an unreliable source? What objective standards are published sources helt do that separate the reliable ones from the unreliable? What makes an unpublished source reliable?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe (talk • contribs) 03:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Reliable sources are those that are subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If a source was not itself subject to editorial oversight but it's written by an expert who had other works on that topic published by reputable publishers (say, a published academic's blog post on his area of expertise), a source may also be considered reliable; similarly if other undisputably reliable sources accept the questionable source's veracity and accuracy. I'm not quite sure I understand your question on unpublished sources; those would be inappropriate because their content is unverifiable (in fact WP:V says that Wikipedia "content is determined by previously published information" and that "[u]npublished materials are not considered reliable"). The private research notes of Stephen Hawking or some classified government report might arguably be reliable, but that's no help if we can't tell what they actually say. The kind of "unpublished source" I have encountered most often is collections of private papers donated to some library; personally I'd say that doesn't rise to the level of "published" required by WP:V, but that may be debatable, in which case the standard rules for reliability apply. If you had intended another meaning of "unpublished" that doesn't mean the source is automatically considered unreliable via WP:V, please clarify the question.
Additional questions from RightCowLeftCoast
14. Although the content on Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, are there articles on Wikipedia that are not neutral? If so, please provide examples, and why you believe they are not neutral. Although Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, editors opinions are not; as such, what is your opinion of the communities political balance at this time? Are there political ideologies that have greater representatives than others? If so, which ideologies? How does this effect the community? How would this effect your role as an Admin?
A: Certainly we have non-neutral articles. We have spam and self-promotion, we have nationalist, religious, and academic conflicts; it's flat-out impossible to have an entirely neutral encyclopedia that anyone can edit (and even if we somehow managed to reach a state that I'd consider perfectly neutral, others' interpretations of neutrality are bound to differ). For an example that I personally don't consider neutral, I'd point to the List of Indian inventions and discoveries again; I'd say that the conflation of the Indian subcontinent pre-1946 with the Republic of India post-1946 is hardly neutral. However, as I said above, I had to accept that my personal opinion on that issue differs from the consensus, which held that if an invention is commonly considered "Indian" it belongs on that list, no matter that the term "Indian" has different meanings in different contexts.
I don't have much of an opinion on the community's political balance. Certainly some political ideologies have more representatives than others; I don't see many theocrats or proponents of Juche about. It may well be that Wikipedia editors don't proportionately represent the political cultures of their societies, though I couldn't provide any evidence beyond speculation. This shouldn't affect the community, and usually it doesn't; in my experience the vast majority of users sees the good of the encyclopedia as a more important goal than the promotion of their personal ideologies, and for almost every imaginable dispute there are enough uninvolved editors to ensure that something neutral can be achieved. I don't see that either religion or politics would influece my work as an admin; Wikipedia's role is to report what reliable third-party sources say, and if those sources disagree with my personal stance, too bad for me, we still report what the sources say. This goes doubly for the admin tools. Whether or not user conduct is worthy of sanction does not depend on that user's political persuasion. Huon (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
15. I am of the belief that all people, are naturally imperfect and thus prone to fault. Therefore, Huon, what are your faults? Due to these faults how may they effect your usage of the Admin tools? Why, even though you have the faults that you will list in response to this question, do you believe that the community should trust you with the Admin tools?
A: The second question is easy: Because the flaws I list here are ones I'm aware of and ones I actively try to mitigate so that they don't unduly impact the quality of my work. I'd say my main flaw is a certain laziness: Some tasks feel like "work" and I prefer to either take the easy way out or to leave that work to others. This applies particularly to content creation and in turn makes me a good helper: I vastly prefer to tell a dozen editors how they can improve their drafts and articles than to spend that same time and improve one article myself. I also assume an overabundance of good faith and at times had to be told to stop feeding the trolls. Finally, I tend to be unduly wordy if I don't rein myself in. Huon (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
16. Although all people have their faults, we also have our strengths, those things that set ourselves apart (in a positive way) from others. Therefore, what are your strengths? Due to these strengths how may they effect you usage of Admin tools?
A: I'm utterly immune to the tediousness of semi-repetetive tasks. For example, I'm one of the stalkers of A930913's talk page (the place for BracketBot questions), and I almost enjoy digging through a dozen or so articles to find the missing or surplus brackets. In a similar vein I enjoy copyediting and wikifying stuff. I'm also rather good at interpersonal skills, and even when I have to tell the CoI editors in #wikipedia-en-help that their pet articles don't meet the inclusion criteria I feel I can usually make them understand Wikipedia's policies and have them leave the help channel not happy, but at least content. Finally, as I said in reply to LindsayH's question #7 above, I currently spend a vast amount of time on Wikipedia and should be able to react quickly to urgent issues. As an admin I'd thus expect to keep an eye on CSD, requested moves and maybe WP:RFPP, all of which look like the kinds of backlogs that I'd call "not work" per question 15 (though I haven't been all that active at RFPP and would have to spend some time learning the ropes and watching the other admins before joining in). Huon (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
17. Ultimately Wikipedia is about presenting neutrally presented, verified to reliable source content about subjects determined to be notable as defined by the various notability guidelines that presently exist. As such please tell us about your article content editing experience. What article content that you created are you proud of? Why? Of the article content that you created what have been elevated to GA and beyond? In editing article content have you ever come into conflict with another editor? If so, please provide examples; specifically, how in dealing with those conflicts do you believe show that you would be considered responsible in handling the admin tools.
A: Heh. Here I thought my shortcomings in the content creation department had been well-discussed already. I believe I had a hand in our coverage of Lightstone's representation of hyperreals in the FA 0.999...#Alternative number systems, but I don't remember whether I ultimately wrote that or just discussed it on the talk page. What I'm rather happy with is Prescott Bush where I wrote the Geronimo coverage and the draft for the UBC coverage, both of which were areas of contention that turned out to remain pretty stable afterwards. You might call the background for those edits a conflict; there are lengthy talk page discussions about both topics. And of course I can again point to Template talk:Tanzanian ministries where I believe I did a rather good job at faciliating a discussion and reaching a compromise, though unfortunately AfricaTanz seems to disagree. The relevant part for my future adminship would be my reliance on discussion: Make the people talk about it so they can reach a compromise; if that fails get more people to take a look so we can establish a consensus. Even without tool use, admins have a slightly greater authority when calling on editors to join such a discussion, and if the editors still don't, admins have the tools to compel them to join. Blocking should only be an option if editors have shown an utter disregard for either the calls for discussion or the established consensus, and except in cases of obvious vandalism they shouldn't be used if the admin is involved in the dispute. Huon (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[in-line response moved to General comments]
18. Do you have experience in conflict/dispute resolution? If so, please describe this experience and how it would assist you as an admin.
A: My experiences with formal dispute resolution processes have been limited; I've been at WP:DRN a few times, never on my own accord. I don't think those experiences were particularly helpful for adminship; I've listed some less formal disputes above and summarized what I took away from them. Huon (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
19. Please inform us of any conflict of interest (including any "Apparent, potential and actual conflict of interest"), if any, which you may have. Do you pledge to use the admin tools without your political opinions effecting their usage? Do you pledge to recuse yourself from areas where Admin actions are required in situations where you may have a conflict of interest?
A: If by "apparent" you mean "biases I have been accused of in the past", then I'm a Catholic fundamentalist Nazi kike who holds both pro- and anti-Balochi biases; I can't quite remember whether I'm supposed to hold pro- or anti-Shia biases or both. Other than that, no COIs. I'll certainly not let my religious or political persuasions affect tool use and wouldn't use the tools in areas where I might have a COI, though I currently don't see any such. Huon (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz
20. Please link a discussion on Wikipedia (embracing Wikipedia's IRC channels) in which you observed the bullying of an editor by an arbitrator, bureaucrat, or other administrator. How did you respond? What shall you do in the future when an arbitrator violates WP:NPA, for example by describing a writer as a "net negative" or "not a Wikipedian"?
A: I can't remember ever witnessing such a discussion; certainly not on IRC and not on Wikipedia itself with the possible exception of reading about accusations of such conduct at AN/I. If I were to witness such conduct I'd leave a note at the offending admin's talk page to stop that conduct and to let others deal with any perceived issues with that editor. If that doesn't have the desired effect, I'd reluctantly go to AN/I to get more people to take a look at the situation and establish a consensus on what should be done with the admin - hopefully enough people telling the admin that his actions are inappropriate will make him change his ways.
Regarding the "net negative" comment, in the context in which it was used, a motion on banning that user, as a conclusion to summarizing that the editor in question has both made significant positive contributions and been rather disruptive, it is not a personal attack but a shorthand for that arbitrator's opinion on what aspect of that user's conduct outweighs the other. "Not a Wikipedian" also depends on context and might be used as a shorthand for "not here to build an encyclopedia", though I'd call that wording unfortunate. If I did witness an arbitrator engaging in personal attacks, see above: Talk page note that I consider their edits inappropriate and that they should consider rewording them. Huon (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional questions from AfricaTanz
21. Would you be less willing to block an administrator for incivility than a non-administrator? Assume that the circumstances are exactly the same except for the status of the incivil person. This is being discussed on your talk page, where you seem to be saying two entirely different things.
A: As I said on my talk page, my willingness to block people for incivility does not at all depend on that person's status (and it's bound to be pretty low for anybody if there are no other problems but a dirty mouth), but the means towards that end may differ. In short, no one is served if without prior discussion I block an editor in good standing (which should include admins and arbitrators) for an issue that ultimately is in the eye of the beholder, a lot of drama ensues, and my block is quickly overturned. So that scenario is something I'd want to avoid. Huon (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[in-line discussion moved to General comments]
22. Is it your understanding that material in an article that was sourced at one point must be deleted once the source becomes dead, assuming the source is not preserved in the Wayback Machine? I am referring to your talk page post and deletion of material at Singapore Changi Airport.
That's an issue of verifiability. If a source is gone for good, how are our readers to tell whether it said what it's cited for? In this particular instance a user who should have been in a position to know the facts explicitly challenged a claim that was based on the no-longer-available source; the burden of evidence is on the user who wants the claim included. Thus I thought it better to remove that content than to leave possibly incorrect, unverifiable content in the article. I didn't remove all the other content that was based on unavailable sources but wasn't challenged. Huon (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[in-line discussion moved to General comments]
Additional question from Signalizing
23. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favorite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: My favorite article is definitely 0.999... It's a quirky subject that's extremely well-developed, covering all aspects of the topic without ever going off-topic, and in great detail. Plus, I have a sentimental attachment because that's the article that brought me to Wikipedia. As a reader I also like our coverage of military history with articles such as Atlanta Campaign or Chickamauga Campaign; even the less well-developed ones (like the latter) still provide a nice overview that I could only beat by looking up a textbook on the campaign in a library, and the better ones need not fear even that competition - a nice way to easily obtain information on a topic I'm interested in. Finally, as a helper I time and again encounter small but interesting articles on topics I previously hadn't even heard of - say, Robert Biggar (actually I wrote that one after a discussion with the author of this draft that originated on the AfC help desk), Zuo Shuzhang (found via replying to a ((help me))), the Raid on Charles Town (no idea how I stumbled upon that one), the El Monte Berry Strike of 1933 (via AfC), Nguyen Khanh (via IRC) or, quite recently, Jeremiah Joseph O'Keefe (also via IRC). I wouldn't call any single one of those a favorite, but I enjoy that I never know where my help desk work will take me next - I'm bound to learn something new. Huon (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

[moved from below A4]
I do not want to know anything about your summary box. And the question is about WP:Redirects, not articles, can you understand it? I want to see less contribs full of junk edit summaries, especially from sysops. Can you tune a script to produce a meaningful summary for the creation of a redirect scenario? Can you ask your friends, your nominator, or his friends to help you with this problem with your edit summaries? A “meaningful” one means “not worse than vanilla MediaWiki default edit summary”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My edit summaries for redirects are roughly the same as those generated by the AFCH script for WP:Articles for creation/Redirects, the part of WP:AFC that allows IP editors to propose the creation of redirects. Compare for example these redirect edit summaries generated by the script. If you feel that's worse than the MediaWiki default, you should raise that issue at WT:Articles for creation or WT:R; I'm not directly involved in developing the script, nor do I even use it myself for most of my redirects (except that my default redirect edit summary probably was inspired by the script's, or by that of another user active at AFC/R when I began working there - I don't remember that detail).
Since I'm used to adding manual edit summaries for every non-script edit I'd prefer not to omit them for certain types of edits. Customizing the edit summaries by hand to include such a link would be more work than I'd be willing to invest, especially when I create ten or so redirects in one session. I am not aware of any consensus that edit summaries for redirects should contain a link to the target article, though I can see why that might be seen as helpful. If such a consensus were established I'd of course comply, but I don't think a single editor's preference is sufficient cause to change my edit summary creation methods. Huon (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You compare yourself with a heavy scripts user, not a sysop, not a candidate, and even without a single privilege in en.WP: are you serious? I see no merit in continuing this conversation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[moved from below A17]
That's a very generous and, in my opinion, inaccurate characterization of your role at Template talk:Tanzanian ministries. You abandoned the discussion and didn't do what you said you would do. No "compromise" was reached. You mischaracterized my objectives (there and elsewhere) and repeatedly misstated facts that served merely to prolong the disagreement. If this is how you will act with the tools, you simply shouldn't have them. AfricaTanz (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[moved from below A21]
That's an alarming response. You are saying that you would be more tolerant of an administrator just because the person is an administrator. You would act more quickly to block someone who is not an administrator. You would provide more "due process" to an administrator than someone else. We do not need more administrators with your philosophy. Surely you are aware of the general belief among many editors that administrators protect each other. You have confirmed that you would perpetuate and promote that very damaging-to-Wikipedia perception. Your answer also evidences a very limited understanding of wheel warring. That's also very troubling. AfricaTanz (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not at all what I'm saying. In fact I explicitly said I'd always prefer some sort of community consensus to handing out incivility blocks on my own. Regarding wheel warring, unblocking a blocked user is usually not considered wheel warring. Reblocking that same user for the same offence after an unblock would be wheel warring. Huon (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[moved from below A22]
No, it's an issue of you being completely unfamiliar with WP:DEADLINK. And whether a particular user is "in a position to know the facts" is completely irrelevant. We do not edit Wikipedia based on personal knowledge. When have you removed other content based on the cited source no longer being available online? Have you ever stated or implied that a source is verifiable only if one can find it on the Internet? AfricaTanz (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dimly remember I once removed a broken link and learned of the Wayback Machine in the process, but I won't be able to find the article again where that happened; I couldn't even tell whether it was this decade or not. Since that time I've used the Wayback Machine to repair dead links when I encountered them and they had been archived; see for example here. I am fully aware that print sources are also reliable and that we do expect our readers to look them up in a library; for the most recent example see here. But I didn't see any indication that the link in the airport article just pointed to an online version of a still-accessible print source. I tried to dig up that article and failed. Its content had been explicitly challenged on the talk page. What was I supposed to do? Say, "Oh no, you're wrong, as this source which nobody can see will confirm"? I thought it better not to have that content at all than to have content that could well be wrong. Thus I didn't change the renovation date based on the PR person's personal knowledge, but I also didn't leave the challenged date in the article. Now that Armbrust dug up the source, we can see that it's a prediction made in January 2007 about what was supposed to happen in September 2007 - and what apparently was postponed until May 2008. Admittedly I didn't realize that the source's date made it rather unsuitable for that content when I removed it. Huon (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could and should have done exactly nothing. Deleting sourced content based on your suspicions is plainly wrong, even when the source link is dead or broken. Contrary to what others have implied, this concept is very basic to Wikipedia and should be known by any candidate administrator. It is not an obscure policy or guideline buried somewhere that only Wikipedia geeks would know. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I took most of that as follow-up questions, in particular Incnis Mrsi's clarification of what part of my edit summaries he found problematic and AfricaTanz' list of additional questions in the wake of A22. Huon (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, somewhat, though such follow-ups should remain neutrally-worded - my primary concern is the QA section being misused to advance a participants' opinion of the candidacy (which belongs in discussion). –xenotalk 14:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support Huon was quite helpful on a recent article I started, so I would certainly trust him as an admin ★★RetroLord★★ 09:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Obviously - Excessive knowledge of "admin areas" isn't necessary. I trust that Huon will learn about, say, history merges before he ever actually tries to do one. The only way to fully learn about one is to do it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also now supporting per Incnis Mrsi. If that is the worst thing wrong with the candidate.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    TCO and John do raise good points; however, I feel that the amount Huon has assisted others in creating content is sufficient. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I think we need more administrators like this. He cares about the project. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 10:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support after checking deleted content, I found that nominations were quire reasonable. I only restored one article that was repaired after Huon's nomination. Also the logs show use of upload and move as I would expect and admin to be able to handle. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support after reviewing his contributions, I believe he would be trustworthy as an admin. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 12:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support without hesitation. Huon is a tireless helper for new users and seems absolutely dedicated to improvement of wikipedia. His patient, knowledgeable and drama-free assistance of all new editors really stands out amongst all other helpers, even when explaining for the umpteen-millionth time why someone's garage band article has been declined. I completely agree with the nominator that a mop would be exactly the right tool to enable Huon to better respond to queries about deleted articles and to better respond to instances of disruptive/promotional users, and due to the level-headed and fair-minded way I have witnessed him deal with any situations of conflict arising on-wiki or in IRC, I would not expect any problems in the exercise of any administratorial duties/privileges. This is one of those nominations where I can't believe it has taken so long. -nonsense ferret 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support No concerns, will be a good addition -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Per my nomination. Prodego talk 14:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support as per the above. No objection to the candidate's edit summaries, as they are generally much better and more informative than my own. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Moving to oppose temporally good nomination, good and helpful user. Keep up the good work Huon! Prabash.Akmeemana 15:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support I figured this was coming. Huon has been extremely helpful, my go-to guy for advice about policies, how to handle sticky situations, everything. He's never steered my wrong. I think this one is a no-brainer. — MusikAnimal talk 15:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    MusikAnimal I have to agree with that! He has helped me countless times on the IRC, he also helps other users almost instantly, his knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines is outstanding! Prabash.Akmeemana 15:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support I was a bit concerned, but after he aced my questions, I have to say yes. buffbills7701 15:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support An experienced and sensible candidate. Huon has been active on Wikipedia for a long time. I'm sure Huon will make a good helpful and trustworthy admin. IJA (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support --Rschen7754 17:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Strong Support I'm impressed with the level of trust everyone has given to Huon within the past six years. Minima© (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Absolutely. Huon will make a fantastic administrator. Kurtis (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. No issues, seems like a top editor who will make a solid admin. GiantSnowman 18:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Full support despite silly oppose below. Someday we're going to have to decide how ridiculous we'll allow opposes to be before a 'crat redacts them if we ever intend to fix RfA and pass more candidates.--v/r - TP 18:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support - I reviewed some of Huon's contributions and stats, and see no reason not to trust them with the tools. - MrX 18:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Weak Support Fully qualified candidate. Good administrators are resigning at an alarming rate. An administrator who has used "Cauchy sequence" in a sentence and who reads anarchistic fiction may remind salvageable administrators to think. Are we about to approve a nominee with so little writing? The candidate should withdraw this application and then write a couple DYKs and perhaps help with improving an article to GA status in the next three months. Then the candidate would be so pure that the RfA will float with 99.44% support.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support Seems like Huon will be a good admin. Edison (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support from Drmies, incognito at their vacation address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.238.17 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please log in so that we know this is you. —Soap— 19:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nah, it's him. ;-) Kurtis (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Rock on, y'all. Thanks Kurtis. Typing on an iPhone is a bitch, but I got the netbook out for Huon, waiting on the laundry to dry. Keep up the good work, Huon: and when you get the tool, someone else can retire. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Will use the tools well; a net plus for the project. SpencerT♦C 19:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Extreme Support Since the very first day I met him, Huon is not only knowledgeable about Wikipedia, but demonstrates a high level of professionalism, modesty, diligence, commitment, community service, and kindness. His work ethics exemplify his true strengths as a Wikipedia editor; in essence, he truly embodies the passion, skill set, and mind set for becoming an administrator. --JustBerry (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Well versed in policy, all around swell fella, and will be a positive addition. I can see the additional tools helping out the work he does at AfC, which is one of the more frustrating and thankless areas to work around here. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support, looks good to me, very suitable candidate. ~ mazca talk 23:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support. Fully qualified candidate with a long history of valuable participation. Of the opposes to date, the first is unpersuasive; the second is a bit too vague to evaluate, but if there was ever a problem in that area it sounds like it was an isolated incident; the third is the most significant, but no one's XfD record is perfect and I am confident the candidate will take the concern raised into account going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support Candidate has matured with time; edit summaries no concern here either. Definitely a net positive; specialization is not a bad thing. Miniapolis 01:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support, certainly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support I have spent a considerable amount of time watching Huon help people in IRC. If he or she can remain professional and calm in dealing with some of the inquiries we get there then I have no worries about his or her ability to handle any of the challenges sysop are asked to address. Secondly, Huon has a good understanding of the way things work and who to ask. I have no other concerns and I really do not believe article creation to have a 1:1 relationship to how well someone uses the sysop tools. Mkdwtalk 04:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support as I see no good reason to oppose. I have interacted with Huon significantly on the IRC help channel, and observed his activities on Wikipedia proper. He is extraordinarily helpful and patient with even the noobiest editors, and I have every confidence he will make an excellent admin. Perusing the oppose section I find nothing that moves me. To start with, the oppose over redirect creation edit summaries just baffles me, the worst of the AFDs pointed out shows Huon making a mistake I would have made myself, the content creation issue is something I've never cared about with any candidate, and I'll take the absence of any "meaty" interactions with other editors as a sign Huon is doing something right. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support as obvious Anyone who has dealt with Huon on #wikipedia-en-help on a regular basis has seen ample evidence of his understanding of the 'concepts' behind policies, his dedication to improving the encyclopedia, and his ability to deal with new users in a very friendly and helpful manner. This is one of the few cases of someone who actually 'needs' a mop for the activities that he engages in on a regular basis, if for nothing else simply because the live help needs more active regulars who are able to address concerns requiring the bit, as opposed to having to try to ping someone. Specifically because of his activity schedule, having Huon as a sysop would help fill a significant gap in our ability to provide live support. Revent (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're voting for someone because of IRC participation? You're even saying it openly?TCO (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I didn't say that I have not watched Huon make quite a few edits, I actually have, in the specific context of watching him copyedit and polish a draft. I've also seen a lot of how he has helped people with 'dispute resolution' as people commonly end up in IRC when upset.
    The actual point was that as someone who does AfCs and sits in the help channel, Huon deals on a regular basis with things that require the admin bit. (this often means using the admin stalkword to ping an admin and asking them to perform the edit, and at many of the times Huon is active it can be hard to get one) This actually ends up being pretty good 'live' observation of what someone would be trying to use the tools for, and I have yet to see him suggest something that was wrong.
    Getting a bit is not an award for generating content, it is the ability to perform maintenance tasks, and when someone's habitual editing practices often merit the use of the tools (do you know how many drafts get created in the wrong namespace, or people post blatant copyvios?) then is makes sense for that editor to have them.
    If you read the other !votes (this is not an election) you'll see that I'm by far not the only person who has made comments to the same effect about his IRC participation. It's not about sitting in one of the chat channels kibitzing and being popular, it's about being in one of the places that people end up at looking to solve blatant problems that need the tools, and 'filling a hole' in the availability of admins for that purpose. (And please do not take this as a comment that we were 'polling for who to nom' or anything, it was more along the lines of people saying "We were all wondering which admin was going to nominate him" when it happened. Revent (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Just to be clear, if that was TL;DR, Huon is someone that, based on what I have watched him spend large amounts of time doing, is someone who would 'responsibly' use the bit to do large numbers of uncontroversial things himself instead of adding to the backlog. Improving the ability to give 'live' response to simple new editor requests (renaming AfC drafts without leaving a pointless redirect, anyone?) would be a goodness...this is why my !vote is "as obvious". A bit for someone who actually does large amount of competent non-controversial non-bit maintenance already is much better that one for a content creator who will go back to 'doing what they enjoy' and be admin deadwood... Revent (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support I've worked with this user and saw how sincere he/she is. So I can't find any reason to oppose this user.--Pratyya (Hello!) 12:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support: Having done "battle" against him at the Oral gospel traditions, I can say he is a great editor and will make an excellent Admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support - Admins are ideally pooperscoopers, those who will use the toolkit. The idea that someone who only contributes content needs the toolkit (and the backwards of that) is a little concerning, where content contributors sometimes have little/no experience with the areas admins would work in. Huon does enough non-admin-admin work to be trusted with the actual buttons themselves. He's also a big help with the AfC help desk, and helping new users in general. ~Charmlet -talk- 14:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support - Constantly assisting at IRC help channel; I may disagree with some of his interactions and high standards for AFC, but the willingness to assist without exception is one of the best reasons I can find for supporting Huon. Secondly, to detractors for "content" - Huon's interactions as a result of that assistance leads to better new articles and less junk ones. Adminship is no big deal afterall. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support - I'll vote for darn near anyone that has the balls to file an RFA in today's totally messed up wiki world. PumpkinSky talk 16:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support - Extremely helpful user who regularly asks admins to look at a deleted AFC submission so he can help someone fix it. It'll be great if he can do that on his own now. Legoktm (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support - Huon is one of a small group of editors I've seen busting their guts day in and day out patiently helping mostly new editors in the IRC help channel, and I've just nosed around in his contributions and found plenty of policy-informed and subject-knowledgeable talk page and article edits. I see someone who ranges widely through the wiki improving articles, both directly and by the "teach a man to fish" method. As to the article-creation opposes: not all of us can or should be "content admins", and it didn't take me long to find Kyongae Chang, so I am doubly confident Huon will not be cold to the problems of content creators. He's given a good reason for why he could use the tools, and I agree. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is that the best example? Here is what it looked like at creation: [3]. Note that the "sources" are now external links (and click them, they are THIN). After that, three years later, he made a one sentence addition with a reference: [4]. I'm not dissing a stub, but this is the BEST/MOST content work? BTW, I have some rather questions about that article: no secondary source coverage and pretty minimal incoming links (the only "real one" is the 2006-founded article on her lens: [5]. (I don't count the project tracking or the category-like mega list of every female astronomers.) All you really have is a 2-article, walled garden dependent on one Nature paper. And I wouldn't dis a little stub start like that if he had other stuff. But really, that's the best? I guess he wrote a paragraph of content in 2009. TCO (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm actually blown away how someone with this little accomplishment is trying to advise others.TCO (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Two comments. Firstly, no, that's not the best example. The best example of an article I cooked up from scratch would be this still rather uninspiring piece of work. Secondly, if you have an issue with me giving advice, you may want to look at examples of me giving advice. Admin bits or no, it would be a serious problem if the most prolific helper at the AfC help desk were incompetent. If you feel that way I'll have to accept that, but I'd be grateful for advice that would help me improve my performance. Huon (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for providing that, Huon. It is a respectable stub. Content still seems extremely...seldom...for someone spending so much time advising others on article starts (and judging deletions in the future). But, I straight out give you credit for that piece (it's fine). I looked at the two AFCs with "most comments" from your article stats page, but will spend some time looking through the tool you mentioned and give you feedback.TCO (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support Out of all the time I have been on IRC, Huon is one of the most helpful and hardworking people I have ever seen. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 18:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support Honestly, I already thought you were one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Strong support to counter strongly-worded oppose by AfricaTanz that uses no evidence to support its claims. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Trusted user --cyrfaw (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support Everything looks good to me, and the questions were answered satisfactorily. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support - Don't see any serious issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support - I try to avoid RfAs, but I'll make an exception due to the exceptional nature of Huon. His helpfulness and dedication on IRC is amazing, and the help he provides users on my talk page goes above and beyond. A most worthy candidate. 930913(Congratulate) 02:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support Positive contributor. TBrandley (T • C • B) 04:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support, net positive. --Laser brain (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support no problems. Any issues regarding content creation are fine given the work at AFC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support Helpful, reasonable and neutral minded. Excellent for me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support - can't see any major issues.Deb (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support Technical 13 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support per oppose #6; the way Huon took part in the Tanzania discussions was admin-worthy. Kraxler (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support, largely due to previous observations of this editor. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support, when I asked a question Huon give a very helpful reply and he/she also went and fixed the article! We definitely need more sysops like Huon. Jackc143 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support Good knowledge of policy and guidelines. Helpful. Straightforward. The right stuff. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Strong Support I've volunteered extensively with Huon at #wikipedia-en-help connect and know the quality of his aid to new and inexperienced editors. Huon keeps a cool head during sometimes heated discussions. Huon provides solid advice for editors creating articles and has helped an almost uncountable number of editors create articles (or at the right time dissuade them from adding garbage to WP). I need to look in my archives to dig up some examples of his good work. He has my unqualified support. - tucoxn\talk 23:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Strong support Houn introduced me to the ropes at AfC very recently, and was extremely helpful. We need more admins like that.Tazerdadog (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support - I can't recall having had much to do with the candidate in any context, though if I have and I've forgotten, my apologies. Nothing from his record strikes me as particularly concerning, so why not? Stalwart111 07:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support Armbrust The Homunculus 07:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support --Glaisher [talk] 10:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Strong support without reservation. Has a track record of thoroughly understanding Wikipedia policies in a wide variety of contexts, as demonstrated on WP:AFCHD (amongst others) time and time again, and works well with a wide variety of editors from all sorts of backgrounds. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support, I always miss that he is not an admin and (want to) ask him to do something with his powers. (e.g. deleting an redirect, editing protected pages, etc.) mabdul 14:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support - trustworthy and helpful editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support 👍 Like this editor. --Addihockey10 e-mail 15:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support. Seems very knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and applies them in a level-headed way. My experiences with this user have been nothing but positive. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support. My turn to say "I thought he was an admin." Support per his activity at AfC, where I have found his overall participation to be helpful, insightful, and full of good policy. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support :D The editor has a genuine interest and seems to have an overall thorough knowledge of Wikipedia that is good enough in my view James'ööders 16:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support Seems to have a lot of clue and a cool head, in particular in their responses to the above questions, many of which were rather aggressively pointy IMO. The lack of article creation does not bother me since they work extensively with new article creation by others. Also, the "oppose" arguments are not persuasive. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support. --AlmostGrad (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. there no reason not to.Scstadm (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Weak Support, Although some of the concerns stated below in the opposition regarding content creation are concerning, the subject of this RFA appears to be a well meaning hardworking editor who is concerned with other areas of the encyclopedia that doesn't involve directly writing, which is needed. That being said I would be more favorable if the subject was directly involved in creating content and advancing it to GA or higher levels of quality, as content creation is a key part of the encyclopedia as much as maintenance is, and in many was more important than administration (administrating a poor product isn't as worthy IMHO). I do appreciate the thought that went into answer my multiple questions from the subject of this AfD, and would like to thank the subject here. If anything unbecoming happens with this editor, which I don't believe will occur, as with all other editors, they are subject to recall.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support. Content creation isn't everything. Huon does a lot of work with newer editors via WP:AFC and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. It doesn't matter that Huon hasn't done much by himself. What matters is all the content he's helped others create. Howicus (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support. Huon is overwhelmingly helpful at IRC, and as some other users have said, I thought he was an admin from the efficient and helpful way he treats everyone. Matty.007 19:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support, after moving from Oppose. I'm going to explain at some length how I got here. Frankly, it's not because of the answer to Q9, which, although quite thoughtful, tended to reinforce my concerns instead of assuage them. Of course it's better to work to change rules that don't work, and I know that, but I'd expect that someone who has had such an uncommonly large track record giving this kind of advice to have been able to come up with something more. But what really tipped me to here (along with a dislike of some of the other oppose rationales) was the answer, instead, to Q11. I've just spent a long time going through that answer very carefully. But first, a constructive criticism. In the link to Talk:Rau (Tanzanian ward), I see a recent dispute with another editor in which the candidate apologized and retracted a choice of word. Although on balance I think it was no big deal and in the end Huon comes off pretty well, the tone of that (not the specific circumstances, but the tone) reminds me of what I was thinking of (from a long time ago) in my previous oppose. So, Huon, please realize that I wasn't remembering wrong, and please learn from it going forward, because that's the kind of thing that can reflect poorly on an administrator. But, that said, the rest of the answer to Q11 showed Huon repeatedly taking part in content discussions about some of the most contentious content issues around, and doing so in a manner that demonstrates a clear understanding of content creation, as well as demonstrating civility, cluefulness, and erudition. I'm impressed. Taking everything on balance, I was mistaken to have opposed. In fact, that evidence seems to me to blow right out of the water all the oppose arguments about content creation, because it becomes clear to me that Huon can ably navigate discussions about content creation disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support I like his thoughtful answers above and believe he would handle the responsibility well. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support Longtime trusted user who won't break the wiki if given the tools; someone who came here with untoward intentions wouldn't keep on going for seven years to get the tools, and someone inept wouldn't have been able to get this far before it became clear. Per WP:DEAL, we should grant admin rights unless we see a reason not to. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support. All evidence I have of Huon's behaviour suggests he will use the admin tools carefully and with restraint. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support. Good candidate. INeverCry (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support. I like his answers to the questions. I like the way he writes (indeed, I was suprised to find that English is not his native tongue). I still don't see why article creation is so important to certain editors. I'm sure it helps, just as experience in any area of Wikipedia helps, but if the concern is reliable sources and fair summarizing of them (I think that was one comment from one of the opposers), why isn't that addressed by any significant changes to articles, or substitution of sources, or rewording, or evaluating edits, etc.? Some Wikipedians think that article creation is what it's all about, but isn't the quality of existing articles just as important? This is a solid editor who has demonstrated that he is here to improve the project, that he can be trusted with additional privileges, and that he will continue to improve the project if those privileges are given to him. As a marginally relevant aside, I found it fascinating that the majority of his earliest edits in 2005 were to the talk page of 0.999.... Go figure (sorry).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure if you're talking about me, but I'll respond anyway. I wasn't talking about article creation but about content creation. We are here to write an encyclopedia. If someone can show me one really substantial instance where he has added content to an article I will reconsider my oppose, but I cannot countenance an administrator with no experience of adding content to the project. It is what we are here, collectively, to do, and those who cannot, will not, or do not do it, do not enjoy my respect or my confidence. Show me evidence that he is a "solid editor", and that he will "continue to improve the project" and that this is not just some sort of IRC clique thing. --John (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    John, I have some responses to your comments, but rather than clutter up this section with what might be an extended discussion, I'll copy this to the talk page, and you can respond there if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Very strong Support As I said to Huon back in October: based on what I saw at the AfC help desk, the help he provides to people about their RfCs is wholly appropriate and perfectly worded, and I suggested at that point he become an admin. I avoid irc, so I do not know what takes place there, but what I see elsewhere is sufficient. Had I known he was going ahead, I would certainly have co-nominated. Normally, I think some article writing is important in knowing what new users need, but as Huon's record proves, there are other ways to become a tactful and sensible person who understands both our practices and the reasons behind them. The actual quality of the work is what matters; I can only judge that by my own standard, and he does what I try to do, but with greater efficiency and conciseness. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support Shows appropriate level of maturity, no reason to expect they'll abuse the mop. Not a big deal. -- Scray (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support yes content creation is lacking, but he makes up for it with his no-nonsense, yet sensible approach on AFC. Would make a strong administrator. Secret account 04:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support No issues. Widr (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support - I first encountered Huon's contributions to Wikipedia yesterday while going over old dispute resolution files and what struck me was that this contributor is highly regarded; discussions that he engages in, others will refer to his judgment. Editors generally find Huon to be reasonable to the utmost extent. Ergo, I stand by with my support. DarthBotto talk•cont 09:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Strong Support Huon was extremely helpful in resolving the unnecessary page moves by User:AfricaTanz on Tanzania related articles. I must say that he dealt with the matter diligently. He initiated a discussion at WP:Tanzania talkpage to help gain consensus despite the page mover's failure to comprehend the WP:COMMONNAME policy; whereby the user insisted on disambiguating the main article titles. I admire his patience. I believe he is an asset to the project. Ali Fazal (talk)
  86. Support Unlikely editor will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 17:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support DGG's support rationale is enough to convince me. The admin bit doesn't mean the end of writing prose. I had never submitted for a DYK/GA/FA until after I had the bit and my most comprehensive work came post-bit as well, so the modest amount of it now doesn't deter me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. I consider myself a good example of why content creation isn't a prerequisite for adminship, nor should it be. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support I signed up to remove a bit of rubbish, and that's what I've been mainly doing ever since. It's quite possible to judge content without being a writer - if not, why the hell do publishers employ editors to go over submissions and other stuff on its way to the bookshelves? I'm damn sure that most of them aren't writers themselves to any great degree of note. As to Huon, that's a name I've seen around a lot and never had problems with. I don't know what goes on on IRC and don't intend top find out - but there doesn't seem to be anything reported here to worry me. Peridon (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. No grounds for oppose. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (message) @ 22:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support. Huon has defended himself admirably under a barrage of questions (and multiple questions within questions), demonstrating that he can remain calm and refuse to be baited - an excellent quality for an admin. I have no reason to believe he would abuse the tools and no successful admin candidate knew all the policies, guidelines, and essays before running for office, and still probably don't. I certainly don't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support. I think DGG says it very well. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support. As per DGG - Mpo please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 12:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support - No concerns (other than the amount of questions the candidate has had to sit through). AlexiusHoratius 13:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support. I think the candidate has proven himself to be trustworthy enough to be handed the mop, content contributor or not. — sparklism hey! 13:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support As per DGG.Fully trust his judgement.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support - I like the level-headed answers I've seen, and I also like the level-headed responses you give in general. Giving you the tools is a net positive for the wiki, so I will support as such. Best of luck, and thank you for your help making Wikipedia not suck! Signalizing (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support - While I've never come across Huon personally his responses to the questions here and, helped by the rational of some other supporters (such as DGG) I'm confident he'll be a benefit to the project with the mop Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support Not every admin needs to be a content creator, and i find it silly to suggest that not being one means it is somehow impossible for the candidate to appreciate those who are. They way they have handled themselves during this process is further evidence of a temperament compatible with adminship. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. John's oppose convinced me to support. Candidate will be fine. Wizardman 19:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    John's oppose:[6][7]. So you are actually supporting Huon because this is an "IRC clique thing" and he doesn't create content? Okay.24.19.234.62 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @24 (or whoever you actually are), although Wizardman can speak for himself, a more likely alternative explanation for his vote is that if the only objection John has is the lack of content creation, that's insufficient in Wizardman's view to preclude Huon from becoming an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Correct; The user admitted that article writing was not where his expertise was. I see that as knowing yourself, and that earns me a support big time. I'd much rather a user know what they can and can't do then write articles just for the sake of pleasing users. Wizardman 23:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not the point at all. No one is wanting or asking the candidate to dance to a tune. Without measurable experience in content creation, there can be no real insight or empathy re what content creators face. And without said insight, it simply makes the candidate unqualified. (Who do you want judging a pilot's decisions? Someone qualified with flying experience, or someone who learned about it from books?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support from what I've seen over time around the wiki. -- KTC (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support I see no reason why not. The opposes do not swing it for me.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support. Rules of thumb have exceptions. I normally expect to see a reasonable record of content creation in order to support a candidate at RfA, but Huon's outstanding qualities override that in his specific case. I've been aware of Huon's huge contributions in helping new editors for a long time. Originally I assumed his mindset must be fairly simplistic and mechanical, just to get through the sheer volume of work that he does. But I've subsequently noticed many occasions where he has thoughtful and nuanced consideration of complex editing issues. In addition, I've observed an ability to remain calm and polite in even the most bizarrely taxing and provocative situations. (He also has strong answers to questions in this RfA and calm demeanour during it, dealing well with some rather unconstructive commentary.) Ideal admin material. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support Been watching this all week and meant to comment earlier instead of just sneaking in under the wire; i see no reason not to support ~ none of the Opposes are convincing for me, and one or two are simply laughable ~ indeed, Huon meets my criteria for adminship sufficiently, and has handled himself very well during this week. Cheers, LindsayHello 06:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support Moved from Neutral Like Lindsay, I've been watching this all week. I disagree with most of the concerns, and as the above have echoed, he's handled himself quite well this week. He's gained my support. Dusti*Let's talk!* 07:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support I've known "the Emperor" Huon for some time now, and I've always seen him to be very level minded, and a person who knows exactly what he's doing, and what needs to be done. His knowledge of policies is more than even some of the admins I've seen. Huon would certainly be the single person I've seen around who isnt an admin and who is most suitable to become one. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Suppot Carried him/herself well during this RfA. Content is a concern but, based on the support comments above, I don't think Huon is going to go off and damage content producers. --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Completely dissatisfied with the candidate’s views on #edit summaries, as well as in his general clue. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Incnis. I'm afraid I don't think you seem to quite understand Huon's points in his answer to you. His link to Buffbills7701's contributions was to show what the stock AfC/R reviewing script's automatically generated edit summary is. As you can see, by default it does not include the redirect target, at no fault of the user. It doesn't matter whether the user is a sysop or a one week old newbie; in all cases, the edit summary will be the same if they use the script. I don't agree with your other points in your oppose or question either, but this stood out to me as a factual inaccuracy misunderstanding that I wanted to correct. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Incnis Mrsi, Huon has reviewer and rollback rights on the English Wikipedia! Prabash.Akmeemana 15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Prabash, Incnis was referring to Buffbills7701, not Huon. Theopolisme (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So I don't have any abilities. My account was created this March! Would they really have me be a sysop? FYI, I only use scripts for the AfC. I sometimes use Twinkle, but other than that, I use no other scripts. buffbills7701 15:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)I was wrong. My account wasn't even in existence in March. It was April. I state my case that Incis Mrsi doesn't understand who he/she's talking about.Reply[reply]
    I do not think there are inaccuracies. You assign a lower weight to my concerns, but this do not make them invalid. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If a tool makes poor edit summaries this is a justification to improve to tool rather than complain about the user. However complains about the attitude, which is a different matter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moving to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC) This oppose may just be temporary, as I am quite willing to be persuaded to change my mind. I haven't crossed paths with Huon recently, but I did a couple of years ago. It's so long ago that I'm quite open to the possibility that it is of no value in evaluating the candidate today. What I remember was what struck me at the time as being a WP:BITEy response to a new editor who had edited some pharmacology-related pages, where Huon seemed to be a stickler for format over content. I see no need to re-litigate that, but I want to see if any of it, and particularly the possible rigidity contrary to WP:IAR when it comes to content improvement (maybe especially as regards WP:ELNO), is something that anyone else has seen more recently, because I believe that administrators need to be supportive of content creation, rather than picky about rules. OK, I'm listening, so feel free to pile on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    here is a recent example of the candidate giving advice to a new user in a none bitey way. Not all that convincing by itself, but I'm a bit busy cleaning house to dig through all the user talk contribs.--v/r - TP 19:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I saw Newyorkbrad comment above that my oppose was too vague, and I want to clarify that I'm not actually trying to dissuade anyone, but instead trying to see what information might be brought forth in response to what I've said here. The opposes by TCO and John point to the relatively light content creation, and while I do not use content creation as a litmus test in my own RfA decision making, I think there is a potentially valid question about someone who tells other people what to do without having done much of it themselves, and that is actually similar to what I was thinking about above.--Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose. Huon declares his intention to work with PRODs and CSDs so I have examined his AfD contributions. This nomination was ill-considered. This nomination required clean-up rather than deletion. Huon didn't investigate this AfD's notability adequately. Huon does not have a good enough understanding of deletion criteria for CSD work. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I personally don't think that this shows that. An AFD nomination means that one doesn't think the CSD applies, and having a minority opinion in an AFD doesn't mean one would close them improperly. I understand a concern about understanding the deletion criteria but I feel looking at CSD nominations would give a more accurate picture of that understanding. Prodego talk 21:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Does not seem to have ever written an article. [Added 13JUL, evidently there is at least one actual stub start, see Ynvdatter above within the thicket of ~40 redirect creations. -TCO] Research behind my vote: looking at the edit count statistics page (including the two AFCs listed with most comments), the user's page, user's talk page, this entire page, and the list of articles created.
    A. I could not find a single real article that the user had created. I did not check all 43, but I looked at about 5 of them and there was the same pattern. [Added 13JUL, evidently there is at least one actual stub start, see Ynvdatter above within the thicket of ~40 redirect creations. -TCO] He just makes redirects and others write articles on them. When asked for his contributions, he just said "not my content". But he is advising users at AFC and wants to do more advanced deletions and the like. But has never had his own creations, his own skin in the game, his own proof of research/writing potential. I think elevating someone like this to the block button and the deletion button is a mistake. Actually, I think he should buckle down and write a few articles himself before doing AFC work (have seen some bad decisions come out of there...and for that matter he could better advise people if he had done it himself).
    B. Also, the little bit of interactions I saw with other users were all pretty lightweight--nothing meaty or interesting. (I just don't feel good about him connecting with some journalist or businessperson or scientist who has a lot of knowledge and writing skill to offer, but maybe does not know our Wikiways yet.)
    C. If someone wants to do the research to dissuade me, I will consider it. It's not been put forward by nom, candidate, or supporters on this page so far. I suspect the majority of supports have not looked into the fellow's work as much as I did. And I'm not asking for some FA/GA superstar writing. But there's not even a DYK. Not even apparently a piece of work that would be the equivalent of a DYK if it ran through the process and got the little award. Really...check out his articles...I couldn't find any paragraphs of text with refnotes coming in. I didn't even find any sentences of content. Again, I have not looked at all his diffs, but I did a reasonable survey.TCO (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Creating a new article or writing copy has little, if nothing, to do with the actual powers granted by the bit...in fact, having a bit makes absolutely no difference to a user's ability to do so. An editor who's focus is writing copy has little use for a bit other than hat collecting. (FWIW, this 'criteria' for granting the bit is IMO misguided to the point of being rather annoying, as someone whose 'focus' would be changed by getting a bit probably shouldn't get one.)
    Huon is one of the users who basically puts in the equivalent of a half-time job dealing with new users on IRC, and has demonstrated a quite high level of competence at doing so. If you are unaware, nearly all of the traffic in #wikipedia-en-help is directly from AfC, and 'working' there on a regular basis is essentially a crash course in explaining and 'citing' just about every content policy there is, as well as educating new users on 'wikiculture'. Huon is one of the best and most dedicated people at doing so that there is. (I have seen him mentioned by several admins as one of the 'best helpers', so it's not just my opinion. In fact, I'm pretty sure observation of him there was a large part of the 'motivation' for this nom.)
    As I mentioned in my 'support' !vote, having Huon as a sysop would be an extremely valuable contribution to our ability to provide live support, by giving us a better ability to deal with issues that require it. Honestly, watching someone deal with people 'live' provides a far better indication of their ability to deal with drama than reading what they have written on a talk page, where you have the opportunity to reread, ponder, and edit your statements. I've literally spent hours observing Huon's ability to do so, and have always been extremely impressed. Revent (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An editor who's focus is writing copy has little use for a bit other than hat collecting? Well said… so, let’s entrust the fate of articles and templates to the people who actually know little about creating and maintaining a wiki code, an actual code not a preloaded stuff, but who have fingers fast enough to command various scripts and to type replies in a chat. BTW, the only wikiproject without an actually helpful IRC community I know is English Wikipedia. Russian WP had once a very advanced IRC channel. And on #wikimedia-commons I also gave an advice if needed. And on #wikimedia-wikidata​. In short, everywhere but on #wikipedia-en​. Note that I do not know anything about personally Huon’s experience on IRC and hence can’t assess the point that he is allegedly one of the best men there. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You are missing the point (which I think a lot of people agree with) behind the votes mentioning IRC... people are saying here that they have seen 'extensive' evidence of his competence in the help that he gives new editors. If you sit on IRC and give large numbers of new users good advice on content that is evidence to the people watching that you know what you are doing. Teaching a new user to 'do it' and why instead of 'doing it yourself' doesn't show up in your edit history, and Huon's ability to do so is as one of the best. It's also 'better' from the perspective of "new editor retention", and he is a person who would (because of his presence on IRC) be "given for free" large numbers of opportunities to use the tools to make new users 'happy customers' by doing trivial admin things right away. I can't speak for him, of course, but I have no doubt that Houn would be a "quiet" hardworking admin that would toil away at all of the trivial admin things that don't involve any drama (this would be entirely consistent with what he does now without the bit, see?)
    My comment about 'hat collecting' is that a person who enjoys content creation and primarily does that is unlikely to end up as an 'active' admin...and even less likely to be the type of admin that plows through piles of the simple maintenance things. There is an obvious 'issue' with the perception that many admins see the bit as a status symbol (a reward for content creation) and use it to give their opinions more weight instead of actually using it for 'maintenance'. (I'm not saying this is correct, just that the perception exists.) If your edits are mostly to content, though, instead of doing maintenance, why do you need a bit? I'm not saying that content creators cannot become good, competent admins...admins 'expert' in topic areas are definitely needed...but using "has this person created x number of new articles" has no relevance to "what will this person use the tools for".... Huon expressly said he would be using the tools for 'technical' things, and IMO he would be an excellent, non-controversial wiki-admin-gnome. Revent (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe he will be… but a technician who says something like I am not aware of any consensus that edit summaries for redirects should contain a link to the target article… I don't think a single editor's preference is sufficient cause to change my edit summary creation methods is not “my” candidate anyway. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fair enough, that is definitely a 'legitimate' opinion to hold, though personally I think opposing someone for not manually doing something that the "community approved" standard script doesn't do is a bit...lets say "an objection that also could be made against a potential admin who does use the script for that purpose," unless I am somehow misunderstanding you. I am curious how he could have passed this 'question' other than saying, "My, I'm sorry, I will immediately start doing this in your preferred non-standard way"? Revent (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The reason you weren't seeing much helping going on in #wikipedia-en might have been because the help channel for the English Wikipedia is #wikipedia-en-help. Theopolisme (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A. "Does not seem to have ever written an article". At Wikipedia we do not "own" an article but rather work together. He has made some great contributions!
    B. "interactions I saw with other users were all pretty lightweight--nothing meaty or interesting." Simply not true! He made me do hours of work! Later he changed his mind and supported my edits!
    C. The best way to know an editor is to have a disagreement. I have not the slightest doubt Huon will make a great Admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was not informed about an apparent schism of en.WP’s IRCers. My negative stance is not directed towards anything but #wikipedia-en​. My sincere apologies to the community of #wikipedia-en-help​. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Since you are unaware, by far the most common "helpee issue" at #wikipedia-en-help is essentially "Please explain and help me fix the reason why my AfC was declined," and it really is easier (IMO) for an new editor than trying to parse the policy links from 'submission declined' templates or trying to figure out how to use talk pages. Second most common is probably "trivial non-controversial thing that needs a bit" like "Help, I created my draft in WP instead of WP_Talk!" Revent (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As per my comment below as well "I can't help but step in and comment on your decision reason. Huon has spent a substantial amount of potential editing time in helping users and guiding them with their questions on IRC. He appears to focus on quality, not quantity, and certainly helping others, not simply increasing his own edit count. It is clear that he has positive intentions on Wikipedia and certainly, as an administrator, would spend more time on taking care of administrator tasks. Even on IRC, he spends more time on #wikipedia-en-help in an attempt to take care of Wikipedia-related issues and less time in useless chatting with his fellow helpers; when he does spend time chatting with his fellow helpers, his conversations mainly reflect his good-willed intentions of making a difference to the larger community with his efforts. I think I have given you enough reasons as to why his edit count may be too low for you, please reconsider. --JustBerry (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)" --JustBerry (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Mr. Berry pinged me to re-examine my vote. Still opposed. If you look on the talk page, will see that I did go through a 500 contrib block from April now, additionally. I want to give the candidate credit for the things he does well. I have not seen his IRC work (have a lingering question if that should be considered, really, but no biggie). But based on the nice remarks at the Help Desk, I expect he was helpful at IRC also. I just don't see ANY substantial content. At all. He has been here since 2006 and has 1.5 stubs to his name. The 500 contrib investigation showed not a single sentence of reffed content added. It wouldn't have taken that much time from the IRC/Help Desk work, to write something himself. And it would have made him a better admin and a better helper. For that matter, realize as an admin, he will be dealing (likely, and certainly can deal) with content that is substantial, that sticks. Not Indian magazine editors and Phillipino cruise ship singers. But our core content. And he has almost no writing experience here. FWIW, I do appreciate that Huon has been calm here during the discussion.TCO (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Strong oppose per Q2; "I'd say my best work is not the content I create myself,... ", but I cannot find any content that the candidate has created. Adminship is not a reward for creating content but I need to see evidence that a candidate has some understanding of the issues related to content creation as it is likely he will be involved in mediating content disputes if successful. --John (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment I think you misread that, he says "not the content I create myself". Armbrust The Homunculus 22:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, I did not misread it. He says, we are agreed, "not the content I create myself", but he does not create content. How do we know that he will understand the concerns of those of us who do? I am moving to strong oppose as I hate the whole IRC thing too and I dislike badgering of good-faith opposes. --John (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I am appalled that he was nominated to be an administrator. He is quick to criticize and denigrate users. He short-circuits discussion on talk pages in favor of his concept of how things should be. He creates and/or perpetuates wikidrama. With all due respect, we do not need administrators like him. AfricaTanz (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This seems mostly to be directed at me, so I feel I should respond. Assuming good faith on the part of new editors is extremely important to me, and I would never nominate anyone for adminship that I wasn't sure would also have those values. Please post some examples of the behavior you are concerned about, either here or the RFA talk page so we can review them. Prodego talk 20:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe the "quick to criticize and denigrate" part refers to Template talk:Tanzanian ministries and/or Talk:Rau (Tanzanian ward); if that's not what AfricaTanz meant, I don't know what is. Huon (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose - per above opposes. I thank the candidate for their work and willingness to serve as an admin, but many of the concerns expressed convince me to oppose this Rfa. Jusdafax 21:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose per User:John. I'll also add that one of the two real articles (not redirects or disambiguation pages) that they created is a BLP that was unsourced for 2.5 years. King Jakob C2 21:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That was four years ago...Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose username from Moorcock novel; no apparent scholarly interests.24.22.129.215 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please log in to vote. Theopolisme (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose He is a good contributor overall. But I am not satisfied with the edit count. It does not matter at the most, but in case of adminship, I don't think 20,000 will suffice. Faizan 11:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I haven't decided here, but 1/3 to half the existing admin don't have 20k edits, so I'm confused. It is so easy to pad edits, is edit count even important at all once someone is over 10k edits? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whoa! The bar just took a huge leap. The requirement has been steadily rising, but the average minimum right now sits at about 7,000. You're pushing that bar significantly at 20,000 and you're doing it at a time when folks believe that the RFA process needs to be easier and not harder. Please reconsider.--v/r - TP 12:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I hate to pile on here, Faizan, but it does seem puzzling that the only basis for your oppose is a 20K edit count, which is really quite respectable. I looked back at some of the recent successful candidates, and I noticed that you supported Bilby, who at the time had 21K edits, and Mkdw, who had 18K edits. Perhaps you have other reasons for opposing that you're not stating, but if not, you might want to rethink. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't help but step in and comment on your decision reason. Huon has spent a substantial amount of potential editing time in helping users and guiding them with their questions on IRC. He appears to focus on quality, not quantity, and certainly helping others, not simply increasing his own edit count. It is clear that he has positive intentions on Wikipedia and certainly, as an administrator, would spend more time on taking care of administrator tasks. Even on IRC, he spends more time on #wikipedia-en-help in an attempt to take care of Wikipedia-related issues and less time in useless chatting with his fellow helpers; when he does spend time chatting with his fellow helpers, his conversations mainly reflect his good-willed intentions of making a difference to the larger community with his efforts. I think I have given you enough reasons as to why his edit count may be too low for you, please reconsider. --JustBerry (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have reconsidered, but I will remain out of the process for now. Faizan 15:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose Lack of content contributions. In principle, I do not support 'professional' admins viz. those who seek to gain a position whereby they judge and act upon issues they have not been in a position to have experienced themselves, and I do not see any outstanding qualities in this candidate to make me reconsider that principle. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I may be able to explain. As per what I said before "I can't help but step in and comment on your decision reason. Huon has spent a substantial amount of potential editing time in helping users and guiding them with their questions on IRC. He appears to focus on quality, not quantity, and certainly helping others, not simply increasing his own edit count. It is clear that he has positive intentions on Wikipedia and certainly, as an administrator, would spend more time on taking care of administrator tasks. Even on IRC, he spends more time on #wikipedia-en-help in an attempt to take care of Wikipedia-related issues and less time in useless chatting with his fellow helpers; when he does spend time chatting with his fellow helpers, his conversations mainly reflect his good-willed intentions of making a difference to the larger community with his efforts. I think I have given you enough reasons as to why his edit count may be too low for you, please reconsider. --JustBerry (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC) " --JustBerry (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Justberry, I mentioned nothing about edit-count. Furthermore, I don't give a toss what gets done on IRC. Fuck IRC. I am only interested in what is done on Wikipedia: you know, that online encyclopedia made of articles what people write for everyone to read, but which too many seem to think is some kind of IRL-respected MMORPG to get off on. Which I'm not saying is the motivation for Huon but as you - and several others - are so readily and candidly speaking for him down this end of the page, its hard to precisely know what is. Oh and ta very much but you really didn't need to go to all that trouble of cutting-and-pasting the reply so we could all read it all over again two lines down. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose If it is the case that the candidate has used his content creation skills on IRC that does not really provide adequate proof that the advice he dispenses conforms with policy. It would require only a small amount of that effort to be directed into producing some real, tangible encyclopaedic content here. Then we would know. Also, I'm not a big fan of anything that happens on IRC so it follows that the candidate will not receive my support. Leaky Caldron 11:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My main experience of Huon's work is at AfC, particularly the help desk, and many of his replies can be found in the archives. Given he is probably the most prolific contributor to the help desk, I sincerely believe if his advice did not consistently confirm to policy, an RfC would have been opened by now, or lots of AfC submissions would be overturned (either failed submissions passing or successful submissions going to AfD). I would suggest his content work is plentiful, but broad and shallow, and I think turning 1,000 articles that might be deleted into 1,000 that don't is just as worthy an achievement as creating one FA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An RfC would have been opened… or lots of AfC submissions would be overturned… LoL. Who cares about some mistakenly denied marginably notable submission? Nobody cares, and Ritchie333’s argument is very very weak. Several times I caught sysops who blatantly misused WP:CSD, and this did not have consequences. The community is reluctant to overturn anything, even obviously incorrect. A considerable interest from several users in good standing should exist in order to question an outcome that is already completed. A rare article may cause such interest, and probably no one from AfC stuff which is not interesting to anybody but its creators. Note that I know little about personally Huon’s activity. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose. Nomination seems supported mostly by IRC friendships rather than content contributions. Also, some of his recent AfD nominations are problematic as discussed above. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nomination seems supported mostly by IRC friendships rather than content contributions. What is your evidence for that? Most of the 72 "supports" above seem to be from long-established editors with tens of thousands of edits on Wikipedia to their credit. Very few of them even mention IRC. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. I've vacillated over my !vote on this one. I'm impressed with a lot of what I see, and I'll be the first to admit that some of my fellow opposers have opposed over reasons I find deeply trivial. From this user's contribution history, I can see abundant evidence of cluefulness, a passion for the encyclopaedia and a will to improve it. But what I don't see any evidence of is collaborating with other Wikipedians to produce anything much more than a stub. I'm not one of the "must have a featured article omg!" crowd, but for me, at least one moderately significant piece of content is a sine qua non for adminship because it demonstrates an understanding of how to evaluate sources, select the best ones and summarise them without violating their copyright. To sum up: I feel I put the content contribution bar for adminship relatively low but I'm afraid I don't see evidence that this candidate is over it.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Concerns over content creation per TCO, John and S Marshall. Also I'm concerned that it seems the candidate recently (5 July) removed content solely because the URL of the source was dead. He even said the content was now "unverifiable". [8] [9] I have looked into this and found that the dead page was actually archived here. Relevant how-to-guide: WP:DEADLINK. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Given that Huon explicitly mentioned on that talk page he couldn't find a copy on the Wayback Machine, and the source in question was a bare URL without author, title, accessdate, publisher etc, I suspect he is aware of the policies behind WP:DEADLINK. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please check again. The source had author, title, publisher and date. [10] A dead URL is no excuse for removing sourced content. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's no need to "suspect" anything. He has demonstrated in the Q&A above and in his edits that he is very unfamiliar with WP:DEADLINK. A candidate administrator should be more familiar with our basic but important policies. AfricaTanz (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As a minor point of detail, WP:DEADLINK is a "how-to" guide, not a guideline, let alone a policy. However, by going to the talk page to discuss it, Huon correctly followed WP:CONSENSUS, which is a policy. I don't understand what your rationale for opposing is, to be honest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you don't respect WP:DEADLINK, maybe you'll respect WP:DEADREF. My rationale for opposing this candidate is simple: he is not qualified to be an administrator, for the reasons that others and myself have already stated. AfricaTanz (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ritchie333: I'm not sure if you were addressing me or AfricaTanz, but I've explained that my opposing rationale is mainly concerned with content creation. The ill-judgement pointed above is only a proof of the candidate's weakness in this area. Also I've already mentioned that WP:DEADLINK is a how-to-guide. Finally, my opposition to Houn is not as adamant as AfricaTanz; I just don't think that users with low experience in content creation are ready for the mop. As this RfA seems to be passing, I'd like to wish Houn good luck and recommend more work on content creation in the future. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose No masterpiece. Warden (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose Concerned about the lack of content creation. Intothatdarkness 14:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose When asked to cite edits, the few diffs provided included controversial stuff he copied as part of article creation. Also doesn't seem to have a clear plan of what to do with the tools, seems a little polarized on irc issues, I don't really agree on his take on references, doesn't seem to have dispute experience, doesn't seem to know consensus policy. He's the average rubber stamped admin candidate. Maybe someday I'll figure out why these people keep getting admin status.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose Agree w/ TeeTylerToe ("average rubber stamped admin candidate") based on this thread. He seems to want to "help" but is motivated to simply justify actions of other admin and is unimpressive with either logic, knowledge re policy, and the assumptions he makes. (E.g. User:DanielTom made post under his old username but corrected said username in 2 minutes, and Huron claims "possibly by accident if I assume lots of good faith". Yeah right.) We have a candidate here with little or no content contribution experience, therefore cannot have any real empathy for what it takes to create content, and the community is going to hand him the block button!? And the candidate expresses intent to work in PRODs and CSDs!?? And has already shown poor judgement there!? To me all this spells future trouble with turning off genuine content contributors from WP. p.s. Be reminded that you get what you ask for. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose reluctantly. Similar thoughts to S Marshall, Leaky Cauldron etc. I feel a bit more content work would go a long way to assuaging my concerns here, especially considering the candidates' intent to work with article deletion. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 10:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Temporary Oppose Candidate may have referred me to an incident I was involved in regarding sexism on the IRC, I will go back to support as long as my question is answered. Prabash.Akmeemana 15:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
# All I can say is wow. It's been quite a while since I've seen an RfA like this - so split. While those in the support section are providing great answers for their reasoning for support, so are those in the oppose section (well, most of them). I've never found myself torn like this. I usually park myself here while waiting for a reply on a specific answer or one of my answers, but I'm actually not sure here. It could be due to my lack of sleep, but I don't view adminship as a big deal - it's more about if you can trust the user or not, and while I feel that Huon can be trusted, there's a few opposes that actually raise valid concerns. I haven't had a full chance to go through and read the underlying comments on them, but I felt that I needed to go ahead and park a !vote here, though I seem to be the minority in this section. Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC) moving to support Dusti*Let's talk!* 07:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Reply[reply]
The above adminship 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.
Category