Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bmusician (talk | contribs) at 05:50, 29 November 2012 (→‎Support: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Harrias

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (75/0/1); Scheduled to end 06:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Harrias (talk · contribs) – Harrias has been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and has gathered quite some speed since 2009. Having created over 375 articles, 121 DYKs, 22 Featured Lists, 2 Featured Articles, 24 Good Articles, and with close to 7 years of experience, Harrias has contributed extremely diligently to our project in his over 19,000 edits. An autopatroller, reviewer and rollbacker, Harrias works primarily on cricket-related articles, but takes up other topics too as and when. A comprehensive, content-driven editor, Harrias is always willing to discuss, rather than argue, and is one of the most level-headed, well mannered and good humored contributors I know of. I do believe the project would be benefited by entrusting the tools to Harrias. I hope the community too finds Harrias' RfA candidacy worthy of the same. Wifione Message 18:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept the nomination. Harrias talk 21:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: On the whole, I would continue to add to Wikipedia primarily as a content editor: creating and expanding articles and working towards Good and Featured status. As a part of this, I regularly spend time at WP:DYK, and in case the community trusts me with the tools, would be able to undertake the tasks at DYK that require administrative attention (for example, transferring prepared hook sets into the queue, something that can only be done by administrators). Beyond that, I envision that I would increasingly answer to requests for admin support in content areas, as per my competence and experience levels.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In my opinion my best contributions are my articles, both new and expansions. Primarily cricket based, but with dalliances into a variety of different places at times. I think the FA, Herbie Hewett, is one of my best contributions; but I am also proud of creating articles such as Juan Martínez de Recalde, second-in-command of the Spanish Armada.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've had very few conflicts with other editors: I think I'm a pretty chilled out sort of a person, so I tend not to get into such situations. One case I do recall was when I got a bit snappy with User:Djln here. I don't know whether this qualifies as a conflict, but I did disagree with what he'd done, and I clearly shouldn't have left the message I did. Generally, if something does vex me on Wikipedia, I take a break, and then revisit the issue later to be able to address it in a more rational and thought out manner.
Additional question from Go Phightins!
4. Since no one has asked a question yet, I thought I would. Which current Wikipedia administrator would you aspire to emulate? Who is your "role model", so to speak? If you'd rather not name a name, that's fine. I was just hoping you could talk about some of the general qualities you think an administrator should embody? Why do you edit Wikipedia?
A: The new question, rather than the struck question, is quite an interesting one actually. I thought when I first looked at it that it was going to be simple to answer, but on reflection, it isn't. When I started editing in earnest I'd found a number of holes in Wikipedia's coverage of cricket in Somerset. Over time, my focus changed from creating new articles to improving current articles. The more I research and find out, the more I want to improve specific articles, and the more I improve articles, the more I want to research various topics. That explains the content creation; the more administrative tasks are ones that as I have become more familiar with Wikipedia I have realised the need for. Whether it be going through and tagging a catalogue of articles for a particular project, copy-editing an article or participating in a deletion discussion, I do those tasks because I think they are small ways that I can improve the encyclopaedia when my writing isn't flowing.
I'm also going to give my answer to the struck question: while the discussion, now on the talk page, vilified it at times, I think it has reasonable parts that I'm happy to reply to. I will however, avoid naming any particular administrator. Not because it wouldn't be politic, but because there isn't any one in particular that I could name. On this site, each user tends to only come across a small percentage of other users on the site: reading down the contributors to this page for example, I recognise less than half the names. There are a number of administrators that I come across regularly, and have a lot of respect for: the time and dedication that User:The Rambling Man spends reviewing content at WP:FLC, as well as FAs and PRs is incredible. Similarly, the work that User:Nikkimaria puts in, specifically with regards to patrolling for possible copyright-violations and close para-phrasing issues is unbelievable. But, that's what they do on Wikipedia, and as can probably be inferred from my initial answers, I don't foresee treading such a path. The qualities that I think an administrator should embody are relatively simple though. I think an administrator should be thoughtful and reasonable in every situation, happy to reason and explain their decisions, and always be willing to admit that they were wrong.
I would also like to address the since removed question 6. I pondered whether it would be sensible to attempt an answer to this, but I think it is, given that it is really very simple and non-controversial. As I explained above, each users come across a small percentage of other users, and of those, a very small percentage are administrators. Of those administrators I have come across, I have not had a negative experience. As I allude to in my answer to question 3, I've had a very quiet time on Wikipedia with very few conflicts or issues. So my concise answer is: while it is entirely possible that some administrators have been detrimental to Wikipedia, I have not come across any that I would speak badly of, so I can offer no name in answer. Harrias talk 20:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Callanecc
5. I know you aren't currently planning to do a lot of deleting, blocking or protecting, but I think it's inevitable that you will at some point. I have a couple of questions about page protection. When is it appropriate to fully-protect, as opposed to semi-protect, a page (particularly outside main space)? When is it appropriate to indefinitely protect (both semi and full) a page?
A: With regards to protecting articles, I personally lean towards good faith. Generally, I would want to find a solution that avoids any sort of block being necessary at all, or find the lowest level of protection that can solve the problem. In any of the situations, I would seek to engage the editors (even IPs) in conversation, either at their talk pages, or the article talk page to see if a solution can be found, sometimes alongside some level of protection if needed. To answer your question more directly though; temporary semi-protection is going to be the most appropriate in cases of short-term bursts of vandalism by IP/unconfirmed editors. In my own experience, this can happen after a particular sporting derby or a political gaffe; and generally, after a few hours or days, no one really cares any more, and the protection isn't needed any more. Temporary full-protection is more likely to be used where multiple editors are warring, each preferring their own version of an article. In this case, a full-protection for a short time along with the administrator encouraging the editors to talk things through might work something out. This sort of protection can also be required outside of main space, such as was the case on the Wikipedia:Verifiability page a few months ago, when disputes over the wording of the policy escalated and an RfC was required. Indefinite protection is something that I am not at all a fan of; I feel it goes against the mantra of Wikipedia. That said, in some cases, indefinite semi-protection is needed for articles that are constantly subject to vandalism in its various forms, though I would only enforce this if it has been shown that temporary semi-protections have not worked. Indefinite full-protection is something that I can't foresee imposing on an article, unless it involves BLP considerations or long standing content disputes or high risk redirects/templates (like the DYK Template). Indefinite full protection has uses in Wikipedia namespace, and on such pages as the Main page, but in the article space, as the list of indefinitely fully protected articles shows, the application of this is rare. Harrias talk 21:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from TParis
6. Given the nonsense over question 4 and [what used to be 6], it's obvious that many editors get jaded in the Wikipedia process and lose enthusiasm (not directed at anyone in particular, we all face this). Name something on Wikipedia that is not serious in nature that you find fun and enjoyment that were you to lose ethusiasm elsewhere, you could return to this thing. For example, I enjoy reading DYK blurbs and then following to the articles. When I get disillusioned, I do that.
A:

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as nom. Wifione Message 06:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support seems to meet my criteria. --Nouniquenames 06:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support experienced user. Don't see any reason to oppose. Torreslfchero (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Highly experienced and the article work is impressive. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Seems good to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Looking through the contributions, I see a calm and courteous editor with excellent content contributions. Outside of DYK, Administration-related edits are sparse but accurate. I don't see any reason to oppose. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - One of the finest content contributors around. I have always admired Harrias' work and I'm sure that he'll be a great benefit to the project if given extra tools. Harrais is always civil, calm and open to suggestions which is what an admin should have. I have no doubt in my mind about his abilities. TheSpecialUser TSU 12:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support —stay (sic)! 13:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I'm very impressed with his content contributions, and everything else looks good. Harrias is remarkably drama-free - in almost seven years he has not once made an edit to WP:ANI, WP:AN or WP:AN3, and his example of conflict in question one actually made me chuckle it was so far from any actual drama. I am sure we would do well to hand him the tools. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I am also very impressed with both his technical work and his content creation. He definetely deserves the mop. Vacationnine 13:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (edit conflict) Support - No red flags and the candidate's record speaks for itself. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Almost the exact oppose of some recent candidates, with lots of article content and virtually no admin area experience. This is fine as we should support diversity and this editor has shown they can work with others cooperatively in other areas and isn't likely to jump carelessly into unfamiliar waters. Diversity in the admin corp is just as important as diversity in our editors, as it makes us stronger and more balanced. My primary criteria of a good demeanor and attitude are easily met here, so I'm happy to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support -- KTC (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Total support - candidate has shown he is highly responsible, and I can't see any problems with them getting the admin flag. Mdann52 (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Harrias' willingness to admit a lapse in judgment (which looked more like understandable exasperation to me :-)) is a plus. Should make a good admin. Miniapolis (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Use of tools can be learned. Intothatdarkness 15:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support While I generally think candidates should have more experience with areas where admins are active, the candidate has identified a specific admin area of interest, in that area there is the need for more admins, and the candidate is very well qualified for work there. Good enough for me. Monty845 15:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I don't really mind a lack of admin-area experience, content creating admins are useful too! AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 16:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support – Excellent content contributions, great civility, good AfD work, and nothing that would cause an oppose. We do need a variety of admins, and the lack of admin-related work is not too concerning considering the amount of content work that Harrias does. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Calm, level-headed, considerate, immense body of content work, extensive experience. A fantastic candidate. Lack of admin-related work is not concerning, seeing as this editor has demonstrated an ability to learn and act carefully. Content knowledge will add important skills to the admin corps. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, not least because two successful FACs will instil one with more valuable experience than many hundreds of posts elsewhere in the projectspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I've ran into this user at featured list and article nominations, and I must say Harris' main-space article and list contributions are simply excellent. Further, the editor is extremely mature, even in horrible situations, is bold often, and his/her does amazing work at Did you know?, which is why this user should have the mop. Great work! TBrandley 18:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the user really deserve the mop? Seems more like the user is willing to be subjected to the mop. But deserve really? Do you really not like them or something?--v/r - TP 18:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you getting at? I stated that the user should have the mop, and is obviously a great editor. I don't understand. TBrandley 21:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He's just reminding you that being an admin sucks ;) Someguy1221 (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Seems to be a very good editor, that could use the tools well in specific areas that are his bailey-wick (and there's nothing wrong with that). Guðsþegn (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Garion96 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - based on review of history. Kierzek (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - solid editor, no issues trusting them with the mop. GiantSnowman 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. STRONG Support A good wikipedian, give him the mop. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Looks good; would be a valuable asset to DYK as an admin. SpencerT♦C 21:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - per Dennis. Go Phightins! 21:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support -- a great example of a huge content contributor whose promotion will not change his(?) position towards pure admin work, but any help on DYK or other places will be an asset and be a sparkling light to others that WP runs on contributors to both content and civility. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support after a review of contributions. Enviable content work. While I didn't see many admin-related contributions, those I did see demonstrated knowledge, tone, and clue. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Very strong support — Absolutely! Harrias is a very well rounded editor who will put the tools to good use. Besides, we need more content-oriented administrators. Kurtis (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - I can see no major issues with the candidate, and more help at DYK is always appreciated :). Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Absolutely. Courcelles 00:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - no issues, no reason to oppose.--В и к и T 01:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Solid contributor with a good attitude. Someone we can trust with the tools. - MrX 02:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - per nom. Begoon talk 03:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - A great contributor with a number of Featured list and Featured articles on credit, no reason to oppose. Zia Khan 03:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Great candidate. INeverCry 05:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Qualified candidate. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Responsible for one of the easiest GA reviews I have ever conducted. Great content contributor if just a little obsessed by cricket. Will make a great admin. AIRcorn (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support excellent choice -- Samir 06:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support – Why not? Excellent and trustworthy editor! —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Another editor that is geared toward content related issues makes me support. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - think a mop is in order here! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 11:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Per nomination. My76Strat (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Harrias would be a helpful admin. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose A perfect record is not allowed in an RfA.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 13:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, really? -- Trevj (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support...no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.MONGO 14:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support trusted user no reason to think they would abuse the tools. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Solid contributor, no reason to suppose this editor will be anything other than a solid admin. — sparklism hey! 15:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Trusted long time contributor with a long history, no valid reason to distrust his responsibility with the mop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Illusive Man (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Not a lot of admin-related work going on in past contributions, but nothing to make me think they would abuse the tools, delete the mainpage or block Jimbo, either through accident or design. Trusilver 16:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per nom. Glancing through contribs stuff looked okay, don't see any reason to oppose. While I don't think that a strong content contributor focus is a requisite for a good admin, it is good to have administrators that are strong in that area and can push articles through to GA and FA. PaleAqua (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I like this straight-faced review. Warden (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I've bumped into Harrias on numerous occasions, a really dedicated Wikipedian who has nothing but the best intentions for the project. An editor I have yet to see lose perspective, and hence a very good candidate for admin, particularly in light of the interactions I've seen at WP:FLC for instance. An excellent editor who will do nothing but improve Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. I have seen absolutely nothing to cause me concern. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - Looks good. Rlendog (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support More oversight of the DYK queues would be desirable. Harrias looks to have the experience required to have this userright. The Interior (Talk) 19:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Looks good to me! Inks.LWC (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, adequate tenure and edit count. Orientation towards content is an added plus, in my book. Carrite (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Will be a net benefit. Legoktm (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support No evidence of Chuck Woolery. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Stephen 00:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. - Thanks for being willing to serve the community. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - can't say I remember any specific interactions with Harrias but I do like his answers above. No concerns at all that he would make a good and helpful admin. Stalwart111 03:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, though the lack of any opposes makes me suspicious. I thought this was RfA. Wizardman 03:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Neutral, oppose, and support in the same RfA. There's a first for me. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Supportseems like a voluntary and upstanding Wikidenizen. Maidahl (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Glad such a productive editor is willing to accept this responsibility; editing history and answers above show awareness of the requirements and maturity in engagement. -- Scray (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. →Bmusician 05:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose Obviously, at this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't opposing the candidate for someone else independently removing your question rather petty? Monty845 17:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is the removing of the question that I find petty. My oppose is regrettable, but sadly there is no way to have my question answered by the candidate at this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... you are always free to ask on his talk page... but that really was a loaded question. I'm sure there's a better way to write it that still gets at what you want to know, without the negative-skew of it. Lord Roem (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Joefromrandb is opposing Harrias because Joefromrandb asked a question that was deemed inappropriate and removed by a user other than Harrias. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of striking this !vote out as intentionally disruptive and unrelated to the merits of the candidate. I suppose I won't actually do that, as it would lead to a revert-war and further disruption, but I wouldn't mind one little bit if a bureaucrat did it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and actually, the candidate now has addressed (former) question 6 in his answers, so maybe the !vote will be reconsidered anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm attempting to strike it-must be doing something wrong. Any user is welcome to strike it for me. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral Waiting to see if the answer to Question 4 is me, or someone else...this could sway things :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended discussion on this point has now been moved to the talk page. — sparklism hey! 15:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral While I wait for a response to my question. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your question is divisive and amazingly inappropriate. It's sad that someone feels the need to stir up drama in even the most clear-cut of RfAs. Trusilver 17:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I on the other hand, feel that your comment is amazingly inappropriate. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and I have removed the disruptive question. Also, I found the practice of posting in neutral while "waiting for a response to my question" rather annoying. Why don't you just wait? It comes across as holding the nominee to ransom. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, let's just drop it. The question is, to say the least, unhelpful. Asking someone "who do you like the least" is not useful at all. Around here, most of us tend to converse most with those we get on with. Asking a candidate to name-and-shame someone that they probably barely know seems entirely pointless. But having said that, Joefromrandb can ask the question. What Joefromrandb can't do is continually beat a drum that the community disagrees with. Note, closing 'crats will take all !vote rationales seriously, and will give them due diligence, including those which suggest an "oppose" for a candidate who does not answer an optional question. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Harrias&oldid=525496732"