Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Useight


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Useight
Final: (28/16/6); Withdrawn by candidate at 00:00 13 June 2008 (UTC)

- Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce myself. You probably know me from Highly Active Users or have seen me around WP:RFA. I have been a Wikipedian since 2006 and an admin since late last year. Now, of course I am aware that being an admin for a year is often preferred before becoming a bureaucrat, a time span I have yet to reach (logging six months of service), but this comment by WJBscribe, stating that he was going to be unable to perform any bureaucrat functions for a month, along with the surrounding discussion, inspired me to employ my services to help offset the shortage of active bureaucrats.

Aside from that, I am an active regular at RFA, monitor the inappropriate username reports, and clerk at WP:CHU. In order to serve Wikipedia in another capacity, I present myself for scrutiny. Useight (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
 * A. As a regular at Wikipedia Talk:Requests for adminship, I read all discussions there and participate in most. The key decisive factor for promotion is consensus. This consensus is often, but not always, shown by the community demonstrating at least 70-75% in favor of the candidate becoming an administrator. However, RFA is more of an art than a science, hence this 70-75% range is usually considered the discretionary range. Since RFA is not a vote, but a pursuit for consensus, the words behind the numbers carry more weight than the numbers themselves. Similarly, an RFB also has a gray area for consensus, but this is closer to the 85%-90% range.
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. In these cases, there are several options. A common one is to begin a discussion with other bureaucrats. Not a discussion as to the candidate's merits, but a discussion to gauge whether there exists a consensus to promote. Due to the sysopping of an editor being one of the few extremely difficult actions to reverse, there is no need to jump the gun on this process. Another option is extending the RFA in order to get more community input, but this option is rarely used.


 * If, in the hypothetical world posed by some optional questions, a 'crat chat is not an option, I tend to be conservative in nature and would take my time, cautiously weighing the discussion to ascertain whether a consensus to promote exists. I would rather err on the side of caution.
 * 3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy, and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
 * A. I think that I have indeed demonstrated these traits. I have exhibited fairness and knowledge of policy throughout my interaction and communication with others, both resolving disputes and answering questions. My collaborative work at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users and, to a much lesser degree, WikiProject Bowling, both of which I started, are good examples of my ability to engage others. I've also always been quick to respond to messages left on my talk page, as I believe quick, civil, communication to be a key trait in an administrator, let alone a bureaucrat.
 * 4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
 * A. Definitely. I visit RFA and CHU many times daily. Obviously, there's not often a backlog of RFAs that need closing, but I've seen CHU get behind frequently and I'd like to help cut down on that wait time. As for flagging bot accounts, I must admit that bots are not my forte, but I'd be glad to help out any way I could if my assistance was needed.

Optional question from myself
 * 5. Why are you starting this RFB right now?
 * A. Yes, I know it's a little strange to ask yourself an optional question, but I wanted to say something about this and here seemed to be the best place. As I mentioned above, a comment by WJBscribe here was my real motivation along with two discussions around that same time on WT:RFA, one regarding the shortage of active bureaucrats, and the other debunking the belief that all RFB candidates needed twelve months of experience as an admin. However, as you probably noticed, that comment was made on May 17th and now it is June 6th. There was no rush. I initially thought that Pedro was going to RFB, so I'd just wait. But then EVula submitted an RFB. Once that one ended, I created my RFB page with the intention of transcluding on Friday when I knew I had hours on end to be available to answer questions. Then, 28 hours after I created this page, Anthony's was created (I knew because I had it watchlisted for a while). This put me in a between a rock and a hard place, because I really didn't want to look like I was trying to daisy-chain or bandwagon jump. The timing just turned out the way it did.


 * Optional questions from Malinaccier (talk)
 * 6. As shown in your "Associates" area on your userpage, you are a fairly active admin coach.  As you are probably aware, (through multiple discussions on WT:RFA) there is a certain controversy over whether coaching should be allowed for reasons such as that it is a way to game the system and polish up a user's resume.  What is your stance on this, and how will this affect your RFA closures as a bureaucrat?
 * A. An excellent question that brings up a sometimes controversial issue: coaching. My stance on whether coaching is "gaming the system" or not, is that it's not. I find it to be an effective way of learning what is required of an admin, how admins should act, what policies are what, etc, by interacting and learning directly from someone else. I can see where the opposite camp is coming from, though, in that the candidate may be trying to "fast track" to adminship. My personal stance on this issue won't come into play when closing RFAs because, as a bureaucrat, I won't be assessing the candidate nor the value of his/her coaching. I will instead be closing the RFA from a neutral perspective, focusing on the outcome of the community's consensus.
 * 6a. How would you close the RFA if it was in the discretionary zone and most opposes were because of the user's participation in admin coaching?
 * A.I'd want to see the actual RFA for more details, but given only what I have, (and I hope I don't get demolished by the other of the two schools of thought regarding coaching), I would likely close the RFA as successful. Obviously there are going to be slightly differing opinions regarding what types of opposes carry more weight, but I don't feel that an oppose such as, "Oppose. Editor was admin coached." is on the same tier as "Oppose. Gross incivility." because opposing soley due to the candidate having been coached doesn't seem to be in regard to the candidate's merits as other possiple reasons for opposing, hence I wouldn't give it quite as much weight. However, if the community consensus shifts enough against coaching, I, as a bureaucrat would exact that consensus and would even cease admin coaching others. But now I've gone on longer than I wanted.


 * Optional question from EJF (talk · contribs)
 * 7. How would you have closed this assuming that you had closed it at the time of withdrawal?
 * A. As this RFA was progressing, I knew it would join the likes of ^demon's and Danny's. Considering that I had opposed that particular RFA, I would not be the one to close it. However, let's assume for the sake of the question that I had not participated. At the time of the withdrawal, the tally was at 299-85-17, or just under 78%. While according to the numbers, this is higher than the typical discretionary range. However, the words behind the numbers mean much more than the numbers themselves. As I followed the RFA, near the time it was withdrawn, several editors were withdrawing their support and opposes were being added fairly quickly. Additionally, a fair number of the supporters comments were not exceedingly weighty, such as "One of my favorite contributors", "Duh", or said nothing besides "Support". Due to these factors, and again assuming I hadn't participated in this particular RFA, I would have closed it as "No consensus."

Question from Acalamari
 * 8. What is the difference between an RfA closed as "no-consensus" versus an RfA closed as "failed"? Acalamari 01:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A. Sorry to have taken so long to answer, I was enjoying a rare round of golf (15 over after only nine holes, I'm a pretty bad golfer). A nice, simple question. "Failed" is for RFAs that garnered more opposes than supports (i.e., sub-50% in support of the candidate) while "No consensus" describes RFAs that finished with more supports than opposes (or an equal number, I believe), but did not reach a sufficient consensus to be considered "Successful" by the closing bureaucrat.

General comments

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



Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

 * Overall a good candidate, but I have some concerns. Useight has been an administrator for about half a year; I think he'd make a more effective crats with a bit more experience. Secondly, Useight has quite stringent, number-bases RfA criteria. I worry that he will use such criteria to inadvertently close RfAs according to his beliefs and not the community's (ie I'm afraid he'll see an argument such as having only 100 edits to Wikipedia: namespace (in opposition) to be always stronger to having written 10 FAs (in support). I don't think Useight will make a poor bureaucrat in regards to clearing CHU, but I don't trust him yet to close close (verb, adjective ;-) ) RfAs.  Maxim (talk)  02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that every editor is going to have a slight personal bias. Everyone will give reasons such as "Per nom", "Incivil", "Per WP:WTHN", "Not enough article writting", "Not enough experience", "Too deletionist", "Hard-working", etc., different weight. There's really no getting around that. Fortunately, few RFAs end between 70-75% (or close that that), making things a bit easier on the 'crats. Also, that's my criteria for supporting an RFA, not for closing one. Do I plan to jump on the first discretionary RFA I see? No way. Just like I said in my successful RFA, I'm conservative and will take things slowly. Useight (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, every user will have different biases and different reasons for supporting or opposing. It's part of life. The job of the 'crat isn't just to count them up, add them up, and divide them by comment length to find which side has the stronger argument—the job of the 'crat is to be truly familiar with the RfA process, to truly understand that a  #~  support from some users means a million times more than three paragraphs of waffle from others. I agree with Maxim—I don't believe you are acquainted enough with the real RfA process (the one you find outside WT:RFA and admin coaching) to be able to make these distinctions. giggy (O) 10:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * About Q7. Can you add a bit more about, basically, your thought process when closing DHMO/Giggy's RfA? You made a very short explanation, simply discouting supports from friends of his. Can you elaborate, please?  Maxim (talk)  14:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure. I knew I couldn't please everyone when I answered that particular question about a very recent, highly dramatic RFA. I also stated that I knew I was biased in that particular RFA, since I wrote a lengthy oppose in it, and would not close that RFA. However, I will go into more detail on my thought process. As I watched it make a run toward WP:300, it was kind of concerning that perhaps some were "drive-by" voters who had heard about this particular RFA elsewhere and had only come along to pile-on. As you stated above, the job of the 'crat is "to truly understand that a  #~  support from some users means a million times more than three paragraphs of waffle from others." I looked at the RFA commenting history of some of the participants and many hadn't participated in RFA in a long time. A fair number of the people just adding their names weren't the typical hard-hitting "support from some people", but some were. This was happening on both the support and oppose side, so it was kind of a balance. The primary factor in my hypothetical closing of "No consensus", again, which I would not have done since I opposed, was that near the end there was what appeared to be a dramatic swing as people were withdrawing their support and more and more opposers arrived. Perhaps the best thing to have done in DHMO/Giggy's RFA (if it had ended normally instead of via withdrawal and at the time of withdrawal), would have been to extend it a bit, but Q7 specifically mentions that I close it at the time of withdrawal. This is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer because the RFA was so dramatic and is still very fresh on people's minds. Also, in the end, no bureaucrat actually had to make the decision and it would've been a difficult one for any of them. I don't think I can give an answer that satisfies everyone; in a seemingly conflict of interest, five of my eight opposes here supported DHMO's RFA (and two others initially supported before striking it). I hope that's not the only reason, as I'm assuming good faith, but would I have more support if I said I'd have closed that contentious RFA as successful? I don't know. I do know that I would've avoided the conflict of interest and not closed the RFA, since I had opposed it. Useight (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the thought process. Q7 is quite impossible &mdash; an RfA with comments such as east718's were should not be closed. Things as dramatic as that should calm down before a 'crat makes his judgment. -- Maxim (talk)  20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should assume good faith, as you mention, if you look I have not included the answer to question seven in my oppose statement, I find this assumption of 'conflict of interest' I may have had disappointing. Rudget   (Help?) 11:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My unfortunately lengthy reply to this comment can be found with my statement here in which I attempted to improve my word choice and give more enlightenment as to the thoughts I was trying to convey. Useight (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstaining from formally casting a vote, as I am also a current candidate for bureaucratship, but I think Useight would be a good bureaucrat, and I offer my informal support. Good luck, Anthøny  18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) First to support! He looks like a good candidate to me.  Would make a good bureaucrat. :)  - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support I've seen Useight do many administrative actions around Wikipedia. Regarding his answers,his contributions, and his activity here at Wikipedia, I think he can be a very good bureaucrat.-- RyRy5 ( talk ) 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support - I see nothing in this user's history that would make me think he wouldn't be able to handle crat duties. He has a solid knowledge of UAA, WP:U and RfA.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Time does not really bother me in Useight's case; I've always seen him as an intelligent, polite, and smart editor who is looking out for the good of the project. I liked his answers to my questions, and I appreciated the honesty in the fact that he stated he would close the RFA mentioned successfully. Despite the fact that this will probably not pass, I will support this in hopes that others will realize that 1 year is not a requirement, but instead is what a few editors believe a candidate should have. Good luck, Useight. Malinaccier (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer to number 7 was also good. Malinaccier (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I've looked through Useight contribs, logs, talk page and such, and I see nothing that concerns me. He has a good balance of the various namespace edits and is a well-rounded editor. The only thing that confused me; why are most or all of your recent edits marked as minor? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
 * To answer your question regarding minor edits, I've used Help:Minor edit, where it says, "A major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors." A lot of my edits have involved fixing grammar, spelling, or punctuation; issuing warnings; asking and answering questions; most of which I would consider "minor." Perhaps I have been too stringent, I'm always open to suggestions and I can easily change the way I use the "minor edit" checkbox. Useight (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. It just seems to me that, for example, adding a comment isn't really a minor edit, but that's just my opinion. Not a big deal, no worries. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Hell, we really need to clear the CHU backlog so another crat even if purely for that would be great. (note: I'd say yes anyway)  Sexy  Sea   Bassist  00:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Dloh  cierekim'''  01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not I agree with another user is not a good metric for evaluating their ability to determine consensus. Determining consensus sometimes means setting aside one's own opinion, and I believe Useight can do this. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim'''  12:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. A highly active user who will help to clear the CHU backlog which I'm sure will only grow as more people jump on the SUL bandwagon. xenocidic (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support An excellent admin and I'm sure he'll be an excellent crat. Xp54321 ( Vandals Beware!!!, Contribs ) 02:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Reliable and consistent in my observations, and answers to questions (including Q7) well considered and well thought out. Orderinchaos 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - I supported this fellow on his RFA, as he is a very helpful guy I expect him to make a termendous Bureaucrat. Sunderland06  (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per comments below and answer to Q7. I would have issues with any 'crat that would have closed DHMO 3 as successful. EJF (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Moving to Support. I still have concerns about his attitude to RFA, as per my comments in neutral, but I do trust him with everything else. He seems like someone with enough common sense not to get involved with a controversial RFA until he's sure he knows the best way to close it. —  iride  scent  18:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Even though I have not directly interact with you, I trust your judgement when becoming a b-crat. Best of luck. -- PrestonH ( t  ♦  c ) 01:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) I've been thinking hard on this one, but in the end, I've decided to support this request. First off, I'm not bothered by the fact that Useight hasn't been an admin for a year (after all, I went for RfB at nearly 8 months as an admin), as I don't think time as an admin is relevant to how qualified someone is for bureaucratship (see WJBscribe and The Rambling Man). My main concern, to be honest, is User:Useight/RFA Standards: my concern there only comes from the fact that some (note some, not all) of Useight's standards seem to be based on numbers (which can't always be relied on), such as Wikipedia-space edits or time spent here rather than a candidate's skill and experience; and I am somewhat concerned with how he would close RfAs with those sort of standards. However, Useight is not foolish, and I don't think that he would close RfAs in a biased manner, and that instead, he would separate his standards from his bureaucratship and close RfAs neutrally (like any good bureaucrat would do), and that he does do work at CHU (I've seen his name appear in my watchlist there a few times now). I would like to say that his work as an admin has been great, and I'm glad I supported him in his RfAs. Regarding my question, too many people refer to any unsuccessful RfA as a "failed" RfA, and I'm glad that Useight understands the difference between "no consensus" and "failed". Ultimately, Useight's been a good admin, his conduct is good, and his answers here are good too. I can support his RfB. Good luck. Acalamari 02:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - trustworthy admin. If this attempt doesn't work out, then I'm sure you'll pass next time around, especially if you take on board some of the constructive criticism. PhilKnight (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Support - I first met this user when I asked for help. He got back to me right away (really helped too) and I have ran into him incresingly. He's very helpful and resourceful. He'd make a good bearcat. Basketball110  My story/Tell me yours 03:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support helpful and polite and an active user. Being an active user makes up for the user's time being under one year. Best of luck! --Cameron (T|C) 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Normally I'd lean to oppose, but I'm really impressed with his answers. --Charitwo talk 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong Support for a dedicated candidate. As noted, I like the answers to the questions, above, and I think Useight would do well as a 'crat. IF unsuccessful here, I think more experience will only strengthen his case - that's the only flaw I see. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support although this user has no plans to leave any part of his estate to Wikipedia upon his death. Keepscases (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. While I think you've not been an admin long enough, we do have the shortage of 'crats, and you're probably one of the best candidates, so... · AndonicO  Engage. 22:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support: Very helpful Admin and hence every reason to support for RFB --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support YES. Very good editor completely trustable, and will do lots of good work. Harland1 (t/c) 20:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support per Iridescent and Acalamari.--Poetlister (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - A difficult one, but in the end I decided to support. The opposes concerns do not concern me too much, and many can be dealt with in time. I do not personally agree with all your RFA standards and some answers to the questions; but I think you overall have the right judgement for the position and you are continuously civil and helpful. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support per my general RFB criterion. However, based on concerns, I would encourage Useight to start slow on the controversial RFAs and focus on renames if this somehow passes. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
Sorry, just not ready yet. giggy (O) 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I'm very very sorry to do this. I'm only opposing you because I feel that you have the same level of experience as I do on Wikipedia, and I would oppose myself at the moment. You are an excellent editor, a conscientious admin, and overall, a superb contributor.  But it's too soon (regardless of WJBscribe's diff).  Sorry Useight, don't take it too personally, and try again in the future if 'cratship is what you are sincerely desiring.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Also per the time issue, sorry. - Dureo (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is why I dislike some wiki rules. Does the candle that burns twice as brigh have to wait a whole year before it is allowed to burn out? (not that I am implying he will burn out. Bad analogy)  Sexy  Sea   Bassist  00:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How exactly does time play a factor here considering Useight's longevity? It's just an arbitrary ad hoc criteria. Look at the answers to the questions and the contributions.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Nothing to do with time. Opposing because 1) our admin coaching philosophies clash strongly (note to self; update that esssay)—User:Red Thunder/Admin coaching is the best example of this. 2) answer to 6a; a 'crat heavily involved in admin coaching should never make a judgement call so related to the process. 3) Minor niggling; comments "such as "One of my favorite contributors", "Duh", or said nothing besides "Support"." are generally valid arguments in support; it's the AGF position and justification isn't inherently required.
 * I also disagree with numerous aspects of his User:Useight/RFA Standards. giggy (O) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Iridescent's comments in neutral summarise my views, even though we have reached a different conclusion. Dean B (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Base on answer to Q7. Give (in my view) undue weight to the "not exceedingly weighty" opposes while at the same time against similar supports. The question in an RFA is whether an editor can be trusted with the extra buttons. A support without all the extra explanations should be assumed to agree with the nominator and that the user doesn't find any reason not to trust. If there's concern that new information towards the end of a RFA is negatively affecting the outcome, especially for one that is "higher than the typical discretionary range", then perhaps the answer should be to wait a little bit longer. KTC (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to say anything to any of the opposers, but I had to say something here. Please note that Q7 said "assuming that you had closed it at the time of withdrawal". According to the question, extending the RFA was not an option. Useight (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I would interpret the question (yes I know it's not me that's standing here) to mean the scheduled ending time is past and you're coming to the RFA at that point. Either way, the second part of my opinion doesn't affect the first part of what I stated, and I am still personally uncomfortable with the answer. KTC (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Reluctantly. I appreciate your work here, but I feel this may be a little too early for you and I don't see much participation at the BN, CHU, CHU/U or CHU/SUL pages. Rudget   (Help?) 11:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It may seem a little crude, but when I first seen that Useight was at requests for bureaucratship, there was a little alarm set off in the back of my mind saying "Isn't this a little early, especially considering the low amount of participation in bureaucrat related areas?" and I have opposed, if you see above. Then I saw there was the application of question seven which seems to have brought about some 'debate' here, for want of a better word. I would like to note that I probably would not have promoted the respective candidate also, so therefore I was in the same boat as Useight, so to speak. Personally, I don't think a so called 'crat-chat' would have been needed, not least if the RfA had fulfilled it seven day criterion for any chance of being successful; with a large (and ever increasing) number of supporters switching sides after a new situation was brought to light by east, I highly doubt that if the RfA were to 'go the whole hog' then the numbers and seriousness of opposes would made it near-certain it wouldn't have been a successful attempt. However, as asked in the question on AGKs RfB (if it was to be withdrawn at this point, before 718's point was raised), then I, inversely, think that the RfA may have had a slight chance of passing. Clearly there was arguments coming from both sides; both for and against why the candidate should/shouldn't be promoted. With most users in the support rarely writing a full explanation of why they think the user should be made admin, then we can draw some conclusion that they have evaluated past experiences with the nomineee, endorse others comments or just the nomination(s). On the other hand, the oppose section did bring up some very relevant points which were to be considered, were the RfA to close without the incident which was later brought up, of course claims of 'irresponsibility' and alleged corruption are to be looked at seriously, but with only a handful supplying diffs and giving real explanations based on others or on their gut feelings, the others were cast with some dubiousness, in my opinion. At that point in time, I think the RfA would have passed. Regardless of the fact the nominee obtained a new record for RfAs or garnered some very serious comments in the oppose section, I feel that at 304/72/15 (the tally supplied in the link above) the percentage was around 80%. This constituting a promotion in my opinion, were the supporters to increase at a larger rate than those of the opposers. Others will probably disagree with this particular commentary and probably prevent any RfB I ever do in the next twelve months, but this is just my opinion. Rudget   (Help?) 17:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Giggy. I respect Useight, but from the comments here and answers to questions, it doesn't seem like he understands how to weigh !votes in an RfA correctly. The Support section is sort of the default category, where just your name being there is enough said. It means you trust the candidate. Wether you write up a 5 page essay on how much you like the guy, or just put Support, it means the same thing.-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 13:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I got my idea that comments with specific reasons listed instead of just a name would weigh more from the top of the main RFA page in the section called Expressing Opinions where it says, "Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence." I figured that applied to both the support and the oppose sections. Useight (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Switching to oppose per my neutral below and concern over the concept of assigning "weight" to comments made in RfAs. Ideas like that are maybe relevant in AFD and the like where we have applicable policies and guidelines, but RFA is completely subjective and people have the right to support and oppose as they please. Your analysis in that aspect seems a bit strange: What part of "One of my favourite users" (for example) indicates that the support is not based on sound reasoning? To me it implies they have prior positive experience with the candidate and thus are well placed to judge their abilities. Naerii - Talk 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I am pretty selective in who I "!vote" for cratship, and it is not so much that I find fault in Useight that I oppose, as it is that I am not tremendously impressed, which I feel I should be towards our bureaucrats. Prodego  talk  04:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose Sorry Useight, I agree with Rudget here. Just a little too soon, and I'd like to see some more participation in crat-related areas. GlassCobra 13:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Rudget - I am impressed by his attitude, so with some more time and experience he could become a perfect bureaucrat.  Vishnava talk  20:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I was on the edge on this one, but this comment, in which Useight commented on the situation before he fully understood it, drove me over the edge. That's only minor, though, as I share DHMO (yes, I'll still call him that after the rename)'s concerns. Regretfully, I oppose. Sorry. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Giggy and Rudget. The points that they have brought up, while I believe that you would be a capable bureaucrat, and one that I have respect for, makes it so that I cannot support you at this time.  You don't have much participation in the bureaucratic areas of this Wikipedia and I believe that it seems a little bit too early for you to be requesting bureaucraticship at this time.  While I think you might've passed if you had held this off for a few more months, I cannot support you at this time. Razor</b><b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b> 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I hate opposes based soley on not enough time on the project, so this is not that at all. You're a wonderful editor and admin, Useight. You really are. And I could possibly support you in the future. The issue is that you simply haven't been an admin for long enough that I could judge whether or not you'd make a successful 'crat in my eyes. I don't know if you've experienced enough for me to fully gauge your attitude & responses to all situations. So, in summary, I'm opposing at at the moment. Good luck though.  hmwith  τ   17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak oppose, the desire to help the project - and especially to pick up some slack in an area that definitely needs the attention - is greatly appreciated, the only issue is that you're just not quite ready yet. Probably an easy support in the near future. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 18:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Reluctant oppose Candidate appears to be very knowledgeable and have the best interests of the project in mind, but I agree with the whole "one year of admin service prior to RfB" thought.  I believe that I will be able to support in the future, should this attempt fail, but can not quite do so at this time. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) My thoughts now are quite similar to my thoughts at his first RFA last summer.  There's no magic threshold for time or edits or whatever, but in order to promote after such a short time I'd want to see evidence of really exceptionally good judgment.  I'm looking for more than just the absence of bad judgment.  Just too much of an unknown for me at this point. --JayHenry (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral
I would oppose but I can't be bothered to dig around to find a few iffy looking diffs I could claim was evidence of bad judgement. I don't think you'd make a great crat for a number of reasons, including experience, level of clue, etc, but you're probably well intentioned enough that you won't make a bad one. I don't like that you advocate using "crat chats" which (as I've said before) are pointless and useless - you just end up having to "interpret" the "consensus" of those crats and really, if you have to sit around and discuss whether consensus exists - it doesn't. And the fact that you participate in coaching doesn't sit too well with me either. Yeah. Naerii - Talk 22:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Back over here to neutral again. Recent discussion with Useight made me less concerned, but I can't necessarily give my support. Firmly on the fence :) Naerii - Talk 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can support this – I am somewhat worried that Useight may possibly be a little too "mathematical" and may be more interested in the numbers than the weight of the opinions. RfA should not be a vote and consensus is the key. What concerns me most is the gaming of RfA here, although it could be argued that Useight's knowing how "beat the system" means he is familiar with what the community expects and is in touch with current standards. From what I have seen elsewhere, he seems like a nice guy and there are no civility problems. He doesn't seem to be too much of a "social-networker sysop" or "career mandarin" and still contributes to improving the encyclopaedia. I'll sleep on this and hopefully will be able to support. Regards, EJF (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right on that first note, for sure. I'm definitely left-brained. I do love statistics and numbers. And that's great for figuring out how many games to bowl (by the way, I score the highest on my second game, statistically speaking), but isn't how I'd determine community consensus. I'm familiar enough with the inner workings of RFA to know that it's not a "Hey, you got 73% support, you pass!". However, I wasn't showing Razorflame how to "game RFA", but instead was sharing my knowledge of what kinds of experience levels are typically required at RFA. I'm fully aware that it's not the quantity, but the quality, as I was dinged many, many months ago on an unsuccessful RFA for having too many edits in which all I did was add a comma. Useight (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wavering somewhat. Although I strongly disagree with setting editors number targets in order to become an admin, and indeed encouraging editing to become an admin (rather than to help build the encyclopaedia) by coaching those whose aims appear to be adminship, Useight would be useful at CHU and would be a very helpful bureaucrat. I'm not too keen on the support of 'crat chats, but I wouldn't oppose over it. I did like the answer to Q7 - to me, a no consensus close would have been correct and proper, after having given due weight to all the arguments made. EJF (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to support. RfA is a discussion, and Useight is correct to give less weight to # ~ comments – comments should be weighed on substance, not reputation. A # ~ support by Jimbo Wales should be given less weight than a well-worded oppose rationale that provides diffs and evidence. EJF (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimbo is a bad example. A # ~  from someone with known high standards should be worth more than 3 paragraphs of "he has 299 wikipedia namespace edits, I demand 300" (another bad example, but do you get my drift?) giggy (O) 01:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't mean the rambling "this guy doesn't have 690 talk, 475 wikipedia space and 1245 mainspace edits, he won't be a good admin because this means... he also didn't support my pet policy proposal..." opposes. I would suggest that comments that are based simply in personal opinion have less worth than rationales that show evidence of lack of understanding of policy (diffs of declined SDs and AIV reports, poor AfD comments) or rationales that show good interactions while working with the candidate on a talk page; and that evidence-based rationales should be given more weight by the 'crats. I'm not sure that comments (or simply, a signature) by those who have supposedly "high standards" should be given a higher weight when the 'crats assess at the end of the RfA. This brings more personal opinion into the close, which should be a assessment to see if there is consensus, not a "he's got high standards, his support means that this candidate must be good – I think I'll promote him"; I'm strongly against the idea of any sort of "hierarchy in commenting" in the RfX process – "all opinions are equal, but some opinions are more equal than others" is something that should be steered away from. In many cases, an editor with 2000 edits may have a better idea of what adminship should be than someone with 30000 edits who sees adminship as a power that gives more leverage in discussion. The 'crats cannot know and will never know how much research a commenter has put in when he/she gives simply a personal opinion based on arbitrary standards – for all they know, the !voter may just have looked at the edit count on the talk page, whether they have a "good or "bad" !voting reputation. Regards, EJF (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree on some points, though I do find myself in disagreement on the "all opinions are equal, but some opinions are more equal than others" thing. I think that should be promoted, and while it doesn't form the basis of my vote in RfB (as opposing a candidate I ideologically disagree with, without any other justification, would fall under aspects of the above comment that I agree with—in short, my vote would have little value), it does play a part in it. Anyways, this was an interesting discussion, so thanks for that. :-) giggy (O) 02:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I find myself in the (unique to me, I think) position of agreeing with Naerii. While I don't think at all that you'll make a bad crat, I don't at the moment think you'll make a particularly good one. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that the crat area you'll participate in the most is RFA, and that's the one crat area I don't really trust you yet in; I've seen you and me on the opposite sides in too many RFAs. (struck out per this conversation) As N says, "if you have to sit around and discuss whether consensus exists, it doesn't". I also don't really like the whole concept of admin coaching (as opposed to new admin training) - RFA is a test of trustworthiness, and I don't think that's something that can be taught. However, nothing I see is reason to oppose at the moment, and I'm more than willing to be persuaded either way. —   iride  scent  00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I, too, initially thought I'd spend more time at RFA, but after getting to know CHU, I think I'd be spending more time over there actually. How many times have I checked out RFA and saw some RFAs that had finished and needed 'crat closing? Not nearly as often as I see username requests waiting to be fulfilled. I'll definitely be available to help out on both sides, and I'm not going to disappear from WT:RFA or from participating in RFAs, and I do plan to close RFAs, but I think CHU could use my help more. Useight (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I do not count experiance by number of vandals blocked, number of pages protected, or even how many months of service or contributions. I count experiance on a user's attitude to becoming a bureaucrat and trustworthiness as an admin, which this user evidently shows. I would support, but your attitude as an contributor, with IMO not enough contributions in the mainspace for your time at wikipedia, and as a coach and RFA voter, of which some of my views differ. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Good user, but too new in terms of administrative tools yet. Wizardman  01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral at this time. I've got an enormous amount of respect for Useight as an editor and admin. However with less than 700 admin actions made so far I'd says this RfB is just too soon. To qualify that, it's not "admin edit counting" as such but my judgement based also on tenure and absorbtion into the gritty underbelly of adminship. Having said that, there's no pressing reason to doubt Useight's judgement, so neutral it is. Sorry. Pedro : Chat  09:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral a bit too soon. The concerns in the oppose section don't worry me too much, and I'm sure they'll be addressed with time. On another note, I'm surprised by the lack of interest this RfB is drawing. PeterSymonds (talk)  10:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Per Pedro et al. I don't want to say that you cannot be trusted as a bcrat now, but I think that more time under your belt as an admin in all areas would be helpful. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.