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

Harrias[edit]

Final (127/1/1); ended 07:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

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[reply]

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

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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[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[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: Another question that isn't as easy to answer as it initially appears! In general, when I've lost enthusiasm for the projects I'm working on that time, be that writing an article, or reviewing, or categorising, I tend just to rotate onto the next thing: If I'm struggling with writing, I'll do a review, if I'm fed up of reviewing, I might check project tagging, if I'm tired of the monotony of that, I'll do some writing. But when all of that isn't exciting me, I tend to return to new article creation. Women's cricket in particular is lacking in so many articles that there is always something I can go and create. And while that might not sound fun to a lot of editors, I genuinely find that fun and relaxing, and it usually revitalises me to continue back with the rest of my activities. Harrias talk 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Trevj
7. Your editing has included contributions to at least one article where there appears to be a dearth of online reliable sources (but common sense tells us that reliable printed sources are likely to exist). In such cases, what are your thoughts on sensibly determining rough consensus with regard to the strict application of our current policies on notability? -- Trevj (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I'll presume the question refers to my view about a deletion discussion where such an article is listed. Although I think our notability standards are guidelines and not policies (in other words, for guiding editors, not for making zero-tolerance strict benchmarks), the underlying policies holding up these guidelines (like the verifiability policy) define non-negotiable standards. Lack of adherence to these underlying policies and the overlying guidelines makes demonstrating notability difficult with some articles, and particularly for those with limited online reliable sources, as you say. I think this is particularly a problem for historical and foreign-language subjects. The important thing to focus on though is that the article has to demonstrate notability: it isn't enough to assume that there is coverage, it has to be shown. Whether this be offline or online sources, citations that can be reasonably verified have to be shown to back up the notability of the article - at the same time, one should give due credence to subject specific notability guidelines (like those for professors, sports persons) that give some leeway with regards to the GNG. I think it is important to focus on the fact that it is primarily a discussion, not a vote. The number of votes cast in each way is secondary to the reasons for those votes. As with everything, the focus should be on considering the arguments and making a reasoned decision from that evidence, in conjunction with the various policies in place; particularly those pertaining to BLPs. Harrias talk 09:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your considerable answer. In fact, Arnold Fothergill was the specific case I had in mind. I admit to being largely unfamiliar with the guidelines for sportspersons, but could verify those in order to fully understand that aspect of your explanation. If you have the time, it would be most helpful if you would be willing to briefly summarise a couple of potential scenarios which you think might occur during a hypothetical deletion discussion for this or a similar article. Thanks very much. -- Trevj (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I'm not entirely clear on what you are asking: are you referring to potential results if such an article went to an AfD, or potential rationales for pass and fail votes at such? Harrias talk 16:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry. I guess I mean potential scenarios if all contributors to an AfD thread were to have searched (and failed to find) more than, say, collectively one additional reliable source. Some participants might choose to present cases explaining why they know the subject to be notable enough for its own article, and that they are certain that offline must sources exist but aren't able to present them. Others would be sure to explain why they believe the article should be deleted/merged. I appreciate that without referring to an actual discussion of this kind containing existing comments (sorry - maybe it would've been more meaningful if I'd searched for a current one at AfD instead) this is turning out to be increasingly hypothetical. I suppose what it really amounts to is that I'm curious as to how you feel about the strict application of our policies on notability, considering that perhaps some of your subject areas of interest may border on having questionable notability themselves. It's up to you whether you think this is worthy of a further answer or not. Thanks very much, and apologies for the ambiguities and for taking too long to get to the point. -- Trevj (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Ottawahitech
8. What is your opinion of the following two wikiprojects:
Do you believe they add value to Wikipedia? Do you believe they detract from Wikipedia? – if so how? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I can understand the thought behind Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. The idea of categorising AfDs is very useful, but for example, I become aware of Cricket AfDs through Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Article alerts, though this only works if they have been tagged as being part of the project. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who do use the categorisation to find relevant discussions, and I can't see any harm in the project at all. Wikipedia:ARS is something I've come across a few times, but I know relatively little about. The principles look noble: take a notable article which is likely to be deleted because it has been poorly referenced / written or otherwise, and improve it so that Wikipedia doesn't lose what would be an otherwise useful article. My only worry would be if the project was also attempting to save articles that aren't really notable, and thus causing more problems. But as I say, I don't really know enough about the project to be able to comment on that. Harrias talk 16:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nom. Wifione Message 06:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support seems to meet my criteria. --Nouniquenames 06:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support experienced user. Don't see any reason to oppose. Torreslfchero (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Highly experienced and the article work is impressive. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Seems good to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  7. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  9. Support —stay (sic)! 13:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]
  14. Support -- KTC (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
  17. Support Use of tools can be learned. Intothatdarkness 15:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
  20. Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]
  24. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]
    He's just reminding you that being an admin sucks ;) Someguy1221 (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  27. Support - Garion96 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support - based on review of history. Kierzek (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support - solid editor, no issues trusting them with the mop. GiantSnowman 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. STRONG Support A good wikipedian, give him the mop. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support Looks good; would be a valuable asset to DYK as an admin. SpencerT♦C 21:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support - per Dennis. Go Phightins! 21:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]
  37. Absolutely. Courcelles 00:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support - no issues, no reason to oppose.--В и к и T 01:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support - Solid contributor with a good attitude. Someone we can trust with the tools. - MrX 02:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support - per nom. Begoon talk 03:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  42. Support - Great candidate. INeverCry 05:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support. Qualified candidate. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  45. Support excellent choice -- Samir 06:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support – Why not? Excellent and trustworthy editor! —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Another editor that is geared toward content related issues makes me support. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  50. Support - Per nomination. My76Strat (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support Harrias would be a helpful admin. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Oppose A perfect record is not allowed in an RfA.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 13:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, really? -- Trevj (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support...no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.MONGO 14:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support trusted user no reason to think they would abuse the tools. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]
  59. Support I like this straight-faced review. Warden (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  61. Support. I have seen absolutely nothing to cause me concern. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support - Looks good. Rlendog (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  64. Support - Looks good to me! Inks.LWC (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  66. Support Will be a net benefit. Legoktm (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support No evidence of Chuck Woolery. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Stephen 00:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support. - Thanks for being willing to serve the community. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]
    Hopefully a last as well ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Supportseems like a voluntary and upstanding Wikidenizen. Maidahl (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  75. →Bmusician 05:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support The opinion about protecting over blocking is exactly what I was hoping the candidate would say, and the rest of the answer sounds great to me. There is no other reason I can find that would convince me of any reason not to support. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support, good temperament and judgement — Frankie (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support, an excellent content contributor who consistently exhibits sound judgment. I've worked with him on a few articles and lists in the past and can say with conviction that he would be a net positive as an admin. —SpacemanSpiff 08:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support I see clueful actions, e.g. extending this DYK nomination to AfD, and have no reason to believe the candidate's use of the tools would harm the project. It looks to me as if he'd make a reasonable and sensible administrator. -- Trevj (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support With his impressive content contributions and length of tenure, if he doesn't know what adminship is all about by now, he never will. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support per my experience of interacting with this hard-working and experienced editor. BencherliteTalk 13:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support Looks like an excellent choice. I particularly like the combined edits on articles as well as article talk pages. Response to question 5 is particularly good and shows an approach that all admins would do well to emulate. --regentspark (comment) 15:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support Inspires trust, obviously totally committed to the production of a quality encyclopaedia, zero evidence of objectionable attitudes or behaviours. QuiteUnusual TalkQu 15:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. I particularly like the answer to (the current) question 6. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support, though consistently low activity is worrisome.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Yes. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support. Qualified, would be a fine admin. dci | TALK 03:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support Good track has been long enough in the project.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support Calm, experienced and drama-free. Plays with a straight bat and knows when to let them go through to the keeper. He deserves the umpires hat. Jschnur (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support should be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support – No concerns. This editor appears to be a safe choice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support --Amadscientist (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support Not concerned at all. --Webclient101talk 23:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Yeah, good answers, but even ignoring that superb content-based candidate. NativeForeigner Talk 00:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support seems not going to abuse the tools, good editor Mediran talk to me! 00:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support - Sounds like a model admin candidate. Give the man a mop!--Ðrdak (T) 05:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support Everything checks out! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Good luck. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Congrats on WP:100 -- Trevj (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support Oldelpaso (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support Very qualified candidate. -- Luke (Talk) 16:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Strong candidate, pleased to pile-on support. Thank you for volunteering. Townlake (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Answers to the questions reflect solid Judgment. I especially liked the answers to the questions 4 and 8. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support Impressive candiate. Good luck to you. Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support Qualified candidate. The long answers definitely show the user is calm, experienced and drama-free. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 22:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support Superlative qualification and history. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. You mean he's not yet? We have to remedy this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support - Obvious support from me, candidate is a good asset to the community. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support - I My opinion tends to lie on the neutral - oppose quadrants in discussions such as these, but somehow I couldn't find a reason to not support. Good luck. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support Excellent editor. No problem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support. mabdul 20:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support, why not? gwickwiretalkedits 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Yes. There are few editors who have achieved the Alexander Crown - which is a healthy indicator of commitment to the project. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support. Experienced contributor with no obvious issues. AGK [•] 00:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support, in addition to stellar contribution history, the handling of the situation that unfolded right here was calm, rational, and I think helped in putting a lid on the blowup. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support - Without a doubt. ZappaOMati 03:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support Harrias will make a fine addition to the motley group of mop-wielders. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support. Honestly, I almost opposed this candidate - he's obviously a sleeper sock. Editing since 2005 without incident? Reasonable answers to questions? My god, does he truly expect us to believe that he's that qualified to be an admin? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support: @ Ultra - I think the answer is yes - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support - fine editor, meets all my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support Had a brief check through their contributions: no concerns about their excellent contribution history. The only very slight concern I have is the answer to the question about WP:ARS and WP:DELSORT. If this user is interested in closing AfDs, they may need to understand a bit more about it. But that's a pretty minor concern given they said they aren't interested in that kind of thing. From what I see, a good, hard-working editor who is sane and sensible and won't misuse the tools. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support Rzuwig► 21:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support. Clear experience dealing with content, and if the link in the answer to Q3 is the closest thing to a skeleton in the closet (and no other skeletons have emerged over the course of this RfA), I'd say there is absolutely nothing to worry about. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support. No issues that I can see. WikiPuppies bark dig 23:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support Been here since 2005 (which is longer than I), squeaky clean block log, and an overwhelming support from other contributors (only one oppose and one neutral), call me easy if you wish, but this user seems qualified to me. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Seems trustworthy and sane. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 06:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose Obviously, at this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't opposing the candidate for someone else independently removing your question rather petty? Monty845 17:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
  1. Oppose- Too deletionist. In all seven of the AfDs where he didn't vote with consensus he voted delete, and he stated that he has a problem with ARS saving articles that are not notable, which would be completely against their stated mission. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Harrias has created 375 articles... I believe he's quite far from being a deletionist. Wifione Message 04:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Seven votes for delete out of his 19,500+ edits? Also, have a look at the articles created by Harrias! Zia Khan 05:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I find this reassuring. I would rather see an admin candidate willing to be the lone voice of dissent in an AfD than just another yes-man who stays away from anything contentious for fear of offending someone. Trusilver 05:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Disagreeing with consensus is a far thing from acting against it. I have no problem with an administrator who disagrees with the community, so long as he can live with its consensus. I believe what we have here is a candidate who can do just that. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not criticizing the fact that he disagreed with consensus, just pointing out that each one of those times he voted delete. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  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[reply]
    Extended discussion on this point has now been moved to the talk page. — sparklism hey! 15:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neutral While I wait for a response to my question. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
    I on the other hand, feel that your comment is amazingly inappropriate. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
The above adminship 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.
Category