Harro5

[edit]

final (11/4/1) ending 09:23 8 July 2005 (UTC)

I am re-applying for adminship via self-nomination. My first self-nom was a month ago, and finished with no consensus because of one foolish edit to an article by me. I haven't put a foot wrong since that mistake on May 20, and feel I am ready to pick up a mop and bucket to delete nonsense in the new pages section. I have been doing a lot of tagging with userfy and cleanup lately, but would like to be able to delete test articles, one worders, and nonsense by myself. Harro5 July 1, 2005 09:23 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

  1. I'll support you again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. While Harro is committed and does good RC patrol, he is too lenient in dealing with articles. For example, Harro uses the verify and userfy tags too much, even when vanity is obvious (although I guess the article will be deleted soon, here is a diff: [1]). This leniency concerns me, although i'm willing to be convinced to support here. Hedley 1 July 2005 19:59 (UTC) Support now, although if the adminship passes i'd like Harro5 to be more bold in speedying vanity. Hedley 1 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)
    I have been taking this approach recently as I was criticised in my first RFA for being too eager using CSD and VfD. I have been tagging stuff like this (the article you cite might have been notable with the "most politically incorrect song" if that existed), and then revisiting them to start VfDs - eg: [2]. If I became an admin, I'd look to only delete the utter nonsense, and use correct channels (VfD, etc.) for borderline stuff. Harro5 July 1, 2005 22:00 (UTC)
  3. Support A calm softly-softly approach is always a good thing. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
  4. Support- though I voted neutral last time, the only reason was because the "joke" (i.e. vandalism) was too recent. Now that time has passed, I beleive Harro5 would make a good admin. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 2 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
  5. Support – active in FAC where I patrol mostly. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 4, 2005 18:47 (UTC)
  6. Weak support. Good use of edit summaries, good edits. My concern lies mostly with the fact that some editors would never do joke vandalism, and also some of your actions show activity based on a lack of knowledge. (For instance, here, you voted to delete based on a false premise (you seemed to think this was a JW organization, when a cursory glance at the talk page showed it was an anti-JW organization). That's just one example where I remembered running into you. Mostly good job; just be sure to use your judgement- and it has improved substantially since last time. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)
    I think I remember having tagged a few JW articles on that day, so I was probably just guessing this was related. Anyway, well done to you for noticing that error, but I know I wouldn't go in and speedy delete anything like that, so please don't think I am quick to judge when it really matters. Thanks for your input. Harro5 July 5, 2005 23:58 (UTC)
  7. Support.  Grue  7 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)
  8. He seems responsible enough. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 7, 2005 09:04 (UTC)
  9. Meelar (talk) July 7, 2005 16:51 (UTC)
  10. Support-JCarriker July 7, 2005 17:40 (UTC)
  11. Support. Wile E. Heresiarch 8 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Seems to me that most of the oppose-voters on his previous RFA do so because of Harro's lack of experience. In my opinion, that means he should not renominate himself so soon, thus oppose. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 08:34 (UTC)
  2. Too soon since last nomination. Will consider in the future. Gamaliel 5 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
  3. Immature vandals make poor admins. Try back in a few months when you have someone respectable to nominate you. -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Vandalism does not stablish a good background for candidates. You shoud wait at least a few months before applying for adminship again. --Sn0wflake 7 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I opposed last time because I felt that he had shown poor judgement on a few occasions and may show poor judgement on sysop tasks. I will bump it up to neutral for this vote. He has a bit more experience and seems to be using better judgement. However, it is a bit too soon for me to upgrade my vote to a full support. The picture in his sandbox also seems to suggest a little immaturity; but that is just my opinion. -- JamesTeterenko 4 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)

Comments

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 lately in trawling through new pages and tagging stuff that isn't what a Wikipedia article should be. I would like the ability to delete stuff that is just junk (nonsense, tests, personal attacks), and would be happy to help out at various deletion pages, Did You Know and In The News.
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 is sort of my obsession (I've probably made over 100 edits to it!), and it was made a featured article today. I also like to save stuff that is poorly done in the WP:NP section, formatting and wikifying it. Most of my edits are either little corrections, or new stuff. I tend to steer clear of anything I'd have to heavily read up on, or I'll get attacked for (ie. touchy stuff on politics).
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 haven't really had any major problems (see my first RFA for some old stuff), but do have the rare run-in with a user who's not doing the right thing (eg. Deryck C's overzealous FAC oppostion).
Category