Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Husnock


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

Husnock
final (43/2/1) ending 18:24 January 14, 2006 (UTC)

– Being a beginner, it is a privilege to me to nominate a dedicated and respected user like Husnock. With an experience dating back to April '04 and the impressive amount of 10510 edits, perfectly distributed among namespaces, Husnock presents a solid knowledge of both the policies and the tools of every aspect of Wikipedia. His writing skills, his commitment to the principles of NPOV and consensus, the amazing quantity of images he has uploaded to date (1622), his flawless record and polite behavior are quickly demonstrated by browsing through his contributions. Until now, he has not applied to adminship, not even once, which is an act of modesty rarely seen. In my humble opinion, it's time to solve this and give Husnock the tools he has deserved for a long time.  Phædriel  *whistle* 21:35, 6 January 2006


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and am quite honored to have been considered. -Husnock 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support without reservations as nominator.  Phædriel  *whistle* 21:35, 6 January 2006
 * 2) Support Monor 18:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Without a second thought. ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, looks good. &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 20:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. KHM03 20:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Hurragh!--MONGO 21:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Why not?--Jay (Reply) 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. a goody. Grutness...wha?  00:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Despite minor head-butting, H. is an asset and will administrate Wp nicely. E Pluribus Anthony 01:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Have seen this user in various places doing good. --King of All the Franks 02:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Good editor, will be good admin. --rogerd 02:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support: Yes. --Bhadani 06:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support: Civil, cooperative, good knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Plenty of project and Wikipedia namespace edits. Proud to support a fellow military history buff. -- §  Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 07:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Sure. --Chris S. 08:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I could trust someone with over 10000 edites and almost 2 years of Wikipedia experiance.   Good Luck!  -- Eddie 09:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. It's about time. Let's give him admin's chair. - Darwinek 09:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support  D a  Gizza  Chat  10:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Experienced editor. --Terence Ong Talk 10:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Strong Support - This guy should of been an admin long ago. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 11:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - Definitely. Sango  123   (talk)  18:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Good editor will be a good administrator. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 19:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Astrotrain 20:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Well rounded, use of edit summaries, seems to be civil. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support, will wield the title well. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. --Kefalonia 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support: good contributions, especially in military history and customs. Jonathunder 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, I've come across Husnock (though never conversed) in military-related articles, where he's shown his knowledge of the articles and of Wikipedia procedures. Reasonable answers to the optional questions also lead me to lend my support, though I'd recommend reviewing WP:CSD if you decide to get into "speedy delete patrol" (or whatever they call it). Also, I think you might like to take a look at some of the conversations at WP:AN and WP:ANI before you try your hand at some of the "heavier" admin tasks. --Deathphoenix 19:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Works for me. -Colin Kimbrell 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Came across him when he was doing medals for US soldiers in the Vietnam war.  Was willing to do work to make things better, compromise etc. Ruy Lopez 06:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - he isnt an admin yet? --Admrboltz (T | C) 17:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support nothing wrong with being supportive--Nn-user 19:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support --Mihai -talk 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support - Bobet 22:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support - he isn't already? Werdna648T/C\@ 03:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 05:24Z 
 * 37) Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support--Duk 16:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. See no reason for concern. Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. Extraordinary Machine 22:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support. Fabulous user.  Sorry your species was destroyed by a Dowd in this show.  You provide a great legacy for them. :) Xoloz 17:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support so many edits? needs to be rewarded. Gryffindor  14:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support Looks good. Ronabop 00:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose The "sysop chores" he lists don't need admin status. No personal issues; he just needs to explain which admin projects, like AFD and vandal watch, he would help out with. Ashibaka tock 00:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--Masssiveego 02:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BD2412  T 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Any reason for the opposition? This user appears to have gone through every active RfA and added an oppose vote without giving any particular reason. -Husnock 03:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This makes Boothy look good...this editor has voted oppose with no reason given on a whole slew of Rfa's and over in the Arbcom elections. Check his contributions.--MONGO 03:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) This seems to be a very dedicated user, but I would like for him to become much more familiar with the processes of page deletion before being given the power to do so. (Question 7) If you research more into the process, I will gladly support your adminship. - Pureblade  | Θ 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 91% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 18:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask the candidate's view on Process is Important? DES (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. I would enjoy starting articles on "red link" topics and also assisting with merging articles and splitting up the very large works. I also recently finished a project where I "listified" the articles on Major, Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, General, and Admiral to allow for more articles on country specific ranks.  I would be interested in future projects of that nature.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am very proud of the article on the Schutzstaffel and have high hopes of having this article one day read Featured Article status. I also think the article on Starfleet ranks and insignia is one of the best I've ever written due to the large amount of information on the Star Trek franchise.  A project of over two years was Awards and decorations of the United States military, which I also contributed to nearly every subarticle on the service medals of each department.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I used to get very possessive about things that I wrote and had some major head-butting clashes with some editors, especially over Featured Article Status (see Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia).  I've learned, however, to work with people and not fight with them.  Even the most hard lined, controversial editor can be approached and reasoned with.  In the recent days, the talk page has been the area of discussion rather than having the articles be the sight of a battle.  It works so much better this way and everyone gets a chance to voice thier opinion.  Please visit Talk:Heinrich Himmler for such a situation where difficult edits were discussed and worked out.


 * 4. What do you think of these questions?
 * A. Very good questions. They show what kind of a person that the Wiki users would want as an admin.  I am honored to have been nominated and look forward to the positive feedback on these answers I have given. -Husnock 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 19:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5. When would you use &#123;{test1}}, and when would you use &#123;{bv}}?
 * A. A "newbie", simply testing the waters by adding "xgadjlhfiyqs" to an article or writing "was a geek" after Adolf Hitler can be excused with simply test1.  They are merely experimenting with Wikipedia.  A user, on the other hand, who hits the ground making threats or writing "F you" all over articles is clearly warranted with a blantant vandal message.  I feel the difference is pretty obvious.
 * 6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
 * A. The first time, I would simply ask teh user to visit the talk page a bit more and try to resolve the matter without constant reverts.  However, if situations arise where users are clearly trying to "beat the system", then an article should be protected, teh parties involoved then forced to use the talk page, and unprotected after its clear the revert war won't continue.
 * 7. In your opinion, when would you delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an AFD instead?
 * A. I must abstain on this question.  My knowledge of deleting articles is very limited.  Speedy delete and clear nonsense articles are the only ones I've ever been involved with recommending for deletion.
 * 8. How would you tell the difference between a sockpuppet and a new user?
 * A. The style of writing is a dead give away and certain other users (I am not one of them) have the power to trace IP addresses.  ONe must be careful, though, as a false sockpuppet accusation can do serious damange to one's own creditability and the reputation of Wikipedia.
 * 9. How would you use WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?
 * A. Don't take sides, express all points of view, cite where opinions or ideas came from, making it clear that the they are not private ones, but from legitimate sources.
 * 10. I always wanted to ask American soldier about "Don't ask, don't tell". What do you think about this U.S. Army's policy? - Darwinek
 * A. I'm in the Navy so can't comment on that.  In my own experiance, I served with one homosexual Naval officer and he was a pretty nice guy.  he didnt try to come on to anyone or anything like that.  he eventually left the Navy, though, since he got a lot of crap from the enlisted force and even some threats from Chiefs.  The wardroom, though was pretty nice to him.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.