Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Haukurth

message: I strongly request you discount any votes not related to this users ability and discretion towards future admin duties. I think it is very important that the adminship process not be politically motivated, and that no admin candidates be turned down based on their views, rather than their character and actions. Thank you,
Sam Spade 00:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to the matter of Amalekite: voters have various ways to arrive at a conclusion. Haukurth has taken an unpopular position in a very controversial debate, and some editors feel this exhibits lack of judgement - and judgement is just what one needs as an admin, ranging from vandalism patrol to mediation tasks. I urge the bureaucrat to treat all bona fide votes with equal weight. JFW | T@lk 00:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I. A vote based on ones stance regarding a controversial matter is not bone fide. Its not a vote for adminship, its a partisan witch hunt.Sam Spade 01:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a question of judgment, Sam, not political views. I thought he showed poor judgment over the Alex Linder issue. You disagree and that's fine. I also think he has shown poor judgment in confronting people who voted against him, both here and on other talk pages, and in fact it was his discussions with opponents elsewhere that called attention to the nomination; that was not good judgment given that he should be on his best behavior during a nomination. I feel it was poor judgment getting a family member to set up a user account in order to vote for him. And he has just said that his wife has "contributed through him," so now I'm wondering whether that means more than one person was using his account. Those are the main issues for me, Sam, and they go to the heart of how he might act as an admin. Less pressing issues, but still relevant, are that he doesn't seem to have involved himself in any admin-related activity, and that he has very few edits for someone who has contributed for so long. These are all legitimate reasons to oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to my wife's user page you'll understand what I mean by contributing through me - she has taken several niced pictures which I've uploaded through my account. At no point has she used my account directly. I currently have 3042 edits and almost all of them are this year, when I started contributing for real. I did not get a family member to set up a user account to vote for me. Getting an account was entirely Arndís's idea and I warned her against it. I have had strong criticism directed at me during the course of this RFA and I have answered it. I've tried my best to be conciliatory while doing so. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 05:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  I disagree with you when you say that Haukur "he has shown poor judgment in confronting people who voted against him". I agree that it often is considered poor form to defend yourself too much on your RfAr. However, there have been a couple of times when I've tried to advocate on his behalf, but you've very clearly expressed that you want to know what Haukur himself thought, and not the opinion of one of his supporters. You said, "I'm happy to debate with Haukur on this page about his views, because it's his nomination" and "Matt, could you please let Haukur respond here, because his views are the only ones that matter". I think it's also important to point out that Haukur has answered people with — what seems to me — incredible restraint and politeness, given what people have charged him with. I think very few Wikipedia admins would have kept their cool so well (but don't let that fool you -- I'm sure that Haukur is a lot more hurt and angry about this than one might infer from his responses). — Matt Crypto 17:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: While I believe that many of the oppose votes are unfair — and I agree entirely with your second sentence, Sam —I don't think bureaucrats should discount them. Many have argued the point that Haukurth's judgment is under question here, and that's their right. People are entitled to their opinions, while we, of course, are entitled to persuade them that they have miscalculated. — Matt Crypto 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to Bureaucrat 

message: Many people have argued that Haukur should not be an admin because his arguments and convictions in respect to the Amalekite case show that he lacks judgment. However, even some of those people who oppose him have gone on to say that "it isn't that I don't trust you not to abuse admin tools" or "Yes, my strong opposition is based on the position you took, not on anything you've done...As for normal admin duties, I do find you capabale." and "in terms of "normal" admin duties...Haukurth enjoys my complete confidence". So, my question is: in what ways do people believe that Haukur would abuse his admin powers if he had them? Is it just that he would fail to act? What is the potential for harm to Wikipedia that comes from his "lack of judgment" here?
Bad judgment alone isn't a sufficient criterion for opposition, in my view. For example, we would have a problem if people start opposing along the lines of "Oppose. Voted for George Bush, shows severe lack of judgment" or "Oppose. Wastes too much time on IRC, shows lack of judgment" etc. But the essential question is, of course, does Haukur's judgment regarding the blocking of Amalekite affect in any way his ability to carry out admin duties without abusing his position? Given Haukur's statements on this, I think it's obvious that it does not. I would just like to hear what Haukur's opponents fear he would do wrong as an admin, as this has not really been made explicit. — Matt Crypto 17:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt, there is a difference between poor judgement outside of Wikipedia and that has nothing to do with Wikipedia or Wikipedians (of which we may not be aware, and which we cannot control) and poor-judgement within Wikipedia.  People are concerned about the second kind of poor judgement. Being a sysop is a strange thing.  It is and should be the role of a janitor or house-cleaner, doing a lot of menial maintenance work.  Nevertheless, it gives people powers they can easily abuse (I learned this the hard way, as I once abused my powers, although unintentionally; people caught my mistake quickly and I was able to reverse it, but it was a lesson to me in being careful).  Moreover, like it or not, for some people the position (or "title") gives someone extra cache and prestige.  No one wants to ban Haukur from Wikipedia.  Let him continue to contribute, make edits, revert vandalism — all the things any Wikipedian can do.  Based on his own comments on the voting page, I just have too many concerns about his judgement to give him any more authority.  Perhaps over time my view of his judgement will change.  Look, it looks like he will be made sysop and I can only beg him to take my comments and those of others like me to heart.  But let's say the vote changes.  He can still contribute, and petition or be nominated to be sysop later. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but could you outline more specifically what you think he might do? Note that Haukur has said he's not interested in using the admin blocking powers. Still, as a subject specialist, I've found that being able to do certain page moves, delete pages and revert vandalism using rollback to be very useful indeed, and I'm unsure why people would want to deny this to Haukur just because of the Amalekite controversy. — Matt Crypto 18:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Judgment -- consequences?