Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harro5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Harro5

final (5/8/8) ending 03:44 2 June 2005 (UTC) I am applying for adminship as I believe I have shown I am ready for this responsiblity. I first started at Wikipedia in March, and have currenty 1550 edits on kate's counter. I have worked hard to learn all the accepted practices at Wikipedia, and gotten involved in many areas - speedy deletions, VfD, peer review, FAC, admin request voting. I have shown courtesy and smart editing (using edit summaries for things other than typos or votes) and am ready to help out in the cleaning department as an admin. Harro5 03:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here - self-nom accepted.

Support

1. Alright, here we go. Harro5 is a good user. Good luck! Sjakkalle 06:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC) Even with the prank (see comments) I will maintain support. Sjakkalle 12:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Your work and interactions with other Wikipedians look good. I have one suggestion, however: please remember to always use edit summaries. Sietse 09:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

   A fine editor. Besides, the community made this user an admin when he had less edits than Harro5 :D.Phils 10:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC). Switching to neutral, I'm all for supporting users with low edit counts, but then their record has to be absolutely flawless. The autofellatio joke mentionned below (come on) combined with an experience of less than 3 months is enough for me to vote neutral. I will support in a month. Phils 10:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

3. Cool. JuntungWu 13:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
4. I can't see why not. —Xezbeth 06:28, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support although I understand concerns of 'too early'. Hedley 17:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

   Support, seems like s/he would make great admin! Flcelloguy 22:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC) Sorry, it seems like I didn't notice the "prank"- which was only 1 1/2 weeks ago. Because of that "prank" (vandalism, in my opinion), I'm switching my vote to neutral. Sorry, Harro5, I know we've all made stupid mistakes and been tempted to do a "joke", but that was just too recent. Try again in a month or so! :) Flcelloguy 21:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, too early. Grue 15:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Too early. Contribs list shows that he's a dedicated editor, and active "behind the scenes" in the Wikipedia namespace (which is good), but also that he hasn't quite got the hang of policy in those pages. Also seems a bit pushy WRT speedy deletion. Try again later. — Gwalla | Talk 05:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. A valuable user, but I don't want to hand over the keys to speedy deletion--many of his nominations are clearly not speedy candidates (see e.g. small penis humiliation or Michael Collins (Irish patriot), which should have gone to Vfd and Rfd respectively. Every admin needs to understand that speedy deletion is only for the specific cases mentioned in WP:CSD. Meelar (talk) 16:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Nothing personal, I just don't think you've been here long enough. Also, the comments by Meelar are worrying. -Lommer | ^talk 22:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Overall, I think many of your contributions are valuable. Your recent vandalism of Melbourne Grammar School and poor judgement with speedy deletes and encouraging vandals shows in my mind that you need more time before being trusted with admin rights. -- JamesTeterenko 00:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose, for now. The time's too short and that "joke" too recent. The excuse below about assuming the joke would be quickly reverted and then forgetting to delete it yourself bothers me more than the joke itself (though, quickpoll, do people laugh at these jokes?). One can forget stuff, sure, but, how can I put this, if you put in a sneaky autofellatio redirect, you need to make a note to go back and check on it. Set your PDA or something! Bishonen | talk 10:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Not enough edits and hasn't been on long enough. Try again in a couple of months Dmn / Դմն 09:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. oppose try again in a month or two. imho, you need more experience here. Kingturtle 18:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. He's been here since March 14, 2005, but really started editing regularly on April 9, 2005. It's a bit early for my taste. Keep up the good work, though! Lupo 09:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
2. For the second time today, I'll have to agree with Lupo. While I find your school article great work, and while I love your friendly and civil interactions, it's just a little too early. I will support fully in a month's time or aerlier if overwhelming vote-changing evidence turns up. Keep it up! :) Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
3. I would prefer another month under your belt. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
4. I would support at a later date, for now he seems to still be getting the hang of things --nixie 14:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I agree with Lupo. I like what I'm seeing, but I'm hesitant to vote for you just yet. Get another thousand or so edits under your belt and maybe another month and then you're golden. Also, do you have a featured article? I suggest you get one; even new editors that have had a major part to do with getting an article up to featured status tend to get much more attention. If you do all of this, I will not hesitate to vote support for you. Linuxbeak | Desk 02:58, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutral. (see above) Phils 10:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
7. Per the users above. Will probably support in a few months, since your edits and work look good. Bratsche^{talk random} 01:32, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
8. Neutral, see above explanation. Flcelloguy 21:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Sorry. On a side note, I'd recommend waiting a couple of months, because it looks bad to apply for adminship three times in three months, especially when they're self-noms. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)

Comments

• To those who say it hasn't been long enough, I respect that opinion. Thanks for having an input anyway. Harro5 08:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Unfortunately no, I don't have an FA yet. I feel Caulfield Grammar School is close, and the FAC finished 2 for/10 against, which sounds bad but many of the votes were weak objections. Hoping that it and Edgar Allan Poe will be FAs soon enough. Harro5 03:45, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• could the user please explain this edit to Melbourne Grammar School? it was listed as being a "fmt", but it is clearly not, since it sneakily added a piped link to autofellatio which was not visible and added the unsourced, unreferenced controversial claim text: "and is reputed to have the highest per capita ratio of openly gay teenagers anywhere in the world". if this was a one-off kind of joke, so be it, but this kind of thing is not becoming to an administrator. clarkk 14:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested in knowing this as well. Apparently, this slipped by my radar, and I'd like to know what the deal is with that as well. Redirecting articles to autofellatio is a known (and tired) GNAA vandalism. This seems very uncharacteristic of you, Harro5, seeing you contributed to other articles. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not perfect either. In fact, I celebrated my 1000th edit to Wikipedia by putting the {{spoiler}} tag on WikiNews. Was it a stupid thing? Yes. However, even though that can be considered a vandalism, it wasn't potentially harmful. I am still keeping my vote to Neutral and will continue to assume good faith, but I want a response to Clarkk's answer. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I admit to this as a prank. It wasn't a good idea, but at the time I thought it would be quickly reverted. Obviously, it wasn't, and I subsequently forgot to revert it myself. I apologise, and hope my edits since then have shown that I am a positive contributor and do not intend to vandalise in the future. I have been strong in working against vandalism on Wikipedia, and know that I have moved past any more childish urges to make such jokes. Harro5 06:47, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• I believe he has used poor judgement in dealing with sneaky vandals. The example that I have is with the article on Daniel Macarro. This article was shown to be a hoax, yet Harro5 listed it as one of his significant contributions, and encourged others to vote to keep (see here and here. I am not suggesting that he started this hoax, just that he used poor judgement in encouraging it. -- JamesTeterenko 00:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I was not the only user to believe this article was real, and to put the talk comments in perspective, these messages were to the anons who had been posting "keep" votes on the Macarro talk page. I was merely telling them how a VfD works - go to the VfD and vote keep. I am offended that I am being accused of helping and harboring vandals on Wikipedia - my work on speedy deletions has been to stop anons from starting on the wrong foot. Harro5 06:11, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • I do believe that you had good intent in your actions in this situation. I believe that you are a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I just believe that you need a bit more experience to be trusted with admin rights. Once you have more experience, you will probably make a great admin. There may have been other users that believed that article was real. However, you were the only user with more than one previous edit to vote to keep the article. The fact that you did not notice that shows to me that you should not be put in a position where you judge the result of a VfD. At least not yet. -- JamesTeterenko 15:24, 31 May 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 have been very active in rallying admins to act quickly over speedy deletions that aren't needed. I'd want to get in there and just cut out the middle-man, deleting nonsense by myself. Also, things like VfD and updating Did You Know and In the News would take my interest. Basically, whatever needs to be done.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. My Caulfield Grammar School article, which may be a featured article soon if all goes well, and also my various sports articles on Australians that wouldn't be covered otherwise (eg. The Woodies, featured on Did You Know).

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Nothing major - I had a run in with Gzuckier over 3RR and some edits a while back, but we sorted it out. Other than that, just an anon venting anger over me putting SD notices on their nonsense pages.