Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tom harrison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Tom harrison

final (42/1/0) ending 03:53 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom harrison (talk · contribs) – Tom has been a contributor here for almost two years but has been much more heavily engaged over the past several months and has well over 4,000 edits. Tom has also become much more active in admin related duties [1] and it would be a benefit to Wikipedia to give him the admin tools to help us out. I was especially pleased with his efforts to keep conspiracy theory POV out of some articles [2], [3], [4]. I have complete confidence that Tom will be an excellent admin.--MONGO 02:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept the nomination. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support unconditionally!--MONGO 03:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Absolutely. Tom has shown himself to be very level-headed and neutral, even on controversial articles. I think he'd make a great admin and I'm glad he accepted the nomination. Carbonite | Talk 04:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, looks good. —Kirill Lokshin 04:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support good editor --rogerd 05:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. --Jaranda wat's sup 06:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Very Strong support he is a calm editor, and friendly person. Let's vote with him!-- Bonaparte talk 08:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Will make good use of the mop. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. A good candidate with patience and maturity. My only concern is that he appears to be busy in offline life but I trust he would find enough time for the admin work. --BorgQueen 13:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. King of All the Franks 13:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Haven't interacted much with Tom, but the contribution list shows him to be a good, responsible and experienced contributor with good use of talk pages and good work in the backbone of Wikipedia (i.e. the main article namespace). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. --Terence Ong Talk 14:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support Almost everythingh I can see from your record is positive. Hope you'll be a good admin --Chazz88 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support - Fine contributions, no skeletons. Banes 17:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Peter McConaughey 17:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Tom Harrison's opinions are often internally inconsistent and partisan to the point of blind loyalty. If we were voting to "even the sides," I would have to vote against him, but we are not. Wikipedia cannot survive with administrative content control on either side. Therefore our votes are not a mandate for the nominee to push his agenda if elected. Our votes are support for nominees who do not use their influence to push their agenda, but let their edits speak for themselves. I am voting for Tom Harrison because he consistently makes a strong, informative article, that everyone can live with, a higher priority than his personal POV. If he says that he will continue to do so armed with his additional administrative power, I'll believe him. --Peter McConaughey 17:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. —Cryptic (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Obvious Support great editor will be great admin...oppose reasoning is weak.Gator (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. --Sean|Black 01:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Great potential. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support No question Dan100 (Talk) 15:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Phaedriel 22:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. The user-page complaints about the insipid "Note that..." phrasing won me over. More seriously, the work on the conspiracy-related stuff inspired confidence. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. There hasn't been a new RfA in almost two days, so I'll vote on this one. — JIP | Talk 22:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support Tom is careful, patient, fair, and willing to work. I think he will be an admin who won't need to spend a lot of time apologizing for being careless, impatient, unfair, or complaining about being overworked. patsw 01:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support - Good choice. -- Szvest 01:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  27. Support, impressive record. Arm 02:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  28. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 08:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support - He'll be the the perfect admin. Aldux 15:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Seems like a decent enough chap. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support freestylefrappe 18:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. The small bit of interaction I had with him was positive and I think he can be trusted with admin tools.--Dakota ~ ε 02:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  34. Harrumph -- MicahMN | μ 08:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. El_C 12:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support - "raoming, roaming around" for ages (at least 2 years). --Bhadani 16:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support AnnH (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support Although I think some more familiarity with process may be nice, Tom is a good and familiar contributor. I ask, though, that you stop using external link style in your signature. jnothman talk 07:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. I like what I've seen, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. Looks good, fine edits. --Kefalonia 14:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Great choice, will make a fine admin. -- Jbamb 23:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. Good editor. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 06:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Seriously? He's not an admin? Insanely, brutally intense support. Matt Yeager 06:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, I would like to see some familiarity and experience with process (other than AFD voting) before a user gains admin status. Radiant_>|< 10:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    Do you disagree with Jimbo's statement that "adminship should be no big deal"? Dan100 (Talk) 15:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'll answer that, speaking only for myself. Adminship should be no big deal. Because a few rogue malcontents have begun abusing admin rights under the color of WP:IAR, however, some of us feel adminship is -- unfortunately -- a de facto big deal if it falls into the wrong hands. Until methods for desysopping are improved, or a culture less tolerant of ignoring rules (with respect to admin actions) becomes the norm, some of us vote conservatively here. This in no way reflects on Mr. Harrison. I have not, and will not, vote at this RfA. I do strongly support Radiant's right to be conservative under the circumstances, I often join him, and I invariably find his reasons sound. Xoloz 18:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • My motives are somewhat different than that. I believe that adminship is a responsibility, requiring both trust and ability to do properly. Now I do trust most candidates here, but I will oppose those that I consider to lack experience (not in article writing, but in the processes many admins are involved with), since the ability is best gained, or demonstrated, by working on the processes for a while. And, if adminship is not a big deal, then neither is not being an admin. Radiant_>|< 22:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    So, the answer is yes? You disagree with Jimbo's statement? To you, admins is a big deal? OK. Glad we cleared that up. :) Gator (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The answer is that you cannot meaningfully summarize the complex situations and interactions on Wikipedia into koan-like one-liner mantras. Radiant_>|< 22:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    LOL, it kind of sounds like that's exactly what Jimbo did. To each their own I suppose. Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 92% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. There are writers better than I am who waste time dealing with vandalism. I would rather do that so they can spend their time writing. I expect to continue RC patrolling and reverting vandalism. That will give me a good opportunity to welcome new users, which I would like to do more often. I will also help out with Articles for Deletion and work on the Requested moves backlog. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have started from scratch only a few substantive pages: Tonk (game), and recently Sprint (missile) and some related pages. American terrorism and American terrorism (term) are in pretty good shape, although that was a group effort. I am pleased to have been able to make a small but useful contribution to September 11, 2001 attacks. I did some linking involving Case hardening and some related topics, and cleaned up the math markup on Hooke's law. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have spent way too much time on Conspiracy theory for what I have accomplished. The page is not bad, and includes some fine writing (none by me). But for the time it has taken to make it what it is, and the time it takes to maintain it, it seems like a bad bargain. The work there has been contentious, and I have not always acted as well as I would have liked. At some point I limited myself to one edit per day. That led me to take a more relaxed approach, and things have been less stressful since then. In the future I will do that sooner. On other pages I have found that providing citations, and insisting others provide them, reduces disagreement. Finally, I have come to realize that I do not have to do it all, or do it alone. Dealing with contentious issues has to be a collaborative effort. When things get difficult I will not hesitate to ask for help, and I will provide help when asked. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.