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

Final (25/20/9); ended 04:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate

harej (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – After much thought I have decided to put my name forward to volunteer to become a Wikipedia bureaucrat, a title (or upgraded mop?) which is accompanied with boundless expectations of trust, judgment, and sanity. I have been a registered editor since November 2004, an administrator since September 2006, and an OTRS volunteer since May 2009. In that time I have seen RFA change; I remember when a "crat chat" was used to resolve the predicament of Danny's RFA, as well as the spirited debate over RfA reform.

To me, it is obvious that RFA and RFB are, unfortunately, processes in which Wikipedians (especially the candidates) are heavily invested. What is central to the issue is, what constitutes consensus to promote a user to administrator? What happens if a candidate is highly contentious? What if all the arguments used in oppose statements are based on faulty logic? What if said faulty logic is only perceived and is actually reasonable? Having participated on numerous RFAs, spending much of my time as an administrator getting to the bottom of disputes (including as a mediator on an RFM), as well as being a regular maintainer of Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, I very carefully read the discussions (especially in controversial cases; namely, nationalism-based naming disputes) and determine consensus based on that. Nothing is "TL;DR" for me.

I have a track record of civility, staying level-headed in the face of drama, and explaining my actions where necessary. I have no compunction with being told that the decision I made was wrong; I have been around long enough to know that inevitably, every proposal garners at least one objection, even when you think it is the most commonsense, innocuous proposition you can think of. If I were to close a contentious and controversial RFA, I would be ready to state exactly why. It's all about gauging consensus based on the current consensus of consensus, and yes, that is as hard as it sounds. —harej (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. —harej (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. I do not mean these as strict percentages, but RFAs with 80% or more support tend to pass and RFAs with less than 70-75% support tend to fail. Again, it is much more complicated than that, and it is not up to bureaucrats to set the standard either. There have been cases where, because of the specific person running for adminship at the time, the bureaucrats (after conversing about the matter) believed the percentage requirement could be stretched, as the person's experience should also be considered as a factor. To this day, I don't know if that should be considered adding rational thought to a crazed debate or an abuse of authority, though it is worth noting that the two examples I can think of off the top of my head have not been desysopped yet.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. More often than not, one can tell just by looking at the RFA whether it's contentious. As the closing bureaucrat, I would look at every argument presented, how much community support there is for it, compare the outstanding reasons for against the outstanding reasons against, and remember that adminship is ultimately about handing out "the mop" to worthwhile Wikipedia editors and is not that big of a deal. After all that, I come to a decision, and explain precisely how I got to it. I did this when justifying my Meran/o page move on the administrators' noticeboard and to explain my actions when people upset with my decision on the Talk:2008 South Ossetia war move discussion challenged my judgement.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I'm a fairly mellow person, and I don't like being drama. My thought process is very deliberative, I recognize that RFA is not the end-all of existence, and I have the knowledge of policy one has after being a Wikipedia editor for nearly five years.

4. My question is, plainly stated, why now? You've just returned after over a year of minimal activity. How aware do you think you are of the current climate at RfA? Do you expect to maintain your current level of activity and availability? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. It is definitely a more popular page than it once was, and it has become a more hostile environment (though 1FA seems to have not gained much traction since it was introduced, and editcountitis seems to be on the decline). However, the more things change, the more things stay the same; this is still fundamentally the same process I remember from three years ago. Also, since I have more of a purpose here now than when I went inactive, I plan on staying active.

Optional question from Soap

5. I'm interested in your views on the username policy. If you plan to work there, how would you judge the appropriateness of each of the following usernames? Assume that all are good faith contributors with no vandalism, conflicts of interest, etc.

Jimbo Miller (for a user claiming it as his real name, and who prefers to be called Jimbo)

This is kind of a tough call. Outside of Wikipedia, this is easily an innocuous name, but on Wikipedia, "Jimbo" refers frequently to User:Jimbo Wales and so there would be potential confusion. However, Wales is not the first person ever to be called Jimbo, and the last name makes it clear that Jimbo Miller ≠ Jimbo Wales. If the user requesting this was in good standing, I would probably grant him the username change as long as he used the surname in his signature as well (or at least his initial).

OnlineDoctor

I would not grant this username change, as it would confer expertise which may or may not exist (and would be difficult to confirm in any case), and authority as a doctor which does not exist on Wikipedia.

ImpeachObama

This username is politically divisive and therefore inappropriate, even if the user is in good standing. This extends to all politicians throughout the political spectrum.

Pissanna (user claims it's a foreign name)

After some basic research, it looks like "Pissanna" is in fact Thai. I would ask other bureaucrats for their opinions first, since this is the English Wikipedia after all, but I am inclined to support the name change since it's actually a foreign name and not some excuse to say "Piss Anna".

Onan the Masturbarian (for a user who edits articles related to pornography, but never vandalizes)

I would consider it an offensive username; even if this user means well, it is just not a username becoming of a legitimate contributor. I would not grant the username change.

Optional questions from Killiondude

6. How would you close these RfA/Bs? Your only options are "Successful" and "Unsuccessful, as even if it goes to a crat chat, you must express an opinion there as the the final determination of the outcome. Feel free to expound upon your decision if you'd like.

• Carnildo 3 61% inclined to close as "unsuccessful". Yes, he contributed greatly to the enforcement of image copyright rules on Wikipedia, and he should be commended for that work. Yes, he proved loyalty to Wikipedia after he was desysopped. The issue lies in the oppose section, one of the most hostile oppose sections I have ever seen on any RfA where the candidate succeeded. Carnildo simply lost the trust of way too many people, and trust is essential to being a Wikipedia administrator. Hoping that the explanation on the talk page would explain a candidate with well below the generally accepted threshold of support getting promoted, I see three things: (a) Carnildo got caught up in an 'unfortunate argument', (b) he should be forgiven in the spirit of friendliness and ArbCom considering the desysoping temporary (did the ArbCom actually state this when they revoked his administrator privileges?), and (c) his adminship is restored on a probationary basis. I am actually a huge fan of adminship not being a big deal and not holding people against their past foibles, but reading the decision by the bureaucrats to promote instilled little confidence in those bureaucrats' capabilities as objective judges of consensus. It was as though all the points brought up by the opposes flew over their heads. I don't like having to make strong statements like this, but it just was not becoming of bureaucrats. With all due respect to Carnildo.
• ^demon 3 63%: I would take it to a bureaucrat chat, because it would take more than my mind to figure out how to handle this nuanced RfA. I find WJB Scribe's reasoning to be very sound, and I appreciate the thorough explanation of his action. It's probably for that reason that I would be inclined to close it as "successful".
• Krimpet 67%: I would most likely take it to crat chat, considering how the RfA ended up becoming a meta-discussion on how to do RfA. I maintain that RfA is not a straight up-or-down vote, but I don't know if Durin's decision to put his/her comment in a "fourth section" was necessary since RfA already has a section for commentary that does not fit the support-oppose-neutral scheme. As for the rest of the RfA, as I said, this would be best up to crat chat. Concerns of experience do have merit, even though Krimpet at the time demonstrated considerable aptitude. I am inclined to close as "successful" personally, but it is definitely on the border.
• Davemeistermoab 67%: I maintain the opinion that adminship and article writing are two completely different tasks, and aside from the fact that admins should know and understand how article writing works, the two things rarely have a cross-section. After discounting comments that have nothing to do with his qualifications or lack thereof for adminship (and I was very conservative in discounting comments), Dave is within the discretionary zone. After discussing this with other bureaucrats, I would probably close this as a successful RfA.
• Danny 68%: Full disclosure: I am a good friend of Danny, and I !voted to support his RfA. For those reasons, I would be a biased bureaucrat and would probably abstain from closing the RfA. Evidently, many Wikipedians had trust in Danny at the time, and that is important. The apparent consensus of the crat chat was that too many oppose !votes were cast due to his professional duties as the office guy (which are separate from volunteer duties as an administrator) and nonsense reasons like the fact Cyde Weys nominated him. Reading through the opposes carefully, not very many of the !votes are the kind that should be excluded; in fact, many serious concerns were brought up. After very conservatively discounting the ones that would not count, it very, very barely puts the level in support in the discretionary zone. Considering the fact that Danny also commands a lot of support, I would bring this up with other bureaucrats, but I personally would be inclined to close the RfA as unsuccessful.
• Ryulong 3 69%: Inclined to close as unsuccessful. Serious concerns about his civility push his level of support below an acceptable level.
• Luigi30 3 72%: Inclined to close as successful. I can tell this RfA took place many years ago because of the low level of activity ;]. This is similar to the Krimpet RfA above in that a user is being lauded for his experience in Wikipedia while being opposed for not enough experience. This is borderline enough of a situation that I would bring it up with other bureaucrats, but I am inclined to close as a successful RfA.
• Tadakuni 73% After being taken aback by how little participation there was for an RfA from 2008, I would be inclined to close this RfA as successful. The closing bureaucrat stated it best: the positives outweigh the negatives.
• LessHeard vanU 73% While this is within the discretionary range, the oppose !votes introduce serious concerns about LessHeard's disagreement on a policy and how such mentality could cause problems as they did in the case of another editor. Since it is a very serious concern, I would consult with other bureaucrats, but nonetheless I would probably close the RfA as successful (especially considering daveh4h's remark that the exchange was over largely policy disagreements).
• Gracenotes 74%: The RfA unfortunately became a debate on the BADSITES proposal itself (boy do I remember that debacle). It appears as though Gracenotes' belief on linking to attack websites was overblown, which affects how much weight the opposes carry. Combined with having a high enough level of support would make me inclined to close the RfA as successful.
• Markalexander100.09 75%: I honestly don't know if we can apply 2009 standards to an RfA from May of 2004. ("2009 standards" makes me think of a several hundred-paged leather-bound manual entitled Wikipedia Standards for Requests for Adminship, 2009 edition. Published by Drama.) It really yearns back to a simpler time when RfA was basically "Alright, Editor X. Good for admin? Yes or no?" followed by a chorus of yeses and nos. Simply, the amount of people who believed that there were concerns about the editor were outnumbered by the people who did not, 2 to 1. I wish I could provide more detail than that, but RfA back then was much, much simpler. Inclined to close as successful.
• Getcrunk 75%: The RfA was largely centered around a user box which was intended by a joke but offended several editors. Honestly, jokes are fine until people take them the wrong way. It also does not clarify whether this user would not be able to effectively make administrative decisions or just has a questionable sense of humor. I would be inclined to close as successful since the user is apparently otherwise fine, but I would be hesitant to give him adminship without asking him first to get rid of the userbox (as it would be unbecoming of an administrator). I would probably also discuss it with other bureaucrats first, since it's a borderline case.
• Rob Church 76%: Inclined to close as successful, as the only major concern was that of time (and it was only enough to bring his level of support down to 76%).
• DHMO 3 (at this point in time) 79%: The concerns are serious and the RfA is still in the discretionary range. I would be inclined to promote because he nonetheless commanded the trust of many, many people on his RfA.

• Cimon avaro's RfB 79%: Again, this is a case of applying modern standards to a discussion that happened over five years ago. I would bring this to a crat chat to clarify the accusations of recklessness. If the claims of recklessness were very serious and would bring to doubt his ability to serve as a bureaucrat, I would close the RfB as unsuccessful. Otherwise, I would close as successful.
• Riana's RfB 86%: Despite the significantly higher standards of RfB, I would be inclined to close as successful. Having 85.6% support for an RfB candidate is permissible, and nominating Kelly Martin for adminship is a personal opinion that does not relate to being able to objectively close an RfA (as long as Riana abstained from closing).
• Ed Poor's RfB 88%: Inclined to close as unsuccessful due to concerns about his judgment, elevated by the high standards that bureaucratship entails. I do appreciate that he decided not to unilaterally appoint himself.

• Links for harej: Harej (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for harej can be found here.
• Promote harej (bureaucrats only)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

1. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. I think the shortage of RfA experience is a good thing. I don't really want a 'crat who is heavily invested in the current system. As far as I can see, candidate is mature, reasonable, would pass an RfA, and I get the feeling they will take RfA closure very seriously. Can't ask for anything else. Tan | 39 13:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. It's a few extra buttons. I fully trust Harej not to go nuts with said buttons. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Actually I think he's pretty rational. -- Mentifisto 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Tan, unsurprisingly. → ROUX ₪ 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. I don't have a problem with Harej becoming a bureaucrat. He's experienced enough to know when to promote and when not to. It's a judgement call that I trust him to make. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong support - I analyzed the edits of Harej, and read his comments here and there; I like his attitude. He is trustworthy, yep! AdjustShift (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support per answers to the questions (my own and the previous ones). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Weak support. I really shouldn't let my sophomoric personal feelings get in the way of supporting good candidates for bureaucrat. I've always been an advocate of personal issues being separate from site-related issues, and this shouldn't be an exception. One two three... 18:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. He seems to be sane, rational. —Animum (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. I have no doubt that Harej would do a good job with the duties and responsibilities of this position. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support He wants the extra headaches that accompany the extra work? Sounds like a masochist. However, he's proven himself as an admin and I see no reason to not support. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support—Very trustable, highly intelligent and knowledgeable, and already speaks with authority, in my view. Tony (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support; I'm frankly a little surprised at the amount of opposes here, so far. All is well here. Sensible and competent in everything I've seen. Antandrus (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. I don't see why not, particularly. You have experience and I've seen continued incisiveness from you. Both are valuable in a bureaucrat, lending me to confidence. I'd encourage you to consider trying again with sustained activity. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Definitely. I've seen harej around enough to know that I can trust him in evaluating consensus. It's pretty telling that in the RFM over two years ago he was already described as "a very experienced administrator" (emphasis original). Also agree 100% with Tan above. Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - I haven't had the occasion to come across this editor before, but after taking the time to investigate, I have no concerns with supporting him as a 'crat. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Weak Support I have never ever read about this candidate before which usually is a sign of someone not very active. Despite that, I spent some time looking at his contributions and I cannot find anything that would make me believe that he would be a bad crat. My personal standards for cratship are more in line with Jimbo's, who described it as a "dull technical job" (hence the name) and I have no problem promoting any experienced, clueful and knowledgeable admin with a good track record to this position. The "deification" of cratship that happened since the group was created has been a disservice to the project. Regards SoWhy 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support as long as he doesn't accidentally autoblock a dozen Wikipedians at a conference again. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - From what I have seen he is a trusted user who does a lot of good work for Wikipedia, and should be a good 'crat. I would like to see more presence in 'crat areas but I do not consider this absolutely essential, in my RfB criteria interest is enough, which I think I see enough of for RfA here. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support It appears that Harej is more than capable of handling these duties. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I would like to see a little more participation in 'crat areas, but nearly 3 years as an admin is enough experience for me. Good luck! LittleMountain5 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - Harej seems like a person who is level-headed and can be trusted with the responsibilities of a 'crat. Killiondude (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Weak support (moved from oppose section). In his question answers, Harej really seems like he would thoroughly read through consensus and comes to a wise and trustworthy decision. I like his general sense of reason, I really do. I cannot fully support, though, since the lack of recent activity in cratship areas leaves me hesitant; norms sometimes change, and I'm not sure that he's knowledgeable about that. Also, I would prefer a bureaucrat candidate to be more well-known in the community. However, harej's good, rational comments in the self-nom statement/questions section lead me to believe that he'd be a net positive. Not everything I'd like to see in a crat, but I get the general impression that he has decent judgement. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 17:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but I'm going to go ahead and oppose this. Despite the fact that we're very close friends (and he even nominated me for my own RfB...), my multiple experiences with harej have shown that he does not possess adequate temperament and judgement to be an effective and impartial bureaucrat. Reluctant oppose. One two three... 07:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. Sorry, but I don't feel you have enough experience. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose I have some bureaucratic areas on my watchlist (including watching RfAs, WP:CHU, etc.). I also have tons of administrative areas on there, and I wind up on these pages nearly every day. I'm too worried at the fact that I've never seen your name before. Also, after reviewing your contributions and administrative work, I just don't feel you have the experience I look for in an crat candidate. iMatthew ^talk at 12:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Not the sort of person I'd trust with the tools. Alan16 (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose I am sorry, but due to your relative lack of experience in these areas, I feel that I cannot support you at this time. I would support you if you had more experience in bureaucrat-related areas. Maybe next time. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 14:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Based on this, I oppose based on what I find to be a lack of interest in RFA (I only see him here rarely), limited experience as an admin (only a couple of thousand of deletions in nearly three years). He does not have a decent history of RFA participation, and while he has been an admin for nearly three years there's just an obvious lack of experience. He has also only been moderately active in the past year. I'd prefer to elect a bureaucrat who has at least been around to see the possible scenarios that he might come across. Sorry, but there's simply too many issues. Majorly talk 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Per Majorly and iMatthew, a quick scan of admin logs shows limited participation and I've rarely if ever seen your name commenting or asking a question on an RfA. Too little admin experience for the bureaucrat tools.--Giants27 (c|s) 14:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. I like Harej, but I'm looking for more experience with RFA matters. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose I'd like more administrator experience before I give my unconditional support for you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   He's been an admin for nearly three years. What do you mean? Malinaccier (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, three minutes earlier, he supported Mbisanz, who has been an admin for 17 months less than Harej. I leave it to you to determine how much research went into this oppose. Tan | 39 17:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Though I disagree with the oppose, I think he means that Harej hasn't been active in recent times (just phrasing what he means). Cheers, I'^mperator 19:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Experience isn't gained with the passage of time, it's gained with doing. If someone get a driver's license and then doesn't drive for the next 20 years, they aren't an experienced driver. (Note: this is not an oppose or a support of the candidate, just expressing my thoughts on how someone could oppose on lack of experience).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose for right now due to lack of experience in key 'crat areas such as RfA. Majoreditor (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose insufficient current experience. Royalbroil 01:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose per Royalbroil. BrianY (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose per Royalbroil YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose. As Messedrocker, I often wondered about his maturity. Of course, it's quite likely that this has improved and that he's matured in the last year, but I have seen next to nothing of him for such a long time to be able judge for myself. In reviewing this candidacy I looked through his contributions and logs but there's nothing there that really grabs me. His last 1500 log items goes back to November 2006, which I honestly don't think is active enough with the tools the user already has to warrant granting extra tools, especially in a case where I worry about maturity. Why request a mop upgrade, as the candidate puts it, if one has rarely used the basic model? On top of that is the lack of involvement in Bureaucrat areas, which others above have already mentioned. To be honest, this request strikes me as rather strange and I can't support it. Sarah 06:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What does maturity have to do with ability to perform bureaucratic duties? One two three... 08:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite a bit, I'd imagine. Bureaucrats have to make difficult decisions at times, and though I firmly believe adminship is far more complicated than 'cratship, maturity can be an indicator of one's ability to make such decisions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It has to do with my general ability to trust a candidate and their judgement and stability on the project. I don't want people whose maturity I doubt in trusted positions. It's not the only reason I oppose this candidate though. Even if I had no concerns about his maturity, I still wouldn't be able to support due to his low activity and limited historical use of the tools he already has. Also what Julian said. Sarah 16:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose per Royalbroil and some of the above. miranda 10:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose more administrative experience is necessary. Artichoker^[talk] 23:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Weak oppose We don't have a shortage of bureaucrats, and if we did, I'd be willing to take the risk of supporting. However, I'd like to see more recent experience at RfA to be sure you know the ins and outs of bureaucrats' duties. Timmeh (review me) 01:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, FWIW, Dweller indicated here that we are indeed short on active 'crats. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, with WJBscribe back and TRM almost back, this argument is more valid than when it was actually placed. Is Timmeh a mind-reader? (X! · talk)  · @908  ·  20:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe... Timmeh (review me) 22:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I don't mind having 50 of them. But being choosy wasn't a factor for me personally YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "We need no more bureaucrats" is a dead meme. One two three... 08:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak oppose - you don't have the recent experience needed to be a bureaucrat. I don't remember anything particularly negative about your admin work, but crats need to be people who have much experience with consensus, and who the community generally knows very well. I haven't seen your signature that often, and I'm just not convinced that you're aware of the crat areas throroughly enough to serve as a "cream of the crop" admin with excelling judgement. Process norms tend to change, so a period of inactivity does not instill confidence in me. Sorry. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 17:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Upon further thought and a closer look, I've moved to the above section. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 17:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17. I know harej well, and I've seen him a lot of places. However, I have zero recollections of him at the RfA zone. I would prefer that bureaucrats have an active part at RfX, and I don't see harej fitting that personal requirement. (X! · talk)  · @763  ·  17:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose on the whole. I have seen some of his work at WP:RM - including both the decisions he mentions - and he has a tendency to impose his own judgment, instead of following or forming consensus. Not the best thing in a bureaucrat, who should be colorless.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose Prodego ^talk 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose Harej stated that applying today's standards to older RfAs makes it difficult to judge them properly. Going by that logic, if a person is unfamiliar with current RfA standards they wouldn't make a good judge in upcoming RfAs. As has been argued by other opposers, Harej should gain more experience participating in new RfAs. -- Atama^chat 23:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't like commenting on opposes, but I feel I have to clarify this. By "applying today's standards to older RFAs", I meant to RFAs five years ago where (a) it was treated more as a vote, and as a result, so did most participants then and (b) from before I even began editing Wikipedia. —harej (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your clarification. If you acknowledge that the way RfAs are handled can change over time, then do you think that the concerns about a lack of recent experience and participation in RfAs can be considered a detriment to your ability to judge RfAs? I suppose I'm saying not now as my vote, not that you are unfit to be a bureaucrat in general. -- Atama^chat 01:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I haven't seen enough experience from this user in crat-related areas to judge whether or not he will make good decisions. I could be swayed in either direction if provided evidence. hmwitht 15:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. I'm with hmwith on this. Please impress. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral I percieve that the user has valid reasons for wishing to recieve these additional privileges. However I am concerned by the opposition questions raised regarding lack of experience in relevant areas. I too will withhold support until further information is brought forward. --Matheuler 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral. Harej is a good admin, but does not particularly stand out. His deletion log definitely is not lacking; a "couple thousand" is not too low. RfA participation is also not too bad. But I like to see crats with a prominent record of interpreting consensus, e.g. closing AfDs; I do not feel that he sufficient experience with consensus for me to support. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Harej is very active at WP:RM, where he has had to make some tough calls. I wouldn't envy having to make some of the decisions he's made over there. One two three... 08:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. neutral RfA is a broken, toxic, system. Not participating much to RfA is probbaly a good thing, especially given the amount of effort gone into reform - reform that has not happened. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk)
6. Neutral. I'm not sure at the moment. Lack of recent participation in some areas concerns me, but not enough to oppose. Actually leaning toward support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral. Unable to decide, I've read both support and oppose arguments and I'm still firmly on the fence with this one. -- œ^™ 03:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Leaning towards support, but can't push it over the line. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral Per some of the concerns above. Sorry. America69 (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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