#:::::{{u|Polygnotus|You}} are not in a position to be clerking at RfA. There are admins and bureaucrats with the requisite competence and mandate to do so. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
#:::::{{u|Polygnotus|You}} are not in a position to be clerking at RfA. There are admins and bureaucrats with the requisite competence and mandate to do so. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
#::::::Broken windows theory confirmed. I recommend Linux. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 09:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
#::::::Broken windows theory confirmed. I recommend Linux. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 09:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
#:::::Polygnotus, I ask you to put yourself in HouseBlaster's shoes for a moment. Imagine you were the one to have spent months trying to get this new editor on track, persisting even when it becomes painfully clear they prefer writing hagiography rather than encyclopedia articles, going above and beyond to help out with referencing, fixes and images.
#:::::Then imagine after all these months, the one time you push back gently and assert your boundaries as a volunteer editor, someone comes along, pulls a line out of context and accuses you of sending a "bitey reply". I found that unfair to the point of being infuriating, and I don't even know HouseBlaster – I imagine it must be all the more frustrating when it's your conduct being questioned.
#:::::I really want to emphasise that anyone taking even a modicum of care to investigate the situation would have discovered the context – it's all right there [[User talk:Creative Lizzie|on the user's talk page]]. And yet, even after I have pointed all this out, Lightburst has doubled down by pointedly opting not to alter their comment.
#:::::{{tq|It's difficult to see how a good-faith editor could engage in this behaviour.}} – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 09:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
# '''Firm oppose''' I apologize, but 28.3% of the candidate's edits are to the main space, which is clearly quite insufficient. The fundamental responsibility of any Wikipedian here is to write and protect articles and content creators. The candidate has demonstrated very limited experience in content development, which I view as a huge red flag. I don't see how this editor can be an effective admin without having the necessary experience in this area. I firmly stand by my vote! [[User:Wolverine XI|<span style="color:#000080;">'''''Wolverine'''''</span> <span style="color:#8A307F;">'''''XI'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Wolverine XI|<span style="color:#2C5F2D;">talk to me</span>]])</sup> 07:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
# '''Firm oppose''' I apologize, but 28.3% of the candidate's edits are to the main space, which is clearly quite insufficient. The fundamental responsibility of any Wikipedian here is to write and protect articles and content creators. The candidate has demonstrated very limited experience in content development, which I view as a huge red flag. I don't see how this editor can be an effective admin without having the necessary experience in this area. I firmly stand by my vote! [[User:Wolverine XI|<span style="color:#000080;">'''''Wolverine'''''</span> <span style="color:#8A307F;">'''''XI'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Wolverine XI|<span style="color:#2C5F2D;">talk to me</span>]])</sup> 07:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
HouseBlaster (talk·contribs) – HouseBlaster has been one of the bright new faces of the 2020s, and I believe he will make a great addition to the admin class of 2024. HouseBlaster has displayed responsibility and good judgment with his work on the maintenance side of the site, which includes work at requested moves and on categories, files, and templates. With all the Categories for deletion closes he does, House might as well already be an admin; see the long history of Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working for examples, where House has helped tame a backlog at for the last several months. Working in these areas can result in queries about closes and certain decisions, and House’s comments in discussions and on his talk page show level-headed and precise responses. Outside of this, House has an established record when it comes to patrolling pages, and can do some real article writing, too. I believe House will be an excellent admin, and that the guy who created the page documenting the Admin Baton can now have it passed to him. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)23:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I would like to help out primarily at CFD and secondarily at REFUND. At CFD, admins are needed to instruct JJMC89 bot III on how to action the results of CFDs, which they do by listing items at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. To prevent abuse, that page is fully protected; non-admin closures are listed on the talk page, and an admin checks before adding them to the project page. Currently, this task has a bus factor of two: Pppery and Fayenatic london. As an admin, I would be able to process CFD closes on my own and, in turn, process the kind of non-admin closures I have been making.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
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: Conflicts in life are unavoidable, and Wikipedia is no exception. My general rule is that I go for a walk when I need to take a second to calm down. Wikipedia will be there when I come back, and I certainly plan to continue doing so when I need to take a minute in the future. When I am interacting with others, I do my best to disagree without being disagreeable and focus on what will improve the encyclopedia. Asking for outside perspectives can be useful, whether that is at a noticeboard or a WikiProject (of course, while avoiding canvassing).
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limitoftwo questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
4. Hello HouseBlaster, can you explain your user name? Thanks.
A:. A long time ago at school (remembering the school I was attending, I was about eight years old) I needed a pseudonym for something (I have long since forgotten what that thing was). "HouseBlaster" is what I came up with, and I have used it since.
5. When, if ever, is is inappropriate for a WikiProject to be notified about a RfD under WP:CANVASS?
A:. There is not really anything specific to RfD which makes notifications any more or less appropriate than in any other venue. In general – and this extends to RfD – notifications that are partisan, secret, or non-neutral fall afoul of WP:CANVASS; disclosing that you have made a notification to a WikiProject at the original discussion never hurts.
6. Greetings. Do you have an area of this encyclopedia you prefer to edit over others (i.e. sports, science, politics, history, etc.)?
A: If you made me pick one area, political history. Though my favorite edits are the "spontaneous" ones – regardless of topic – such as fixing a typo or replacing a [citation needed] with a [1] in an article I was reading for other reasons.
7. Given your username, it looks like you will be "blasting" categories away (yes, this is a joke). But how are you going to judge whether a category is to be deleted (or jokingly, "blasted")?
A: There are two parts to this answer, as a !voter and as a closer. As a !voter, categories which are unhelpful for navigation should be merged to parents (and yes, this is broad); categories which are overcategorization should also be merged/deleted. And categories for non-defining characteristics of article subjects are also a no-no. There is no "formulaic" answer to this question – like most things on Wikipedia, CfD is more an art than a science.
As a closer, I judge consensus in the way you judge consensus in any area on Wikipedia: evaluating the strength of the arguments presented through the lens of our PAGs, though headcount is not entirely irrelevant.
8. Are you planning to do much adminning outside of CFD and coversely are there any areas of adminning where you don't think you'll have much involvement?
A: I do plan to work at WP:REFUND, and I was recently appointed a trainee clerk at ArbCom. Implementing its decisions – e.g. blocking a user who was sitebanned after a case – does require the toolset, and I would use it in the course of those duties. I have no plans to do anything outside of these three areas. One particular area I have no plans to work is AE: a non-insignificant number of AE cases end up at ArbCom, and given that the clerk team is understaffed I would avoid that potential source of reasons to recuse.
9. Have you ever made any decision or taken any action in the wiki community that you later regretted after much consideration?
A: Oh, plenty. If you want an example, I would say one of my most egregious actions was "reviewing" Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) for GA. It was a month into the COVID lockdown, and I was not even extended confirmed yet. I don't think I read the entire article... A few years later I remembered I had done that review, I went to check on the article only to discover it is now a featured article. It has a happy ending, but that was a major blunder on my part.
11. There are a lot of neglected areas on Wikipedia. What is it about CFD specifically that you find interesting to work on? Let's say you wanted to convince me to help out at CFD.
A: I think I enjoy CFD because I enjoy organizing things. It is, at its most basic level, a massive venue where you get to discuss the optimal way to organize things. And as a closer, CFD is great because most discussions are really easy to close, so it is easy to get started. You don't need much experience at all to close a sane proposal with four support per nom !votes and no opposition. There are discussions ranging from that easy to sitting-and-waiting-for-weeks-for-closure-because-it-is-a-behemoth – and everything in between – so you can move from easy closes on up at your own pace. After all, there are ~30 new discussions which need closing every day. And if CFD is not for you, that is completely okay! I am a massive believer that people should edit in ways they find enjoyable (of course, provided that those ways are productive / not disruptive). There are countless other tasks which you might find enjoyable.
12. In relation to my first question, and (jokingly?) to your username: Would you consider yourself a deletionist?
A: The labels deletionist and inclusionist are some of the least helpful things on Wikipedia. They encourage tribalism and are inherently comments on the person, which are both objectively bad things. Calling someone else a deletionist/inclusionist/mergist/etc. has literally never helped any discussion, ever. So I don't consider myself anything, though I would add that I dislike making broad judgements about types of pages and firmly believe ATDs are great. And my username (see Q4) just has to do with the fact that eight-year-olds think explosions are the coolest things in the world, not anything regarding the worthiness of articles (or houses) :D
13. You seem a very promising candidate and heavily involved in admin-type work on Wikipedia. If you "owned" Wikipedia and had complete power like Elon Musk has with Twitter/X, what would you change?
A: I will start by acknowledging that I wouldn't want to be a dictator of Wikipedia. With that out of the way, I guess there are two ways to interpret this question, and because both are interesting I will answer both (and for those of you keeping score at home, I still count this as one question). If I were in charge of the WMF, I would look into better supporting the editor base, especially engaging new editors. We all started somewhere, better support for newbies really helps the 'pedia grow. If I were in charge of Wikipedia's policies, my current least favorite rule is "links outside of mainspace must be treated as external links" (part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid). I got started editing by clicking the "Learn how and when to remove this message" button on a banner, so this is an issue I find important. (I promptly removed a banner while neither addressing the issue nor leaving an edit summary, but I did mark the edit as minor – in other words, not my best edit. But I still think that the point remains we should encourage more people to contribute, even if their initial contributions require cleaning up. I know this sounds crazy, but I got a template message and actually heeded its advice!)
14. Hi there. Wikipedia has an interesting culture with people of various backgrounds, ideologies, dispositions, and hobbies. While collaboration with others can be fun, Wikipedia is also going to suck sometimes, especially with the conflict innate to admin areas. If you had the power to change anything about our culture, what would you change? Feel free to ignore this question if you would like, it's just some philosophical musing.
A: The Wiki Way is to change things, and yet we have this intense opposition to changing rules/procedures/etc. Sure, many of our current processes are not broken, but they could be better. I would make us more open to just trying different ways of doing things – like, for instance, the current 48 hour discussion period of RfA. The change might stink. But it might be better, and we don't know until we try.
15. To turn the last couple of questions around, what change, possibly controversial in its time, has been the most beneficial to Wikipedia in the long term?
A: I haven't studied all changes made to Wikipedia, so I cannot say what the most beneficial change has been. But one example that I think is worth highlighting is Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback (straw poll is now housed on a separate page). I don't have peer-reviewed science on hand, but the ability to have a dedicated anti-vandalism team is beneficial. There were concerns about rollback not requiring an RfA-like process (and in 2008 that was seen as a negative) and WP:CREEP concerns, but I think the additional WP:PERM bureaucracy has proven to be worthwhile.
16. Do you have any technical and/or anti-vandalism experience? Examples include reverting vandalism, helping with edit filters or technical issues on the English Wikipedia, etc.
A: A while ago, I was active in reverting vandalism. It was not particularly enjoyable, and I recently gave up the rollback perm. I occasionally have done some work with templates, such as expanding the functionality of {{category redirect}} so it can take {{rcat}}s as a second parameter.
17. This question does not imply any issues with your previous edits, it is due to the unrelated Nihonjoe situation. Do you agree to follow the WP:COI guideline?
A: Yes, I have followed the COI guideline (in both letter and spirit) and that will not change, regardless of the result of this RfA.
18. And would you avoid admin actions for articles where you have a COI?
A: Yes, I would avoid admin actions in general when I have a COI.
20. I see that you are interested in Categories and plan to work CFD as an administrator. Can you explain briefly to the Wikipedia community why editors who work in article space and draft space should be interested in categories, and how categories are a useful part of the encyclopedia?
A: Categories help readers find related articles, and editors find similar articles they might wish to work on. And if you don't find them helpful, that is okay. But some people do, and one of the advantages of a category is that they are Relatively unobtrusive in that they generally don't distract from the flow of the article – they aren't really hurting you if you dislike them.
21. AFC reviewers, in accepting articles from drafts, are asked to add categories, but sometimes instead tag the article with {{Improve categories}} because we understand that there are gnomes who understand categories better than many reviewers do. Do you plan to work as one of those gnomes to assign categories to tagged articles?
Blast err Support! Thank you HouseBlaster for volunteering! I have come across you numerous times at CfD and always found you to be civil and reasonable. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Support I admit I was skeptical at first, but what I've seen so far has eased my concerns. While content creation doesn't look like one of their strengths, we do need admins who like to work on the behind-the-scenes stuff. HouseBluster is clearly competent in the field they intend to work in, and I'm confident that they can be trusted with the tools. Good luck! Renerpho (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
We can always use more admins, especially in places like CfD. HouseBlaster has proven themselves to be trustworthy and I do not see any issues; I am also unconvinced by the oppose !vote. —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Support: The candidate often uses the “no big deal” rationale for voting in the majority of RfAs. This is one of Lightburst's problems with the public RfA voting system, and does not seem relevant in any way to this specific candidate's fitness for the position. If you read the section it is very clear: - In the very early days… Jimmy Wales said, “I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. While this remark is 21 years old, it clearly appears on the policy page, and is a worthwhile perspective to consider, even though circumstances have changed.
In researching, I have found that they often think they are right, but do not get hung up on the letter of the law more than a reasonable person might, i.e. the candidate likes to cite technical minutiae, but does not have any visible temperament issues that are incompatible with serving as an administrator.
On balance, I think electing someone to an administrative position from which people are frequently removed (by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, and in the future by a community recall process) is not really a big deal, and based on the sorry state of our backlogs we should be doing it more often. Jimmy Wales saying it was NOBIOGDEAL in 2003 when he was handing out unelected adminships, and back then the backlogs only went back two years, as opposed to twenty-three. Materially, the mainspace participation for Houseblaster is irrelevant to their being promoted to the role of administrator on an encyclopedia. Tryptofish's analysis of the candidate’s greatest contribution to content (they said in answer to question 2 is my best writing), has shown that HouseBlaster was simply making technical edits to an article that was already written. But I do not think every candidate needs to be personally experienced with content review processes to protect content and content creators; and as mentioned above, I also see flashes of a personality that suggests Houseblaster would make a good admin. jp×g🗯️02:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment That vote may be confusing if you haven't read Lightburst's oppose vote (which this is a response to, and which it is quoting). I am not criticizing your vote, JPxG, I just hope that this note is helpful to others for how to understand your argument. Renerpho (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Support excellent candidate and a thoughtful editor. I will also add that I have seen HouseBlaster do impressive work in the area of history merges, helping to repair attribution for other editors' cut-and-paste moves: link to a barnstar I gave him. DanCherek (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Support – Opposition concerns expressed thus far seem to be non-issues with respect to adminship. CfD (and more broadly XfD) and CSD experience is impressive, as is edit history. User is very active, and is an effective communicator, demonstrating strong knowledge of policies & principles with civility. For what it's worth, WP:NOBIGDEAL applies. Thanks for volunteering and good luck! Bgv. (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Support an editor who appears to be an expert in their field with a good attitude to the encyclopedia in general. -- D'n'B-t -- 04:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Support Every interaction I've seen HouseBlaster in has been positive. Their answers are well reasoned, and they clearly have the temperament. And they seem to understand where Wikipedia's long term sustainability and improvements come from. A solid candidate! Soni (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: The candidate often uses the “No Big Deal” rationale for voting in the majority of RfAs.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. In fact the candidate never opposed any candidate at RFA. This is one of my problems with the public RfA voting system: a person who wants to be an admin may be less inclined to vote oppose even if the candidate is not right for the job. From the link you can see that HouseBlaster did participate in other RfAs that failed but did not register a vote. The candidate lectures others about No Big Deal here emphatically stating that no big deal is "policy".
A few thoughts. First, WP:NOBIGDEAL is policy. Not an essay. Not a guideline. Policy
But if you read the section it is much less clear, WP:NOBIGDEAL - In the very early days… Jimmy Wales said, “I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. So this is more of a Kitschy-legacy-statement for historical reference rather than policy. The fact that the candidate confuses this 21 year old remark with actual policy is somewhat understandable since it appears on a policy page: I cannot let them off the hook though, because if HouseBlaster read the section, it is clearly not policy. It falls into the same category of RfA votes as "why not" and "yup" votes.
In researching, I have also found that they often think they are right and they get hung up on the letter of the law. i.e. looking through contributions I see the candidate likes to cite technical minutia and can be dismissive. This note to Scope creep is one example. Or this bitey reply to an editor with 300 edits I am not required to satisfy you with my answer. Or this one to an editor with 382 edits about a close HouseBlaster made. depends what you want to say. If you just have general thoughts about the rename, you should probably keep them to yourself (per WP:NOTBLOG). If you think I misjudged the consensusinthe discussion, you can leave a comment here (i.e. on my talk page), and I will consider your objection. If you are unsatisfied with my response, you can open a thread at deletion review. Alternatively, you may also place a request at WP:AN to ask an administrator to overturn my closure if you feel it was wildly off-base (emphasis on the "wildly" part: I sincerely doubt an admin will be willing to overturn my close without discussion, but it is an option you have. Imagine getting that answer when you have just a handful of edits? And FWIW, I too think this was a cringey and somewhat clueless question.
On Balance, I think electing someone to a forever administrative position is a big deal, and based on failed RfAs others editors seem to think it is a big deal. Jimmy Wales saying it was NOBIOGDEAL in 2003 when he was handing out unelected adminships, is different than what it is in 2024. And materially, the main space participation for Houseblaster is way too low (28%) for them to be promoted to the role of forever-administrator on an encyclopedia. Tryptofish's analysis of the candidate’s greatest contribution to content (they said in answer to question 2 is my best writing), has shown that HouseBlaster was simply making technical edits to an article that was already written. I do not have confidence that the candidate knows the content creation side of the encyclopedia well enough to protect content and content creators; and as mentioned above, I also see flashes of a personality that suggests Houseblaster does not always respond cordially and digs in on their own interpretation of policy. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll leave it for others to decide whether this is an oppose with genuine substance or just a Gish gallop of non-concerns stitched together to look reasonable, but the part about an allegedly "bitey reply to an editor with 300 edits" is grossly, shocklingly misleading and it would be enormously unfair on HouseBlaster to let it pass without comment. It leaves out the essential context that (1) the editor in question had spent said 300 edits trying to puff up their ancestor Jonathan Baldwin Turner and (2) HouseBlaster had been incredibly patient in spite of this obvious bias – if you read the editor's talk page you will see HouseBlaster spent months and months working with them and patiently trying to get them to follow our content policies. The particular context of the supposedly "bitey reply" was the biased editor attempting to get a citation replaced on another page altogether because it apparently didn't give Turner enough credit.
In my view, the only thing HouseBlaster is potentially guilty of here is being excessively kind and patient. It's really hard for me to see how someone attempting to make an honest assessment of the candidate would leave out this context by accident. It really seems more like the sort of thing someone would do if they were looking for reasons to oppose and wanted to compile some convenient diffs to confirm their own presuppositions. – Teratix₵03:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I think you meant the other link/nomination for RFA #1; I couldn't see the nominee's username in the one from your post. Sure, the rationales provided by the nominee may seem concerning, but most of the ones you've cited are either unanimously or hugely successful RFAs. Nonetheless, the number seven and number eight are different stories: one was successful by 77.33% support, other unsuccessful by majority of crats after a discretionary rate. Reading the RFA #8 further, seems that the vote downgraded from "support" to "weak support" with further rationale, but the nominee still stood by that failed nomination in some way.
Better examples should've been a failed crat nomination that HouseBlaster supported. The ones listed under "Unknown" may not count; more likely, HouseBlaster either asked a question, made a comment without voting, or just made cleanups. George Ho (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction George Ho, I fixed it in my rationale above. This is not directed at you George, but I hope everyone will just vote based on what they feel is best for the project. That is what I did. If I could have just put oppose I would. I have used up quite a bit of space with my rationale so I would rather we not continue commenting here on the project page. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Funny how you are willing to retract that mistake but apparently unwilling to retract aspersions you cast when they're demonstrated to be false. It's difficult to see how a good-faith editor could engage in this behaviour. – Teratix₵06:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Teratix: Feel free to disagree with them, but your comment is a bit over the line. Please remove it. Good faithed people do many things others find objectionable (e.g. when they are misled, or simply have a bad opinion). To attack someone who is clearly WP:HERE in this way because you disagree with them is not WP:CIVIL. Polygnotus (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
You are not in a position to be clerking at RfA. There are admins and bureaucrats with the requisite competence and mandate to do so. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Polygnotus, I ask you to put yourself in HouseBlaster's shoes for a moment. Imagine you were the one to have spent months trying to get this new editor on track, persisting even when it becomes painfully clear they prefer writing hagiography rather than encyclopedia articles, going above and beyond to help out with referencing, fixes and images.
Then imagine after all these months, the one time you push back gently and assert your boundaries as a volunteer editor, someone comes along, pulls a line out of context and accuses you of sending a "bitey reply". I found that unfair to the point of being infuriating, and I don't even know HouseBlaster – I imagine it must be all the more frustrating when it's your conduct being questioned.
I really want to emphasise that anyone taking even a modicum of care to investigate the situation would have discovered the context – it's all right there on the user's talk page. And yet, even after I have pointed all this out, Lightburst has doubled down by pointedly opting not to alter their comment.
Firm oppose I apologize, but 28.3% of the candidate's edits are to the main space, which is clearly quite insufficient. The fundamental responsibility of any Wikipedian here is to write and protect articles and content creators. The candidate has demonstrated very limited experience in content development, which I view as a huge red flag. I don't see how this editor can be an effective admin without having the necessary experience in this area. I firmly stand by my vote! WolverineXI(talk to me)07:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Neutral
General comments
I'm incredibly happy to see this. :) HouseBlaster is pretty much the reason I'm even an admin. Their shove was the last one I needed. [1] I've also seen them doing loads of good work across the project and they often go above and beyond when interacting with newbies. Clovermoss🍀(talk)00:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
A short summary for people who weren't around almost two years ago: RfAs still lasted 7 days but people could still !vote until a bureaucrat got around to closing or starting a crat chat. This could sometimes take hours and this change fixed this arbitrary deadline. I was an enthusiastic support at the time although it was not a SNOW discussion, plenty of people opposed for various reasons. Clovermoss🍀(talk)01:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Given the nominators and the fact that CFD is chronically backlogged (and coupled with Blaster's experience in the area), I don't see a reason against this. Best wishes with the RfA, @HouseBlaster:! (Also: great username.) --TheSandDoctorTalk01:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Don't always agree with their actions at CfD but have found the candidate to be fairly well reasoned all things considered. Barring something unexpected coming up here, I believe they'd do well with the tools. Let'srun (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the candidate or their work as our areas of focus don't have a lot of overlap, but from a cursorary look at their user page, I don't see a lot of content creation experience, which is totally okay. The candidate has clarified what area of the project's back end they do the most at and that area needs more admins. I fully support a trend where admins may run and be successful without content creation experience but a large focus on the neglected stuff. I look forward to hearing from the candidate and their answers to the questions! Thanks for running! microbiologyMarcus[petri dish·growths]13:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I am concerned about the lack of content creation simply because admins do get dragged into that area no matter what their initial intentions might be. This is an area of activity that's relatively easy to fix, but it is nice to see how a potential admin behaves "under fire" (so to speak) when dealing with content creation (and related areas like AfD, where at least they have been active in the past).Intothatdarkness13:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I share your concern about minimal main space participation (28%). Articles started are two stubs, a start and a D-page. And they are active in AfD. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
You're free to have that opinion, even if it's in the minority. Most people have varying definitions of what "counts" as content creation and I'd say HouseBlaster easily meets what most people like to see at a minimum. One example would be my RfA. I also had one GA. Our situations are slightly different because I had a higher mainspace percentage and I have also created a larger total number of articles. But I also didn't have what most people see as a substantial "need for the tools", which is an area I think HouseBlaster is stronger in. I don't think mainspace percentage is everything. Serious content editing usually takes more time per edit than other activities. For example, I recently nominated one article for AfD. It's not an area I often frequent so it doesn't really reflect on my pie chart. But that one AfD gave me 5 Wikipedia namespace edits just for creating the page and adding it to the appropriate deletion sorting lists as well as a user talk page notification. A lot of admin candidates aren't going to have super high mainspace percentages because they're also doing these other maintenance activities. Clovermoss🍀(talk)22:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I had no GAs and I had over 300 supports. There are various ways to assess a person's knowledge and experience with content. Counting GAs isn't the best when there's no explicit guidelines as to how many someone should have to satisfy the masses. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Clovermoss I took that into account when making the comment. Admins get dragged into mainspace discussions as part of the job (no matter their plans prior to a successful run), so I look for prior behavior (or lack thereof) there. I don't rely on GA alone for that, although it is helpful. Intothatdarkness11:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
fish, chips, mushy peas and tartare sauce for the candidate and other wikipedians
While we're waiting for the voting to start, here's some fish, chips, mushy peas and tartare sauce for the candidate and the other Wikipedians in this room to enjoy... I don't see any issues myself at the present time, I see the content query above which is often a red line for me, but probably between their GA and other contributions such as 2014 Northern Cape provincial election - a stub but an adequately cited stub - I'd give them the weak nod on that score that they know what they're doing, given the attestation of good work elsewhere. We'll see how this pans out though. — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Back a few months House Blaster took the time from their work at contributing to the Encyclopedia to nominate a fellow editor for the Editor of the Week award. To me it displays a hint into his social awareness. An important trait to have if one wants to administrate. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 18:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Be sure to rest well tonight. Watch some movies with friends or gaze up at the stars. That helped me on the final few days at least. Good luck. The Night Watch(talk)20:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This pre-!vote period of the trial RfA process is partly for bringing up potential issues, so that's what I'm going to do here. I've interacted a lot with the candidate, and have always found him to be collegial, even when we have differing views, and I appreciate that. But I've also noted some instances where he shows what I perceive as a rigid approach to doing things, along with difficulty in recognizing how other editors might react to what he says. First, there is this entirely well-meaning, but cringeworthy, post: [2]. Second, there is the very lengthy discussion here: [3]. By the end of that second discussion, I actually came around to accepting HouseBlaster's approach, so I don't think that he was technically wrong. But it seemed to me that he was operating under a rigid definition of The RulesTM, rather than showing deference to what other editors might prefer. I want to make clear that he wasn't, strictly speaking, wrong in either of these two examples. But I note that some other editors have commented above about there not being much content experience, and when I take that along with the two instances I link to here, I think there could be a potential issue in this RfA, of not having the right kind of attentiveness to interpersonal nuance that many editors want to see demonstrated in an RfA. Feel free to reply to my comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm missing something, but I see nothing objectionable in the second discussion, which seems to be respectful and constructive on all sides. The first comment is the kind of thing many of us might say and then later feel a bit embarrassed about; again, I don't see any concerns here. Others may have different views, of course. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that HouseBlaster was respectful in the discussion, and thank you for saying the same for "all sides". (And like isaacl, below, I found the discussion instructive.) But the reason I wanted to bring this issue up early is that the disputed edit to the policy page changed some very familiar and commonplace markup ('''bold''', for example), into some markup that, on the face of it, was considerably more complex when viewed in the edit window, and that I, for one, had never even seen before in almost two decades of editing here. And it felt, to me, like HouseBlaster was surprised at the pushback, because this was supposedly a question of only one way of doing the markup being "right", and everyone else just needed to follow the rules. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I've been thinking a lot about how people have been addressing and changing their approach towards interpersonal conflicts. Some of that might come with maturity. We care a lot about communication, "playing well with others" for lack of a better word, but what does the community suggest people with those problems do to help address that? Sorry if this is an odd statement, I've been a little more contemplative than usual lately. The Night Watch(talk)03:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned on your talk page, as your question is a general one, I think another venue would be more suitable for it and further discussion. isaacl (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
As isaacl says, this is indeed a general question, but what I can reply in the specific context of an RfA is that it's appropriate for the community to evaluate what we think about whether or not the candidate's ability to, if not "play well with others", then at least, to recognize the nuances of human interactions, so that the block button, in particular, will be used correctly, and not resorted to when a gentler method of deescalation can be used instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the second discussion (in which I participated), which was about replacing presentational markup of bold and italics with semantic markup, personally I don't think it's an issue of deference, but appreciating there can be differing opinions on what best reflects the semantics of a sentence, and that the cost-benefit ratio for some discussions increases rapidly as the thread continues. I hope that all participants in the second discussion found value in it that will help future collaborative efforts (personally, I found it instructive). isaacl (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to bring up another, related issue, before we get into the support/oppose phase. And I want to say, specifically to HouseBlaster, please consider me to be exempting you from the (somewhat arbitrary) tradition of "candidates can't reply to comments", for purposes of replying to anything that I say here. Please feel free to say anything you want to me here, and I don't want anyone to hold that against you. As noted above, some editors have concerns about the relative lack of content work. You have, however, rightly pointed out your GA for 1934 German head of state referendum. And while I, personally, care about content work in RfA candidates, I also personally reject rigid criteria like "a single GA isn't enough". I'm more concerned with the kind of work done, than with checking off some arbitrary checklist. I took a deep dive into that page's edit history. The page was already pretty far along before you started working on it: permalinks of the page just before your first edit: [4], and the page now:[5]. As I look through the edits you made to the page between your first edit and when you started the GA process, a very large percentage of what you did was technical formatting of things like citations: [6], combined diff, and, I think, representative. You also added an image: [7]. I think your most extensive addition of content was when you added three paragraphs about "Hitler's rise to power" and elections background, which you had started in your sandbox: [8]. But when I look at your sandbox at that time, those paragraphs were actually largely copied from another page: [9] (which you ought to have made clearer when moving that into mainspace). So while it looks to me like you improved the page, not that much of it was a matter of creating new content, even in what you cite as your most significant content work. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I think there is a little bit of confusion concerning the timeline. My edit summary was acknowledging that the rest of the article (minus the stuff I added) was copied from the mainspace article 1934 German referendum, which was later renamed after an RMto1934 German head of state referendum (per WP:NCELECT). I wrote those paragraphs and added them in that edit, even though my edit summary did not reflect this. (As it was in my user sandbox, it quite frankly did not occur to me that others would read the summary; I was just concerned that my WP:CWW obligations were satisfied.) As for the amount of content I added, I have 62% authorship. I would also add that some of the original article needed removal – for example, a WP:COATRACK about the Hitler Oath – so comparing the length of the before/after does not present the most accurate picture of the work I did. Is it the hardest GA ever written? No. I am happy with my work, however. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
It's nice to see a very clear, specific and well articulated Need For The Tools. It sounds like perhaps they are not interested in using all of the tools, but I think that's alright in this case. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
This RFA sort of emphasizes a quandary. The have specific expertise is a specific area which requires admin tools, and at least for a while would probably stick to that one area and maybe carefully expand into more areas in the future. So it would go really well if the RFA is successful. On the other hand, for a candidate, appears has weak experience in content creation (and no, I don't go by GA's) or in other areas such problem situations and thinks like ANI stuff. Things that are normally expected of a candidate, on the presumption that a successful candidate could do work in all admin areas. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Most admins do not work in "all admin areas." For example, in my work with WP:UAA reports I constantly come across users who have had their inappropriate user page already deleted by one particular admin. Sure, that admin could issue the block as well, but they are working on speedy deletion while I am working on username issues. Some admins work at WP:AE while other wouldn't touch it with a ten foor pole. I've been an admin for nearly fifteen years and I've not once done a WP:RANGEBLOCK. There's plenty of work to go around. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. I have two hobbies. Wikipedia and fishing. I have dozens of lures in my tackle box. Some are favorites that I use all the time. The rarely used ones are a bit of an obstacle and I only use them when I'm up to it. Same here. I can have a relaxing time editing what I know or I can challenge myself and do the difficult things. House Blaster will grow into the job. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 21:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Are we allowed to protest questions? Question 13 (not the answer) really grind my gears. this is RFA not a social media Ask Me Anything. Thanks,L3X1◊distænt write◊22:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1934 German head of state referendum is my best writing. I am also proud of shepherding Daniel McCaffery – an AP2 BLP – through DYK (nomination). I will let my writing speak for itself.
