Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Haukurth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Haukurth

Final (56/26/0) ended 20:19 November 2nd (UTC)

Haukurth (talk · contribs) – Haukurth is one of those contributors who dedicate themselves to maintaining the quality of a certain field on Wikipedia, and in Haukurth's case it is Norse mythology, where he not only creates and expands articles, but also checks existing articles for errors. He has been with us since 2003-07-22 and since many users feel that edit counts is what counts, he has 2862 edits. Some will probably feel that this is not much for such a long time user, but he puts a lot of work on checking primary and secondary sources in order to maintain accuracy, and he has written Hrafnkels saga, a featured article. This is clearly a case of quality before quantity and he is a user I would trust with admin powers.Wiglaf 20:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I gratefully accept the nomination. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, since I am nominating him.--Wiglaf 20:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. KHM03 22:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, an authority in Norse matters, great contributor and Wikipedian. Shauri smile! 22:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. I know this editor personally and I am certain that he will be a dedicated and reliable admin. I also think the history of his actions on Wikipedia recommend him highly. Edinborgarstefan 22:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. –Hajor 23:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Good at what he does.--Sean Black | Talk 23:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support freestylefrappe 00:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support We really need people who work in a peteculiar field and improve it dramatically its a lot better than a guy who checks 50 pages a day for grammatical errors or for linking. Patman2648 | Talk 17:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support Quality work, veteran user, absolutely trustworthy. Xoloz 02:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support Oran e (t) (c) (@) 02:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support --Rogerd 03:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. --Uppland 05:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Baad 07:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support Christopher Parham (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support much needed type of editor. Dlyons493 Talk 10:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. --Kefalonia 11:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Patman2468 needs to be nicer to the WikiGnomes, though. Proto t c 13:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. —thames 13:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Not much quantity, but certainly quality. The Minister of War 14:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support Molotov (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. FireFox 17:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support Johann Wolfgang 18:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support, seems to definitely be worth of sysop rights. This editor will be a welcome addition to Wikipedia's administrative team, no doubt. --Sn0wflake 22:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Support. Wiglaf picks good people for admins generally, and this is no exception. Hrafnkel's Saga is one of the best Wikipedia articles in my opinion, and his other contributions have been excellent. Given the quality of his edits the short tenure should not stand against him.--Briangotts (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC) I regret that I must change my vote to Neutral. The Amalekite matter has been brought to my attention and I've reviewed the materials from that incident. Haukurth's edits, as I said, are impeccable, but the Amalekite incident gives me pause. I note that Haukurth's reply to folks that have brought this up have been polite and that he proposes to adhere to the majority view that Amalekite's actions and actions like them put users at risk and merit a ban. Had he not done so, I would be voting a strong oppose. But Haukurth continues (it seems to me) to adhere to the view that Amalekite's actions did not put anyone in danger (See his response to User:Guettarda, to wit: "3. I did not think the list in question qualified as such a threat, though it was clearly in very poor taste.") This seems to me very poor judgment and I am uncomfortable with the thought of how he will handle similar incidents in the future. To me posting a list of "Jews and their accomplices" to a Neo-Nazi website borders on common-law assault. I certainly do not intend to insinuate any bad faith, anti-Semitism, Neo-Nazism, or any other nefarious motive to Haukurth, only that, in my view, his assertions are the result of bad judgment on this particular topic. I change my vote regretfully because I do think Haukurth has made invaluable contributions to Wikipedia, and I hope he continues to do so whatever the outcome of this vote. --Briangotts (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support, Wiglaf's endorsement is usually enough to convince me. But Haukurth's contributions, in quality and quantity, seal the deal this time.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. --JAranda | watz sup 06:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Looks like a fine candidate. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support happily. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. — JIP | Talk 09:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. I thought $USER was already an admin. - David Gerard 16:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. Maintains friendly banter while revert-warring. Kolokol 17:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support, changed vote, I don't know what's going on, but I just don't really remember doing the vote on this. I think I was thinking about a different user when I did this. You should be an admin, you'll do just fine. Private Butcher 21:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support--nixie 23:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support --Bjarki 00:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. From what I've seen, Haukurth argues patiently, politely and rationally, even in the face of unpleasant opposition. A user with this disposition cannot go far wrong with adminship. Frankly, I think the "oppose" votes based on the Amalekite affair are a little petty (politics, yuck), and not relevant to this adminship. While not wishing to dig all that up again, Haukurth was opposing a ban which seemed to have — at the beginning — been imposed outside of the provisions of banning policy. For Haukurth to have argued that admins should act according to policy is a tendency we should encourage in admins, and is certainly not a sign of bad judgement. — Matt Crypto 17:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    It's not petty, nor am I familliar with the candidate's political orientation. I feel very strongly against the position he (and Matt Crypto and Steve Vertigo) took, enough to oppose strongly as a form of protest (which I am entitled to), and I've never cast an oppose vote before. And it isn't as if his nomination wasn't secured upon either our oppose votes having been cast. El_C 23:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) — and just to counter-answer (myself?), yes, I do try to keep the flip-side in mind. El_C 00:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    It does look petty to me, particularly after your unpleasant and very unfair remarks at the time: "Sometimes you just have to call a Spade an open task. And that most definitely goes for SteveV, Haukurth, Un-Focused, and Lisa S ... I just want to express, in the clearest possible terms, how revolted I have been with your unmistaken agenda, one which seems about as far from goodfaith as is imaginable, in order to advance your un-principled point." Wikipedia talk:Blocking_policy#Discreditable_agenda. Haukurth's calm, civil and reconciliatory response to this is a model for admins (and Wikipedians in general) to follow, and is a strong argument in favour of his suitability for adminship. — Matt Crypto 18:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    If after expressing my words so strongly, as you cite, MC, my protest here seems petty (and no, I wasn't impressed with Haukurth passive-agressive, largely condescending remarks, as thoughtfuly as they may have been expressed as per appearence of goodfaith —i.e. he did not lose his cool as you did, MC), then my original comments regarding your aforementioned insensitivity (or what otherwise seems to me as wordlawyering, psuedo-sensitivity) just got reaffirmed ten fold. You really think this is the propper venue to carry this conversation to its logical conclusion? Are you even interested in doing so? Last we spoke, you were no longer interested in speaking to me. Up to you. El_C 16:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    I judged then, as now, that discussing such things with you any further would serve no useful purpose. I comment here only to speak up for Haukurth, and the discussion linked to above vindicates him well enough. I have simply assumed that your nastiness about this stems from your hatred for neo-nazism, and that unfortunates like myself and Haukurth are caught in the cross-fire because we don't seem to hate correctly. I'm truly sorry that you don't seem unable to understand how someone could — out of sincere conviction and good faith — defend a user who seemed to be treated unfairly, even a user with extreme and obnoxious views, but it's ultimately your loss, and I see little point in trying at length to persuade you. — Matt Crypto 17:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    Well, you've done much more than that, or shall we take this yet further? What counts as persuasuion versus rhetoric seems a fine line now as it was then. As for your assumptiveness regarding what I was/am driven by ("hating correctly," and so on; not to mention assumptiveness that I even hate, to begin with!), that reflects poorly on you, I challenge. It was hardly "being caught in the cross-fire," and the nastyness of your words —and actions— throughout the entire affair does not even come close in comparing to my harshness during that specific exchange. I, as well, see little useful purpose is discussing any of this further with you (which is regrettful, and ultimately may not only be only your loss, but possibly also others as a result of which, in the future), but since I'm pressed to set the record straight... El_C 17:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    Be that as it may, it is not petty to believe that people should have the good judgement to see that a threat to a user, even off Wikipedia, is something that the community needs to respond to as best we can. The bigger Wikipedia gets, the more attention it attracts. I would be happy to use my real name, but I wouldn't because I could see some of the things I have written putting my family at risk - a very slim chance, but a chance nonetheless. If we want people to keep editing we need to realise that these things poison the atmosphere in here, and we need to realise how important it is to do whatever we can. Someone who cannot see that displays very poor judgement. And it's poor judgement, not malicious action, that lands good users in trouble. Guettarda 15:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    It occurs to me that our disagreement may have its roots in different conceptions of what constitutes danger. I am Haukur Þorgeirsson. To the best of my knowledge I am (currently) the only person ever to have that combination of name and patronymic. It won't take a private eye to find out details about my life. For ten years I've participated in all sorts of discussions on the Internet under my own name. I don't think this constitutes danger to my person. Posting Wikipedia user names to web forums does not strike me as putting anyone in danger in the general case. Posting a list of "Zionist" Wikipedians to Stormfront, asking people to counteract their "bias" does not strike me as putting anyone in danger. Stormfront is the Diet-Coke of anti-semitism and the post itself didn't call for persecution of anyone - in fact it called for any recruits to respect Wikipedia's rules and the neutral point of view. When it came to light that the same post had been made to Alex Linder's personal "news" page and that User:Amalekite seemed, in fact, to be Alex Linder himself then I'm willing to up the danger level somewhat. When someone argues that Jews should be killed on his site and also posts a list of people (well, usernames) he implies are Jews on the same site then that's getting rather nasty, even if the immediate context is actions within an online encyclopedia. There's arguably a roundaboutish incitement to violence there and the case arguably falls under the "Personal attacks which place users in danger" clause. I personally think that the danger is very small indeed - someone wanting to harm prominent Jews would probably not start with Wikipedia editors - and that a block on Wikipedia does nothing to remedy that danger (though it may have some other value), but I doubt I would have objected strongly to User:Amalekite's ban if it had been argued like this from the beginning. In fact I stopped objecting strongly to it once those facts had come to light. I still think there were probably better ways to deal with this but I don't fault anyone for wanting a ban. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    Poor judgement that leads to inappropriate inaction in an admin is orders of magnitude less of a problem than poor judgement that leads to inappropriate action — there will always be such a surplus of overeager admins who will block first, ask questions later, that we're safe in that regard. — Matt Crypto 17:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support Good man. Gryffindor 21:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  39. Extreme Loki > Thor Support. User checks out good and I like what I see. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. I also strongly support Matt Crypto's and Haukurth's point of view in the block controversy. I believe the blocked user was respecting policy and acted in good faith. — David Remahl 01:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    If that pov, that the the blocked user was respecting policy and acted in good faith, wasn't limited to a tiny minority of people, I would leave the project for good. El_C 02:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Wow. Chilling. I agree with El_C. Guettarda 04:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Since I haven't had a chance to take part in this discussion before, I feel I must defend myself briefly here; I apologize that the forum is not the most appropriate. I could point to any number of times that wikipedians have compiled lists of users whose conduct they believe should be tracked more closely by a special interest group. It's often frowned-upon, I don't like it either, but seldom considered a lethal offense. From what I've seen, I have no reason to suspect that the blocked user wasn't sincere in hir belief that there was Jewish bias in Wikipedia (a belief I don't generally share). Thus, sie was acting in good faith. We must put faith into the principle of NPOV and the wiki's ability to self-heal, or Wikipedia is doomed to fall prey to fringe groups sooner or later. I stand by my view that it is unfortunate that a user is discriminated against because sie holds a POV not shared by the majority. For the record, I am ideologically about as far away from neo-nazism as can be. (Economic Left/Right: -7.38, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74) — David Remahl 10:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Excerpted: No Jewish editor should have to defend editorial work to —and engage in discussions on these with— editors who profess that they should be killed for genetic reasons. Not to mention after having made it well-known in holding that position and attempted to organize the like-minded via a hit list (real risk) at worse, and (most definitely) a hate list, at best. If that's respecting policy and act[ing] in good faith — I'm out. El_C 15:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Why not? If the editor in question follows our rules and policies, and avoids hate speech and such like, I don't see a problem. I would be perfectly happy to work alongside an extremist Muslim who thought all Westerners should be purged in some Jihad, as long as they fulfilled the conditions mentioned above (unlikely, of course). People who A) hold extreme beliefs, yet B) are willing to follow our rules and interact positively, have the potential to be a great asset to Wikipedia, as they can help us write a better NPOV encyclopedia. Obviously, in practice few fanatics and extremists would make good encyclopedia editors, but to argue that they should be excluded from Wikipedia a priori is both offensive and bigoted. — Matt Crypto 16:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    I also find it troubling that Haukur and Matt have to argue at length, on this page and elsewhere, with everyone who opposes the nomination. Aren't people allowed to disagree? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Absolutely. There is probably a lot of extraneous discussion spilling out over the issues in the original debate. It should be taken to another page, though. — Matt Crypto 18:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  41. Strong Support his honest opposition to a wrongful yet popular and "feel good" block despite the powerful clique lobbying for it was a breath of fresh air, giving me a renewed respect for the wikipedia and those who edit it. If he isn't admin material, no one is. Sam Spade 21:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  42. Strong Support. Haukurth has not only proven to be willing to defend his views politely and completely in the face of withering criticism, and unlike several others here, he's also been very consistent in his view that adminship grants him no super special judgement powers to permanently ban or unban someone without a full discussion of all the issues involved. His repeated expression of willingness to defer to the consensus view on Wikipedia is proof that he's already better at this than anyone could reasonably be expected to be in order to qualify for adminship. Regarding the Amalekite issue, there is absolutely no excuse to deny adminship to someone for arguing their views politely and fully, as long as they've proven willing to yield to consensus in the end, which is exactly what Haukurth did. Modesty in use of power, even in the hypothetical case, is to be commended. Further, no single admin or admin candidate can ever be held responsible for being proactive in blocking an "Amalekite2"; whichever admin first finds the threat to be credible will make the initial block, and then we'll have our discussion starting there. We cannot deny adminship on the hypothetical that he wouldn't be the first. It is foolish to deny adminship based upon a hypothetical situation as if he would be the only admin on Wikipedia because we've never demanded admins all hold a single view on blocking; in fact, I thought (until I saw some of the opposition on this RfA) that we encouraged them to think for themselves... Unfocused 22:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. I firmly believe in (and have personally witnessed!) this user's devotion to Wikipedia, its quality and neutrality. Arndisdunja 22:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Note: User account created less than two hours ago. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    And here I thought you wikipedians didn't care how you aquired active users, as long as you got them? :) I assure you, I'm no sockpuppet.Arndisdunja 22:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Indeed. And if you click on the username you'll also realize that User:Arndisdunja is, in fact, my wife (hence the comment about her personal observance of my Wikipedia activites). She asked me whether she could start an account and express her support for me here. I told her that would be considered puppetry and wouldn't do me or the project any good - since only bona fide contributors vote in these discussions. It then turned out that she'd been thinking about starting an account to work on some writer's articles she finds sorely missing. Make of it what you will and please be kind to the newbie - as Michael has now been :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Although subject to the normal discounting, I presume her comment is sincere.  ;-) Welcome, Arndisdunja, I hope you're as polite and thoughtful as your spouse. Unfocused 22:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    With respect, it makes no difference who it is, because no one has any way of knowing: all we can know is that it's not an established editor. A vote from a two-hour old account seems inappropriate to me, but it'll be up to the bureaucrats whether to count it or not. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    I ask you to assume good faith. She is who she says it is or both of us or lying. What other explanation is even possible? That I created a sockpuppet and pretend, of all things, that it's my wife? A large part of your case for the block on User:Amalekite hinges on your (almost certainly correct) assumption that User:Amalekite is in fact Alex Linder. The evidence that User:Arndisdunja is in fact my wife, Arndís, is about as overwhelming. As an experienced admin I would have thought that you, of all people, would take care to assume good faith and welcome a new and well-intentioned (if somewhat naive) contributor rather than insinuating that she is a liar. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    You missed my point, Haukurth. I'm not suggesting anyone is being dishonest. I'm saying that it's inappropriate for someone to set up a user account in order to vote in an RfA. Admins are meant to be elected by people who are already part of the community. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    I'm glad that you don't mean to imply anyone is being dishonest. I take it that your comment "no one has any way of knowing" is not, contrary to my initial impression, meant to mean that there is doubt as to whether she is telling the truth or not. No harm done, then. Commenting on this RfA was one reason Arndís wanted to get an account (after having contributed anonymously and through me for months) but it was not the only one, as she notes on her user page. The bureaucrat will of course discount any support votes she finds inappropriate, if that matters at this point. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 01:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    Could you say what your wife has contributed as when she edited anonymously; and when you say she contributed "through" you, do you mean more than one person was using your account? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    No, I do not. I mean she took several nice pictures which I uploaded - as she says on her user page. I don't know the extent of Arndís's anonymous contribution - I think she mostly fixed the odd typo through whatever IP she happened to be on at the moment. I'm not saying she's a long-standing member of the community or that her vote should necessarily count. I'm just trying to set the record straight. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 05:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. To me, Haukurth's stand on the Amalekite issue is an extremely good reason to support him becoming an admin. We need more admins like Haukurth who think about the issues and are ethically responsible. Donama 23:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC) (not my username at the time of the Amalekite block)
  45. Support. I believe one's vote at RFA should be based entirely on one's belief as to the user's future behavior as an admin. Nothing I have seen or heard (even reading all the below) gives me any indication that User:Haukurth will abuse admin functions. Voting as a 'protest vote' because of a user's opinions and arguments is against the spirit of this, IMO. —Morven 01:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support. Free speech for everyone, including Nazis. I also defend your right to knock them down for it, pace Johnson. The rules apply equally to everyone, including Nazis. Anything else is a step down the path to their world, and I don't want that. I'm astonished to see some of the names of those who do. I don't think Amalekite made a threat, although I can understand that some found his list threatening. It's alarming though that we are to have a political test for editors, although again it's understandable that some want it. I don't feel it's fair that Haukur should be denied adminship though because he made a spirited defence of what he takes to be the values of Wikipedia. It's very sad that he is opposed for disagreeing with other editors but that's how it is here. You go with the herd or you're punished, and we're calling that "consensus" these days. Grace Note 02:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support, seems to be a reasonable candidate for adminship. JYolkowski // talk 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support. His stand on the Nazi blocking issue was a sign of integrity. It takes a lot of integrity to defend someone you disagree with and whose views you find repugnant for the sake of fairness. Everyking 04:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support based entirely on the observation that the nominee has kept a level head and pleasant attitude in the face of criticism and provokation on this page. He appears to respect Wikipedia policy and a NEUTRAL point of view in Wikipedia, despite clearly having his own POV (as do we all). --Scott Davis Talk 07:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support. Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-1 07:10</small
  51. Support. --Clay Collier 11:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support. -- DS1953 talk 15:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support. Eth and thorn are English, and the blocking issue discussed below is a matter of valid difference of opinion, hardly poor judgment. Chick Bowen 18:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  54. Suppport It's his coolness under fire that impresses me. He argues his views reasnably enough, though I don't entirely agree with him. Borisblue 20:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support - The wikicliques are opposed to this one in near unison, so he must be doing something right! Rangerdude 04:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    If other people share Guettarda and myself's protest, this does not automatically make them the clique you and SS keep pointing out is out there. Feel free to substantiate beyond the anectodal "philosophy" on your user page; that is, with evidence); or not, up to you. I would be interested to learn which clique a true corenrstone Wikipedian such as Danny belongs to, for ex. Your insensitivity here, with your vote comment ("!" etc.), speaks voumes about your conduct overall. And I will be submitting the above as evidence of your continued belligerence against other editors on your current RfAr. As for the ssuggestion to discount my vote, if that happens I will most definitely be leaving the project for good. Moreover, had it not been for the candidate and his allies (with friends like that...) vehemence of responses here, I doubt many would have noticed much of this. But the allies (of his position; not clique) —one of whom described yesterday my conduct as Nazi-like— then the candidate himself, could not resist digging deep, beyond the mere surface, into the wound. Rather, they seemed compelled to take it yet further. The AGF guideline should not be used as a generic diplomatic immunity. Thus, again, they reaped what they sowed. Much like in the mailing-list discussion or blocking policy one, the ability to know when to restate one's position and then back down without endless repetitions and already-heard reiterations, that was crucial then as it was now (in your case, too). But it requieres a certain measure of sensitivity (which I maitain was highly lacking and remains so) wrt to consensus ("per any given timeframe," throughout the course of any heated exchange, vis.a.vis clear consensus). As the support votes promoting HÞ's position in that debate pile up, so does my faith in WP diminishes — in spades. El_C 11:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    Submit "evidence" of whatever you like, El_C, but I seriously doubt the Arbcom will have much interest in what amounts to little more than a complaint that I voted differently than you desire on requests for adminship, as is my right. Behavior such as your comment above and those of all your buddies in the RfAr demonstrate the deep-seated extent of the Wikipedia clique problem. You do not simply voice positions on articles and namespace debates in tandem, but rather you actively work to quiet dissent, be it through berating another user for voting differently than yourself, harassing editors who oppose your favored positions or candidates, or voting down an RfC because it exposes bad behavior on the part of one of your own. It's all part of the same and it all demonstrates a remarkable intolerance of dissenting viewpoints on your part, hence your need to gang up upon anybody who breaks from the direction you desire to take wikipedia. If you consider Haukurth "insensitive" or whatever you're calling him, then by all means cast your vote against him! Just understand that others will disagree, and don't attack other people for exercising their voting rights and coming to a conclusion different from your own. I reviewed the comments in the "oppose" section and found them to come mostly from a group of editors who I do not hold in very high esteem and do not consider to be credible in their representation of events on wikipedia. I also reviewed Haukurth's responses to those complaints and found them more or less reasonable, hence my conclusion to support. Rangerdude 17:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    You, El C, are a fine one to talk about "endless repetitions and already-heard reiterations" and "insensitivity". I can honestly say that I have never before heard anyone say or write such hypocritical comments as you have induldged in, both here and in the Amalekite debate, and never before have I seen a worse violation of "Assume Good Faith" as your comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. — Matt Crypto 17:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    We shall see what the community and the committee has to say on Matt Crypto's Nazi-like exclamations against myself and his many, many other insults. Rangerdude, I already cast my first oppose vote ever, here, on 28 Oct. But I'm not interested in speaking to either of you further at this time, especially Matt Crypto, who has and continues to play the absolute worse role in this entire affair, beginning with his insensitive unblock and continuing indefinitely. As I said, Haukurth would be likely an admin already had it not been for Matt Crypto's endless provocations. A fine one. El_C 19:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    I scarce need remind you, El C, that it was you who started with the insults and incivility on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy completely without provocation, unless it was the "provocation" of the intellectual stance of various editors which angered you; and you have yourself continued with insults and incivility, as is usually the case in emotive discussions when people trade hostile comments. Therefore, I'm unconvinced that the opinion of the community and committee (I presume you mean the Arbitration Committee) would necessarily fall in your favour, should you decided upon such a course. Regardless, I apologise unreservedly for calling your conduct "Nazi-like", which was spoken in the heat of anger, and for my numerous incivilities in the course of this debate — there is never an excuse for personal attacks. I do think you should have reciprocated my attempt to reconcile our differences when I went to your talk page to do so — it would have saved much unpleasantness. And, while I do think there remain some very problematic points with your vote here, and with your evaluation and commentary on the motives and good faith of those who advocated for Amalekite, I have no intention of being the one to press you on them. — Matt Crypto 22:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  56. Although it's a little late to do so, a reading of the sincere and deeply held votes of opposition, with which however I strongly disagree, convinces me that I should support this candidate. He is entitled to his views on orthography, with which I disagree. I find myself in agreement with his moderate approach to the amalekite affair and I think this shows a man who can trust his own judgement and remain true to it in the face of opposition. I don't see many strong admin candidates these days; this is one of the few. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Pushes page moves to non-English titles with non-English letters. Has too much of an agenda to have article names conform to ancient, non-English spellings. Not willing to give him admin powers to move pages. CDThieme 17:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for commenting, CDThieme. As I note below I have no intention of abusing admin options to force my way in naming disputes. And even if I tried such an attempt would be doomed to fail. Wikipedia has enough checks and balances to ensure that an admin violating consensus cannot have his way in the long run. I appreciate that people feel differently (and often strongly) on the representation of non-English names. I think we need to move away from a winner-takes-all mentality in those disputes. Listing all possible anglicizations and providing pronunciation information is my current strategy for trying to please as many people as possible in the field of Norse mythology names. See the Höðr article for an example. We've also been developing a template called "foreignchar" to provide information on Latin alphabet characters not used in English. I hope you'll be able to work on projects like that with us to develop broadly acceptable solutions. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    This is not Haukurth's policy, but a general agreement among those users who actually contribute to articles on Norse mythology. I find it very disconcerting when people POV-push against non-English characters when the English language uses the Latin alphabet, an alphabet enriched with additional letters for different languages. It speaks for itself that when you or anyone else has wanted to purge an article title of non-English characters it has failed miserably in the votes.--Wiglaf 17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Just to comment, I fully support his position on this matter. --Sn0wflake 22:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Well, in some (I even think, most) of the cases, the correct spelling of the name uses non-English characters. I'm not sure if Anglosaxons know this, but in Nordic languages, non-accented and accented letters are different letters and substituting one for the other changes the meaning. I wouldn't be writing Kuinka monta näistä haluat (how many of these do you want) as Kuinka monta naista haluat (how many women do you want) just because 99.999% of Wikipedians are Anglosaxons. — JIP | Talk 09:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose on account of the Amalekite/Stormfront issue - I cannot support a user for adminship who does not seem to see the need for Wikipedia to be proactive in protecting editors against off-Wikipedia threats based on their Wikipedia activities. Off-Wikipedia actions which could amount to physical harm being done to editors is grounds for perma-blocking. If you can't see that a neo-nazi posting a "hit list" of Jewish Wikipedians to a neo-nazi board as deserving of sanction, I don't think you have the judgement to be an admin. Guettarda 04:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for commenting. To clarify my positions: 1. I do think that in exceptional cases off-Wikipedia actions qualify for remedies within Wikipedia. 2. I do think Wikipedians should be protected against off-Wikipedia threats to the extent possible. 3. I did not think the list in question qualified as such a threat, though it was clearly in very poor taste. 4. I believe banning is generally an ineffective strategy against this type of problem-user and, in this case, did nothing to ameliorate any supposed real life threats. 5. I have no intention of unblocking User:Amalekite if the community trusts me with adminship. 6. I understand that people can legitimately and in good faith feel differently than I do about this issue. 7. When I'm clearly in the minority I am willing to defer to the majority opinion, as I indicated in my last e-mail on this subject [1]. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 06:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for re-affirming my decision. If you don't see that posting on Stormfront as a danger, you show a serious lack of judgement. I don't think you're a bad person, the thought of you unblocking Amalekite never even crossed my mind. It's a matter of trusting your judgement - past experience says I shouldn't, and your present comments say that my past impression is still valid. Guettarda 11:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    The post Ian is talking about had a list of Wikipedia user names which User:Amalekite thought of as belonging to a "Zionist cabal" on Wikipedia. His proposal was for the readers of the "white nationalist" forum he posted on to monitor the edits of said users and counter what he perceived as their bias. The post was clearly silly, semi-delusional and in very bad taste - I don't contest any of that. The only thing I don't think is accurate is that the post represented a real life danger to the people behind the Wikipedia user names. At no time did Amalekite suggest in any way that action should be taken against the people outside of Wikipedia. He didn't even suggest that it was possible to identify the real people involved. He was only talking about action within Wikipedia. But even if this list of user names constituted danger to the people involved, and I don't think it did, then permanently banning User:Amalekite did absolutely nothing to counter that danger. Seeing that many people had expressed their concerns I personally wrote to a moderator at the Stormfront forums and asked him to remove the post in question. I never got a reply, though. You recently wrote to the mailing list: "RFA is really a matter of posing the question to the community - do we trust this person not to abuse admin tools." I'm sad that you don't trust me not to abuse admin tools, but thank you for expressing your thoughts. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Actually this is a break from my normal standard - it isn't that I don't trust you not to abuse admin tools, it isn't that I bear you any personal animosity - I just feel like I don't trust your judgement. I do agree that blocking Amalekite did nothing to curb his off-Wikipedia behaviour. But something this serious cannot simply be ignored. And, posting a list of "prominent Jews" to a neo-nazi forum in a thread which calls for breaking the power of this Zionist cabal over Wikipedia is a threat of physical harm. I don't understand how you can't see that, but I accept that you don't. Hence my vote, despite the fact that I feel no personal animosity to you. Guettarda 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    I never said that Amalekite's post should be ignored. My position was that it did not merit an immediate permanent ban, which wouldn't do any good anyhow. I would have been fine with any alternative remedy as I stated in the discussion. [2] There was no explicit threat of physical harm and the implied threat-by-context you suggest seems miniscule to me. Many people agreed with me on that, including people on the list, admins and at least one member of the arbitration committee [3]. I appreciate that you (and many others) feel differently and I don't particularly feel that means you have poor judgment. As the case evolved more information came forward and none of it was in Amalekite's favor. Those supporting the permanent ban also made several good points I hadn't thought of myself. This meant that at the end of the case my position on the ban had somewhat watered down. I still felt that it was unwarranted but I felt it was, as I said at the time, a closer call than I originally thought [4]. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose. I was not going to vote at all, but I concur with Guettarda who insightfuly brought to my attention that I should voice my protest against Haukurth's actions during that affair here, and that it is, in fact, important wrt to his compotence as a prospective admin (though I do trust him to not violate policy in a procedural sense, is what I mistakingly had in mind as per my hitherto position). El_C 05:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for expressing your concerns. For what it's worth the only action I took throughout that affair was participating in a discussion. As I noted in my answers to the admin questions my contributions are there for anyone to read in the mailing list archives [5] and at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, my strong opposition is based on the position you took, not on anything you've done. I want admins who are more sensitive to persecution. As for normal admin duties, I do find you capabale. So please take my first oppose vote ever cast with those particular (non-petty) reservations in mind. Thanks. El_C 23:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose. It's not that Haukurth disagreed about Amalekite, it's the vehemence with which he did it. I lost count of his posts to the mailing list and to talk pages. He also stated that he found Amalekite's posting of a list of editors believed to be Jewish to a Stormfront forum "amusing," rather than offensive. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    I don't see why someone shouldn't be an admin because they spent a lot of time arguing a point, nor for finding humour in the ravings of a nutcase Neo-Nazi (it's quite likely that Haukurth found Amalekite's posting both offensive and funny; I certainly did.) Sadly, this seems to be yet another "punishment" objection for taking an unpopular stance in a discussion. — Matt Crypto 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, it was both offensive and funny - though I honestly did find it more funny than offensive. And not to over-analyze this but this comment of mine applied only to the list itself, not to the racial slurs and nastiness in the rest of Amalekite's post(s). Here's my original post: [6] I realize now that I should have been more careful and sensitive from the start not to say anything which could possibly be interpreted as supportive in any way of Amalekite's ravings. I regret having included this sentence in my post and I apologize for it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps laughable would be a better word than amusing. I certainly don't mean to imply that it was a nice post. The initial reaction to this "Elders of Wikipedia" non-sense was laughter and that's the spirit I meant this comment in. [7] [8] [9] [10] Throughout the long debate I emphasized that I think you are a good and experienced admin and that I appreciate your judgment. Here are some of my contributions where you are mentioned. [11] [12] [13] [14] Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy also contains words from me like: "I'm certain that Sarah acted in good faith with the aim of benefiting the encyclopedia and the community. I'm also sure she acted in accordance with her understanding of policy." If I said anything to offend you, Sarah, then please point out the contribution and I will apologize. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    No, it's not that you said anything to offend me personally, Haukurth, though thank you for asking. It was a number of things. First, you posted an awful lot about it: I kind of felt I was under seige because of your posts and e-mails. Secondly, you said at one point that Nazi POV should be treated like any other POV on Wikipedia, a comment I found extraordinary, because the implications of it are that Nazi POV should be fully represented at Holocaust, for example. Perhaps that's not what you meant, and you could clarify here. Finally, I told you many times that Amalekite had not been blocked because of his views, but because he had posted a list of Jews (or editors he believed to be Jews) to a Stormfront forum, and that blocks of this type are clearly covered by the blocking policy. Yet you continued to insist that he had been blocked because of his opinions, and even today, you repeated this on El C's talk page. This completely ignores the fact that we have other neo-Nazi editors on Wikipedia (whose names my guess is you don't even know, but I do), and who are not blocked, which shows that your view about Amalekite's block is demonstrably false. But for some reason you keep repeating it, and that concerns me. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Haukur's reply moved to Comments section. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    I don't think Haukur's statement that "Nazi POV should be treated like any other POV" would imply that he held that "Nazi POV should be fully represented at Holocaust". Minority POVs are not treated the same way as other POVs. It's normal that an extreme view held by a small group might be mentioned only in passing in an article. That's perfectly compatible with NPOV, and with Haukur's first statement. Amalekite was initially blocked because of he was judged to be a "neo-nazi Troll soliciting other trolls off of Stormfront". So, yes, I would say that he was initially blocked (and permanently banned, moreover) because he was a Neo-Nazi. Later, an argument was made public that the list of supposed "cabal members" he posted put users in danger. I believe Haukur was a lot less unhappy with the block made on those grounds (as was I, although not entirely). — Matt Crypto 17:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Matt, perhaps you could let Haukur say what he meant when he argued that Nazi POV should be represented like any other. What concerns me about your position is that you continue to imply that the Stormfront post was tacked on after the fact as a justification for the block, but I referred to it in my block summary, so it was clearly a reason given at the time. I'm happy to debate with Haukur on this page about his views, because it's his nomination, but if you want me to discuss your views on the block, could you take it to a talk page, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps we should take this to a talk page (although this debate is getting far too poisonous, and I will probably renew my previous vow to forget about it this ugly mess permanently), but I should point out that you were not the first admin to block Amalekite. User:HOTR blocked him four days before you, and gave the edit summary I quoted above. — Matt Crypto 18:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Responded on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose. Above, Guettarda wrote, "If you don't see that posting on Stormfront as a danger, you show a serious lack of judgement. I don't think you're a bad person, the thought of you unblocking Amalekite never even crossed my mind. It's a matter of trusting your judgement - past experience says I shouldn't, and your present comments say that my past impression is still valid," and I share this view entirely. That Haukur Þorgeirsson would respond to G by writing, "The post was clearly silly, semi-delusional and in very bad taste - I don't contest any of that. The only thing I don't think is accurate is that the post represented a real life danger to the people behind the Wikipedia user names," is enough proof to me that, regardless of his intentions, Haukur is naive, reckless, and dangerous. Above Matt Crypto writes that Haukur may have been offended as well as amused by Amalekite's posting (the fact that one of Haukur's supporters still doesn't actually know whether Haukur was offended or not itself speaks volumes). But given Haukur's most recent statement, it wouldn't matter to me if he were offended as well as amused. Everyone has an excuse for being naive — that is just our state prior to knowledge. I don't balme Haukur for initially not taking Stormfront seriously, we all make mistakes. But for him to disregard the postings of several well-informed and responsible editors, for him to resist learning something new takes us from naivete to irresponsibility. And no, Matt Crypto, I am not trying to punish someone who has in other ways been a good contributer because he took an unpopular stance. Even if the stance were popular, I would still object. It has nothing to do with it being popular or unpopular. It was a reckless and thoughtless stance regarding a very serious matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for commenting. Please see my elaborations above for whether or not I think the post you quote me as describing as "in very bad taste" was in fact offensive. As for your other comments I'm not sure how to respond. You are of course free to oppose my nomination to adminship for whatever reasons you like, including the reason that you feel that I'm dangerous. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    You wrote claiming Haukur deliberately "resisted" learning something new -- but that assumes the arguments are correct and convincing in the first place: isn't it possible that the arguments are neither correct nor convincing? People disagree on things, and to say it's "irresponsible" to hold to this or that position is not particularly fair (nor, as one editor put it, "about as far from good faith as is imaginable"). Do you think Haukurth would abuse his admin powers? It seems that even those who oppose would say "no", but would oppose regardless. — Matt Crypto 17:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Matt, could you please let Haukur respond here, because his views are the only ones that matter. I've responded to your earlier comment on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Matt's responding in no way impedes me from responding too. I am very thankful for his support. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Matt, people do disagree on things. But that doesn't mean that all disagreements are equal. If Haukur and I disagreed as to how best to apply NPOV to the average article, or over whether passive or active voice is better, I would as I often have written on talk pages said "Well, I prefer my way, but if others agree with you, I can accept that." In this case, I mean what I wrote about Haukur and Amalekite. This is not a disagreement over grammar or style, or how to cite something. Do not conflate this issue with all other things over which Wikipedians may disagree.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    OK, I'll try not to, and I understand that the threat of Neo-Nazism and extremists makes people worried, but I do not yet understand what about this disagreement makes Haukur untrustworthy with admin powers. Perhaps you might comment to my challenge on this issue on the Talk page? — Matt Crypto 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    Matt, when I have time I will check out that link. In the meantime, further response to Haukur's response to my vote: As to learning — well, we all make mistakes, and many of us learn from them. I would not hold it against any aditor who took naive and reckless position if, at some point, they realized what the problem was (and there are a number of old sysops to whom this can be applied). I still do not believe that Haukur appreciates the threat Amalekite posed, or why Wikipedia shoul dnot tolerate such stuff. It may be true, as Haukur suggested, that banning Amalekite doesn't really accomplish anything. I am not sure I agree, but let's say I did. Wikipedia should still not tolerate Nazis or neo-Nazis or virulent racists. We have banned people who were real pains in the ass but I do not think are necessarily bad people. This already makes it clear that there are limits to this community, and somet things will not be tolerated. I think Amalekite crossed another line. Several other editors argued why. From his own coments here, it still seems to me that Haukur really gets it. Maybe one day he will. At that time I will gladly consider his application for sysop with an entirely open mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Weak oppose. I mean, just this side of neutral — if the issue that's dividing opionion were a little less important, that might have shifted me over into weak support. In most things I'd have little concern about Haukur Þorgeirsson being an admin; in fact, probably in everything but the sensitivity to Wikipedians' safety (real or perceived) I'd be enthusiastic.
    If someone had posted a list of, say, Flemish editors to a Walloon Web site, and asked Walloon activists to watch out for a Flemish bias to Wikipedia, I'd not have been overly concerned, largely because Walloons are at worst a bit rude to their Flemish compatriots (and vice versa), and I should probably have taken Haukur Þorgeirsson's line. Anti-Semites, however, do genuinely threaten the physical safety of Jews, and to post to a list of people identified as Jewish to an anti-Semitic Web site, especially one that has all the hallmarks of being read by the sort of drooling cretin who might actually take violent action, can't credibly even be dismissed as naïve. I'm concerned, given the concerted assaults on Wikipedia from groups such as Stormfront, at a failure to take such threats seriously. I have no doubt that Haukur Þorgeirsson is not himself racist in any way, and the same is doubtless true of most of those who defend him on this ground, but that's not the issue. Admins aren't meant to be Wikipedia's stanfing army or even police force, but I'd hope that editors feeling themselves (with good reason) threatened by other editors should be able to count on us for support and help.
    Again, if Haukur Þorgeirsson had made the initial mistake, but then had realised his error and apologised, I'd have had no worries — but it seems to me that he still doesn't really see the problem. He's been gracious enough to apologise for the way he expressed himself, and for the impression that he might have given some people that he took racism lightly, and that's good — but there's no indication that, if the same thing happened again, he'd approach it with a different attitude (even if he expressed himself more clearly). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for your thoughtful comment. As I indicate in my answer to User:Hipocrite below I will indeed approach a similar case with a different attitude. I want to be better able to serve the community - not better able to fight the community. There are many capable admins (like Sarah) who apply our blocking policies. I intend to concentrate on other admin duties if the community is willing to trust me for that. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose for reasons listed above, particularly those regarding his responses to the Amalekite incident. Jayjg (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose While he might not unblock Amalekite, there will eventually be an Amalekite2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    And I won't unblock him either. If a similar case arises again I now know beforehand that the majority opinion is not the same as mine and I will defer to it. I'd like to get the admin options to be able to revert vandalism more quickly and participate in things like helping with requested moves. I don't want them to be able to participate in blocking wars. As I originally stated in my answers to the admin questions I feel that I don't have enough experience to apply blocks - the same goes for unblocks. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Guettarda and El_C. Tomer TALK 18:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per SlimVirgin. I have concerns about him rationally handling NPOV situations as he has previously ardamently supported inclusion of neo-Nazi POV. Encourage him to remain an editor, but not an administrator on the site. Jewbacca 19:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose for reasons stated above. Someone can be an extraordinary editor on certain subjects but still how poor judgment on issues that admins deal with. We have enough marginal admins to begin with; we don't need more of them. --Leifern 19:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose for reasons stated above. No Account 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose for reasons of ethical integrity and Wikipedia’s academic credibility. -- Olve 21:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Just so I don't misinterpret anything - when you say "for reasons of ethical integrity" do you mean that you do not find me to have ethical integrity? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Guettarda and Olve. FeloniousMonk 22:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, good editor, but judgment concerns me. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. I have to agree with MPerel here. I am also concerned that it appears this editor has begun to list this RFA in other places to gather support. Jonathunder 23:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    I've contacted 4 or 5 people on their talk pages and asked for their comments, as anyone can see from my contributions log. Those are all people who participated in the Amalekite discussion back in August and were, roughly, on the same "side" as I was. I thought this was appropriate since several people from the other side of that argument had been alerted to this RFA already and it now contains an extensive discussion of the Amalekite affair. Canvassing for support votes is largely pointless since the 70%-80% rule means that I'd have to find about three support votes for every oppose votes - a hopeless proposition. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. As per Slim, Jay and Olve. JFW | T@lk 23:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per above discussion. Vsmith 23:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per above discussion. This was poor judgment. Danny 23:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Does my judgment, poor as it may be, in one particular case which has nothing to do with anything I want to do as an admin so thoroughly cancel out anything positive I might have to bring to the janitor position that an oppose vote is clearly warranted? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Strong oppose per reasons stated by others opposing. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Ambi 01:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. I have to change my vote again to weak oppose. From the developing discussion it seems clear that Haukurth still doesn't understand the danger of Amalekite's actions, and I find this very disturbing for reasons I've stated above. Briangotts (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. That's all I'm going to say on this editor. – Axman (☏) 04:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    1. With respect, a non-reasoned "Oppose" is bad form, as it gives people no understanding of why you would not want this user to be an admin. Even a short "per above" is acceptable. — Matt Crypto 17:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per above. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Oppose, because of the Amalekite incident.Carioca 20:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Strong oppose per SlimVirgin 172 | Talk 16:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Briangotts (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • >95% of the user's contributions have been in this calendar year. Recommend that people considering this RfA not hold number of edits vs. time on the project as against the July, 2003 inception of this nominee's presence here, but rather vs. January, 2005. Average number of edits per day over last 30 days is 19.6. Uses edit summaries 81% of the time, 87% over last 500 edits. --Durin 20:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
No offense, Durin, but you have a terminal case of Editcountitis. If you can't shoot someone down for having too few edits, you go after the types of pages they edit and when all else fails, the timing of their contributions. Here we have an outstanding contributor and candidate, and the best arguement you can come up with is basically "Yeah but what has he done lately?" Besides seeming petty and arbitrary, this is no real reason to oppose at all. C'mon, you can do better than that!..can't you?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting me, R.D.H.! I don't think Durin was trying to shoot me down with his data. He's pointing out that while I don't have a lot of edits for someone with such an old username the fact is that almost all of those edits happened this year so my recent edits-per-day stats aren't so low. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 07:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you Haukurth, that was precisely my point. RDH, I wasn't trying to shoot him down. I was trying to shoot down the typical objections we see such as "too few edits for so long on Wikipedia". So, I was working towards an end exactly opposite of what you surmised from my above comment. Please note that I did not vote, I commented. My work on stats and charts has been an extensive effort to cure people of editcountitis. I've been doing this since August. Prelimary results of this effort seem to indicate a very signicant shift away from editcountitis. This is good, in my opinion. --Durin 14:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
In that case my sincere apologies to you, Durin. I withdraw my ill-considered, knee jerks comments.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As an admin I will indeed err on the side of anarchy, rather than tyranny, and inaction rather than action as El_C suggests. I'm not completely sure what he means by sensitivity to persecution but my guiding principle is not to judge people for what they are or what they believe but for how they conduct themselves. We must treat everyone as an individual and not assume that person X can't help us build an encyclopedia because she currently belongs to generally detested group Y. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to thank El_C and Guettarda who, in spite of their strong (and nuanced) opposition, are willing to say that they find me qualified to do normal admin duties and not to abuse admin tools. I'll endeavour to live up to that if my nomination succeeds. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • A thoughtful comment. Yes, it's fair to reiterate and emphasize that in terms of "normal" admin duties (as well as quality of contributions as an editor), Haukurth enjoys my complete confidence. El_C 21:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have specifically and at length addressed the issue of the representation of neo-nazist views on the Holocaust on Wikipedia. Here's one of my posts: [15] I think it's very important that the NPOV policy is not misinterpreted to mean that we have to give equal presentation to historical truth and outlandish conspiracy theories.
  • But can I ask you to spell out what you mean by saying that neo-Nazi POV should be represented like any other? Do you mean neo-Nazi POV about the Holocaust should be represented in Holocaust, noting that it's a minority view? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. But the article should also make clear the documentary evidence for the occurrence of the Holocaust. The astute reader should come away with the conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence that it did take place and that Holocaust-deniers are wrong but don't just hold an unpopular minority opinion. But of course we should do all this fairly and in accordance with the Neutral Point of View. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As for your reasons for your block of User:Amalekite I don't in any way doubt your words that you were following the "putting users in danger" policy. I would like to quote at length a letter I sent to the mailing list at the time (and, again, I am very sorry for referring to you by a wrong name):

I'd like to add that while pre-emptive blocking of known nazis has been proposed in this discussion, Rachel has explicitly denied that this is her reason for blocking User:Amalekite. In her own words:

"He wasn't blocked for being a member of Vanguard News Network or Stormfront"

I believe her, of course, and we have every reason to trust her. Her actual reasons for the block are best given in her own words:

"Amalekite is Alex Linder, the owner-operator of [[Vanguard News Network]]. He has posted a list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews on the Stormfront website, as well as details of how to edit using open proxies and sockpuppets. It's clear he was trying to cause major disruption ...I would also argue that for a Wikipedian to draw up a list of other editors by their perceived ethnicity, and to post that list on a racist website, is highly provocative, and I don't see how it can be detached from his actions on Wikipedia. He wasn't blocked for being a member of Vanguard News Network or Stormfront, but for his actions in encouraging anti-Semites and racists to target Jewish editors, and for encouraging them to violate policy by creating sockpuppets and using open proxies. I don't see why we should have to wait until the disruption begins before blocking him. He tried to cause massive disruption: that he (appears to have) failed was simply down to the others' lack of response." - http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027590.html

Her reasons are contested but let's be careful not to attribute something to her which she didn't say. I'm not saying anyone is doing that - I just wanted to make things clear for those who might not have followed the discussion from the beginning.

  • What I was contesting was whether your reasons for the block were good enough - not that you were honestly expressing those reasons. As I previously quoted myself saying: "I'm certain that Sarah acted in good faith with the aim of benefiting the encyclopedia and the community. I'm also sure she acted in accordance with her understanding of policy." I don't think you blocked User:Amalekite simply for being a Nazi and I certainly haven't said so today. Please point me to the comment on El C's talk page where I seem to be implying this - I'll put the record straight immediately. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You implied here today [16] that Alex Linder had been blocked for his views. Could I please ask you to explain what you meant when you said neo-Nazi views had to be represented on Wikipedia like any other, though noting it as a minority view? Do you mean that neo-Nazi views ought to be represented at Holocaust, while carefully noting their views are not widely held? I'd appreciate it if you could answer here or on the talk page, rather than linking to a mailing list discussion, for the sake of clarity. Also, as you argued today on El C's talk page that all that matters is whether an editor is acting in good faith on Wikipedia, does that mean you oppose the section of the blocking policy that allows people to be blocked if they pose an off-site threat to other editors? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    I didn't mean to imply that User:Amalekite had been blocked simply for his views. He was blocked for expressing those views in an inappropriate way which could arguably be taken as incitement to violence against certain Wikipedians. I don't oppose the blocking policy in question and did not mean to imply that with anything I said. I think your idea of how to represent neo-nazi views is approximately correct - I replied in detail on that on the talk page. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Haukur, there is no detailed response from you on the talk page, and I haven't said how I think neo-Nazi views ought to be represented. It's your views I'm asking about, because I still don't know what you meant when you said they ought to be represented like any other. Do you mean they should be represented in some way at Holocaust, for example? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    I'm sorry for the confusion, I know it's hard to keep track of the discussion at this point. The replies I was talking about are [17], [18] and [19] I don't think I've ever edited the Holocaust article or been significantly involved in any related articles. I have faith that the people editing that article have come up with a good solution and I won't presume to know better than they do. That said (and I haven't looked at how the article actually is) I think it's important that the article doesn't descend into some sort of back-and-forth between history and holocaust-deniers. That "controversy" is probably best handled in a separate sub-article - where I would try to represent the holocaust-denier point of view as fairly as possible. If the article is factual an intelligent reader should come away with the conclusion that the holocaust-deniers are wrong - without Wikipedia directly stating so. Those are just my thoughts at the moment and, again, I'm not an expert on the matter and I won't presume to know better than those editing the article. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There has been a lot of new activity here today and it occurs to me that maybe a message has gone out on a mailing list or some forum I haven't noticed, drawing attention to this vote. That's of course perfectly legitimate and I'm not implying anything else. It's also, of course, entirely possible that it's just a coincidence or some chain of events that does not involve any forum or mailing list. But if it was then I wonder if someone could maybe point me to the hypothetical forum and I could perhaps post a short statement there summarizing my views. I'm just slightly worried that someone coming to the discussion at this stage will feel overwhelmed by the amount of comments and not read through them all before voting. If my case has been materially discussed in any public forum I'm not aware of I would very much appreciate the opportunity to get in a short statement. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd disagree with you on that one - I don't think it would be appropriate to send out a mass message. One thing that did happen was the debate on El_C's talk page, which is bound to have attracted attention. Guettarda 21:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, I suppose that's possible - he's a popular fellow. In any case it's impressive that so far 14 of the 17 oppose votes have arrived on the 6th day of the nomination. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg wrote on the talk page here: "I strongly request you discount any votes based on allegations of "powerful cliques", and not related to this users ability and discretion towards future admin duties. I think it is very important that the adminship process not be undermined by beliefs in conspiracies, and that no admin candidates be elected based on claims of cabals." I don't know what he was referring to - I can see no votes which match that description except, arguably, one which was made after Jayjg's comment. On the off chance that Jayjg was referring in some way to my question above I want to make some clarifications.

For the first five days of this RFA there were three oppose votes. Two of them were Ian's and El C's strong oppose votes because of the Amalekite affair. But even after they had made those votes, laying out this case, no-one else voted oppose for two days. Then there was suddenly a massive influx of Amalekite-related oppose votes starting with Sarah's. Since many of those voting are not regular participants in RFA and since many of them appeared to have similar interests it occurred to me that perhaps a note calling attention to this RFA had been posted to some mailing list or forum related to those users' common interests. There is nothing wrong with calling attention to votes. I'm certain everyone voted in good faith. I'm not suggesting any vote should be discounted. All I was saying was that if this hypothetical forum existed I would have appreciated the opportunity to get in a short statement since it occurred to me that the original hypothetical message sent to the hypothetical forum might, hypothetically, have been somewhat one-sided. Of course there are many explanations possible that don't involve any such hypothetical forum - sheer coincidence is one of them. Another that was advanced is that users came here through El C's talk page. In any case I want to make it clear that I'm not accusing anyone of pertaining to a clique, a cabal or a conspiracy. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, a clique, cabal or conspiracy is out of the question. Still, the theory that an email might have gone out to editors who might be predisposed to vote oppose on the Amalekite issue (for example, editors with interests in Judaism) is not inconsistent with the sudden influx of opposing editors that descended on the article all at once. — Matt Crypto 17:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Rest assured, Haukurth, I was not referring to your comments. Rather, as can be seen from the context, my comment was a humorous response to Sam Spade's obviously joking suggestion to the Bureaucrats on the Talk: page that various votes be discounted. That's why it ended with a "winky" emoticon. At least I'm assuming that Sam was joking, I can't imagine he intended that suggestion seriously. Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


  • Why, may I ask, are several of the Oppose voters voting as if upon promotion, Haukurth would be the only admin on Wikipedia? Unfocused 22:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have a question. It seems that it has been suggested that WPians were put in danger of life-and-limb by having their usernames posted on the Nazi site? Is this what people are saying? I find this dubious -- if the Nazis uncovered that I am a person of color (which I've mentioned on site in passing), the worse they could do is vandalize my user-page, maybe wiki-stalk. Booo!, but hardly fatal, or new. Of course, some have chosen to make their names public on their user-pages, I guess; I really don't understand why one would disclose such personal information here, when random vendettas aren't unheard of. In any case, once the Nazi do anything vandalistic, like any vandal, they can be blocked. If they have a sad desire for real-world violence, and find a target who has chosen to post lots of personal detail here, is it much different than looking in a phone book?

If a botanical Nazi wants to add harmless contributions to flowers, let the idiot do it. Even they deserve the assumption of good faith, site-wise. I voted for Haukurth before this arose, but I let my vote stand in support of freedom of expression. Xoloz 18:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, let the botanical Nazi contribute to articles on flowers. However, that is not the case we are discussing here. Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If I understand the process correctly the time limit is up and the RFA has run its course. I'd like to think everyone who participated in the discussion and especially those who supported me till the end. I very much appreciate it. In particular I am indebted to Michael and Matt for speaking for me so eloquently and intelligently. Thank you. I will make further comments on my user page once this discussion has been formally closed. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that unlike most RfAs, this RfA has an active "Talk" page. Please consider the discussions there before making your decision. Thanks. Unfocused 14:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I'd like to be able to speedy delete pages when doing RC-patrol. I'd also like to be able to move pages to locations with edit histories to sort out redirect jungles (of course discussing anything controversial before moving). A rollback button would be really nice since I monitor a bunch of pages for vandalism. If the community trusts me with adminship I would also do my share of work in clearing out backlogs in copyright violations, requested moves etc. I don't think I'll use the blocking option for a while. I feel I'd need more experience first and I don't want to block anyone unless I'm absolutely sure I know what I'm doing.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm happy with Hrafnkels saga, which I wrote and shepherded through the FAC process. I have some other favorites enumerated on my userpage but what I'm really proudest of is the Images from Norse mythology category, which I've contributed a lot to. I like adding images and tidying up their categories and licensing information.
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. The first I remember is a disagreement with User:Reddi on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction over how to classify vials of botulinum in the context of weapons of mass destruction. I think we managed to resolve that amiably in the end. I've participated in some debates on the Wikien mailing list, the hottest one was on the ban of User:Amalekite. The debate can be found in the mailing list archives and on Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy. That was certainly stressful to me and in the end I had to defer to a majority opinion I did not fully agree with. Most recently I've participated in debates, votes and revert wars (see the history of Úbeda) on the representation of German, Spanish and Old Norse names on Wikipedia.
I think the most important thing in any conflict is to try and avoid being sucked in completely and keep going back to what really makes Wikipedia fun - writing articles. Over 90% of the edits made by a typical contributor are noncontroversial and unambiguously improve the encyclopedia. It's easy to fall into the trap of spending disproportionate amounts of energy debating the remaining <10%.
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.