Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Michael Hardy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Hardy[edit]

final (15/13/1) ending 03:50 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Michael Hardy is well-experienced in helping out in the Wikipedia community. He is level-headed, and he is often online. He is very helpful to others. Kingturtle 03:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

acceptance? If this query is intended to ask whether I accept the nomination, I thought I'd in effect answered affirmatively below; I hadn't notice this other question up here. Michael Hardy 02:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. support Kingturtle 03:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support We may sometimes clash over capitalisation but Michael is a level-headed, hard-working capable member of the team. I didn't know what a bureaucrat did here. Now that I have read it, Michael seems the perfect choice. FearÉIREANN 04:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:29, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. An exemplary member of the community. -- The Anome 09:01, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support-JCarriker 12:10, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Andre (talk) 17:58, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. This should be simple, especially since bureaucrats have very limited powers. --MarkSweep 07:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Proteus (Talk) 21:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support without reservation. I've lost count of the number of times I've left an article in a hurry, planning to come back later to clean up the mess, only to find that Michael has done it for me. He has a passion for conforming the article format to the manual of style, which not many of us (self included) are so good at. We NEED more like Michael. David Cannon 05:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support. Michael Hardy has edited and made a lot of articles and is a good choice. --ImpalerBugz 10:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Simply one of my heroes at en.wikipedia! --Pjacobi 19:25, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
  12. Support - Grue 18:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Yes. Yes. I truly appreciated Michael's contributions toward better descriptions of what science is really about. Thank you, thank you, Michael! ---Rednblu | Talk 02:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Even though I think we don't need more Bureaucrats; however, Michael seems like an excellent contributor and thus deserves bureaucratship.--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 20:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. oppose - As much as I hate to be the first oppose vote, I am very doubtful about Michael Hardy's ability to adhere to the high standards of fairness required in this position -- not because I believe him to be unfair by nature, but because he may lack the patience to put aside what he believes he "knows" to perceive multiple sides of a situation. An example can be found in the history of NATO phonetic alphabet when, perceiving that it was not a "phonetic alphabet" in the sense of "an alphabet for transcribing phonetics", he decided that it was not a phonetic alphabet at all. Even when it was pointed out that "phonetic alphabet" has more than one valid definition, he apparently felt the usage he was less familiar with deserved ironic quotes. A similar situation occurred when he broadened what he thought was an over-specific definition "written by popular-fiction types who know ONLY popular fiction"; he broadened the definition so that not only was it no longer limited "ONLY" to fiction, it did not mention fiction. The only problem was, the article on which he made this edit, with its strident edit summary, was Canon (fiction). I do not doubt Michael's good will or the contributions he has made to the community but I have reason to question his ability to put aside his preconceptions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. My only encounter with this user was to notice him label a wikiproject well-supported by policy as vandalism, and later to spam the page and immediately protect it. When this was removed, he edit warred on both WP:CSD and WP:RFD to unilaterally remove the policy (examples, some of which cover multiple consecutive revisions: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). While my data set is admittedly small, these actions do not inspire the trust required of an administrator, let alone a bureaucrat. —Korath (Talk) 23:15, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Unilateral attempts to change policy are something I'd expect from a newbie, not an established admin. --Carnildo 01:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I will answer the questionnaire below when I have more time than I do now, but for now I will comment that this is an inaccuracy. I did not unilaterally change a policy. I clarified language. The policy in question said redirects with non-existent targets should be deleted, and then it listed certain exceptions. The policy and the exceptions had been there for a long time. It was phrased in such a way that nearly everyone who habitually deleted such pages was unaware of the exceptions. I rephrased it to make those consipicuous, since I consider those exceptions important. Michael Hardy 03:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who has clashed with Michael, I have to say I agree with him here. One may quibble on occasion with his interpretation; where one does it is usually where there is needless ambiguity in policy and he and a user have different interpretations. But IMHO he has not unilaterally created policy. He has been thorough but not unilateral. I have always been impressed by his consistency, integrity and fairness. I wish sometimes that I had his tact. But where I have pointed out an area where I believe he has been wrong (often with my customary but tactless bluntless) he has been fair. I can think of few people whose opinions, while I may on occasion disagree with, I respect more and take on board. He is a credible, fair sysop and I trust him 100% as a bureaucrat. I give him my 100% support and recommend others to do the same. He can be trusted 100% to do the job to the highest standards of objectivity, fairness and integrity. FearÉIREANN 03:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. On two grounds: 1. I am unconvinced that we need more bureaucrats just yet. 2. The Bureaucrat 'privilege' may be quotidian but I still feel that the authority should be restricted to admins whose credentials are unimpeachable. Theo (Talk) 22:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you voting against Michael Hardy, or against having more bureaucrats? Kingturtle 22:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Both, as I think my original comment indicates. I see no signs that the existing bureaucrats are overloaded or even approaching that state. If more bureaucrats were needed I would not be comfortable seeing Michael meeting that need until he has displayed consistently exemplary behaviour for much longer than he does.--Theo (Talk) 14:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Bureaucrats are a pretty narrow group of users, and I have yet to see why the ones that already exist are insufficient to their task. →Iñgōlemo← talk 17:13, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
    Are you voting against Michael Hardy, or against having more bureaucrats? Kingturtle 22:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Michael Hardy is an excellent user, against whom I have no beef. However, there is no need for more bureaucrats. <smug comment>I think my comment above should have made that fairly clear</smug comment> :-) →Iñgōlemo← talk 05:41, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. For the same reasons given by Theo and Ingolemo. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    Are you voting against Michael Hardy, or against having more bureaucrats? Kingturtle 22:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    A little of both. The issue Korath pointed out in particular makes me hesitant to support Michael since it is a mark against him and I do believe the bar should be set high. It's also true I don't think the case has been made for more bureaucrats in general; and for logistical and security reasons, I don't feel comfortable with too many hands in the pot handing out keys. Also the potential growth of the position mentioned by Taco Deposit below (having bureaucrats investigating IPs) reinforces that this position is one which requires a high level of trustworthiness. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Weak oppose. Having shared edits on many statistics articles, I have to admit that I find some of his edit summaries rather pretentious. In particular, this summary at minimum-variance unbiased estimator: Is someone teaching this crap in some signal-processing course? When the whole issue revolved around miscommunication and non-pedantic/incorrect wording, his quick assertion of "crap" doesn't inspire confidence in me that he can perform the duties of bureaucrat (as limited as they are) neutrally. I'm also not seeing the necessity of having more bureaucrats. Isn't 18 enough to sysop users? I would really think there would be enough work for a single person but can understand the need for redundancy. Cburnett 23:10, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, largely on grounds of lack of a demonstrated need, and ancillary circumstances to the nomination. (An apparent 'drive' to get more bureaucrats, the non-provision of a rationale for doing so, and the lack of an acceptance (much less a request, as indicated to be the norm).) Alai 04:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the broader point, I'd still like to see some elaboration on requests/self-noms vs. outside nomination. Alai 19:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. opposeGeni 03:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. oppose. In my single interaction with him, I found him offensively and inexplicably rude. We need fewer prima donnas, not more. --goethean 22:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. oppose I think it a good idea in general to curb the amount of influence any one person has on Wikipedia since their viewpoint will tend to overwhelm and dominate, esp. if they have particular viewpoints they advocate for. Giving bureaucratic status in Michael's case would only compound the issue of viewpoint domination, not help. I also agree with some people here that a bureaucreat needs extraordinary 'people skills' with compromising and discussion and avoiding using the working assumption that his or her viewpoint is necessarily right. --ShaunMacPherson 02:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. opposeBathrobe 04:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. More bureaucrats are good, but not this one. Michael Hardy has been known to be the very definition of terse. Ambi 07:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Waiting for acceptance and answers to questions. JuntungWu 08:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • User:Kingturtle seems to be determined to get some more bureaucrats. Would the user care to explain why?Geni 04:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • About a week ago, I inquired to some admins as to whether they'd be interested in being bureaucrats. Two showed interest - jiang and michael hardy. Kingturtle 04:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • to quote you "Although there are currently 18 bureaucrats, it may be helpful to have a few more". Why would it be helpful?Geni 04:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • As Wikipedia grows, so should the number of admins and bureaucrats. Is there a reason why Michael Hardy should not be nominated? Kingturtle 04:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • There are currentlty no bureaucrat tasks that are not being kept up with. as such I fail to see the need for more bureaucrats at this time.Geni 04:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I also currently fail to see how the work load of bureaucrats will increase as the number of users and admins increase. It seems that the only things bureaucrats do is process the results of RFA, which I do not see the load increasing anytime soon. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • However, I would agree for more if many of them are inactive and/or you feel it is a rank of prestige. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • I would actually disagree with your "rank of prestige" point. Bureaucrats, even more so than admins, have no special powers. This is strictly janitorial work. This is not to demean the work of our fine bureaucrats, all of whom are great edtors; but we don't need more bureaucrats, simply because the workload isn't there. This should not be used as a promotion. Meelar (talk) 04:02, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
                • Let me clarify my previous comment: I am more neutral on the "rank of prestige" point, but if more people feel that it is necessary, then I would have to problem with it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I too believe we need more bureaucrats. At the moment, there's only one who is really active, and in the past there have been extra-high numbers of admin nominations during which an additional bureaucrat could have been helpful. I tried to become a bureaucrat a while ago, during one occurrence when there was a deluge of admin nominations that I thought I could help with, but the prevailing community view seems to be that we don't need any more bureaucrats. Andre (talk) 17:58, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • your statement is not consistant with the bureaucrat log[8]Geni 20:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) If you belive we have a number of inactive bureaucrats then work to get rid of them.Geni 20:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Get rid of them? There's no reason to "get rid" of bureaucrats because of inactivity. Is there some reason why you are so bothered by adding another bureaucrat? Kingturtle 20:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • a number. 1 if more are created than are required it risks being seen as a status thing. 2 every buracrat is a risk. by minimising the number of buracrats we minimise the risk. 3. buracrats are created by stewards. from my expearence I feel we have a shortage of stewards and as such we don't need to put any extra pressure on them.Geni 21:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Those are valid arguments - although I don't agree with them. Kingturtle 21:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Kingturtle, a number of editors have asked you quite civilly why you have suddenly decided we need more bureaucrats, but I haven't seen any response from you other than "it would nice," "do you have a problem with that?" to challenge me about "silent policy," or to ask "is there some reason why you are so bothered"? Did you suddenly realize there was a need for bureaucrats, did you have a vision in a dream, did a burning bush command you, or what? ;-) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm also a little puzzled as to why we'd need more. Aren't many of the 18 current active as editors (and as admins)? If they seem 'inactive as bureaucrats', perhaps it's simply that Cecropia is generally well on top of this task, which indeed does not seem to be high-volume. I assume that if he were to cease being de facto 'duty bureaucrat', one or more of the others would step in, and certainly could be explicitly asked to do so in the event of WikiHolidays. So if anything, it seems we're highly "overstaffed" already, rather than in any way "understaffed". (I nearly said "overmanned" -- sorry Angela.) Also, isn't it the expectionation that would-be-admins request it themselves, rather than being nominated? I'm inclined to oppose on these grounds, regardless of the merits of Michael Hardy as an editor (and as an admin), but I'll wait for counterarguments. Alai 02:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm extremely confused as to why there needs to be a vote process for a bureaucrat. This position is just another admin-like responsibility. It's basically just an admin who enforces a consensus. I think all admins should have this power or at least earn it as an award for not being idle from editing too long. I mean if an admin can't be trusted with this responsibility, they shouldn't be an admin at all you know? Admins have abilities that require much more responsibility anyway. This whole vote is silly. It also amazes me that there is opposition! As if Michael Hardy can be trusted to ban users, delete pages and images, but can't be trusted with promoting users! Am I being unreasonable here? — oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 02:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I just thought of this. If we're worried about bureaucrats going idle, how about this for a new policy. At the end of each month, all the admins are evaluated for their edit activity. The five (or whatever) most active admins get bureaucrat status for the next month. This way all admins have the chance to be a bureaucrat, there is incentive to be an active contributor, and we won’t have to worry about idle bureaucrats. There are those of you that may think "no no how could you just throw around that responsibility to any old admin? Admin so and so would screw it all up because he/she sucks at being an admin." Well then why haven't they lost their adminship yet? If they can't be trusted with typing a little line after a consensus is reached, they wouldn't have been an admin in the first place. — oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 02:45, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • There is a lot of discussion (see the RfA talk archives) as to bureaucrats, what Wikipedians expect B'crats to do; how they expect them to decide on promotions; standards to become a bureaucrat, and so on. The reason every admin isn't a bureaucrat (that has been suggested) is twofold: first, we do not have a hard and fast standard for promotion to admin. There are "grey" candidacies where good arguments are made pro and con for a candidate and the numbers are not clear-cut. In these cases, a bureaucrat must make a decision and be ready to explain it coherently; otherwise faith in the promotion process would fall. I am fortunate in that few of my decisions have attracted dissent, but where they have I have stood ready to explain them, often in prolix detail. This leads to the second point, which is User:Geni's reservation that every excess bureaucrat is a potential problem, in that promotion is one of those "lowest common denominator" things. That is, the most liberal (or incautious) bureaucrat can promote doubtful cases, leading to argument and unnecessary contention. Of course, some have sought bureaucratship on the basis they would leave the difficult cases to others. This is not inherently bad, but this kind of decision could be made by some tweaks in the programming.
      • User:Alai's speculation that several of our Bureaucrats seem inactive because I have been more or less on top of things is probably accurate. If the job is getting done, it is natural for others to not watch the RfA as closely. If you check the Bureaucrat logs, you will see that others are promoting, when they happen by. If for one or another reason I couldn't watch the board as closely as I have, I have no doubt others would pick up the slack in no time. And if they didn't, there is nothing to stop us from responding to the need by adding bureaucrats.
      • I will add only one personal observation, if I may: I believe admins and bureaucrats should want to the do the job, just like those who devote themselves to editing, to ArbCom, to VfD, to vandal patrolling. Yes, it is an honor, IMO, to be an admin, because it says that the community thinks well of you, and trusts you. The community should be important to the admin, and vv. But if it is only the honor, perhaps we should have "Wikipedians of the month," or other Wikihonors to bestow on our best. I personally think those who edit their hearts out (this is an encylopedia, remember) should have some kind of formal recognition. As an aside, I dream of an editorial board of our best editors, to give guidance and advice on writing, style and content. Being on such a board is an honor I would covet, but I would certainly expect to do the work. We don't need important jobs to be covered by paper honorees. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • May I take the opportunity to remind you of how a certain Joseph Stalin came to power? He was only the general secretary for the Soviet Communist Party -- a minor post, unwanted and disdained by most. However, it gave him great influence in selecting future members of the Party, and he took advantage of this by including many of his allies.
        • I'm not saying that someone is going to try to take over Wikipedia here, but if we give the ability to promote admins to all and sundry, we could wind up with quite a mess on our hands. --Carnildo 03:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that there is quite a bit of support at m:CheckUser for bureaucrats getting access view the IP addresses of logged in users. This means that the "limited powers" of a bureaucrat could soon become a lot less limited. This should be kept in mind when deciding whom to nominate or support for bureaucratship. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:10, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I oppose bereaucrats looking at people's IP addresses. There are a wide variety of contributiors here and there will be an unnecessary chilling effect by allowing people's IP addresses to be viewed unnecessarily. Thank you for bringing this information to our attention TacoDeposit. --ShaunMacPherson 02:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. If you mean Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Promotion guidelines and its talk page, I've read them. I understand the criteria to be the amount of time spent as a Wikipedian, the number of edits, and the consensus on promotion, held to be a 2/3 majority according to some opinions. Michael Hardy 23:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. I might ask for more of a "discussion" than a "vote", the "vote" coming later, and maybe I would try to allow sufficient time if more than the usual was needed. At the end, I might state my views on which my decision was based, along with reasons why I disagree with points favoring the opposite decision. Michael Hardy 23:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in he community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I think some objections to Kingturtle's nomination of me are responses to things I did when I edited in haste; as people will have noticed, the number of my edits is quite large. That would not apply to more leisurely deliberations over a week or two, and my record on matters not done hastily must be the heart of my answer. Michael Hardy 23:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Michael_Hardy&oldid=1213768144"