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

Final (57/0/0) ended 06:18 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Harro5 ( talk · contribs · count) – I am requesting adminship after my second RFA (this contains a link to the older one as well) which failed due to a small number of votes being cast leading to a majority being overruled by the minority. Anyway, that was four months ago, and as I approach 5000 edits I believe I have proven myself an involved member of the community who, while not letting vandals or otherwise negating editors go unnoticed, fully understands the five pillars of Wikipedia and an admin's role in upholding these. Harro5 03:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. Harro5 03:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Support Haven't voted in his other RfAs, but it looks like the objections presented there have been fixed. I don't think he will abuse admin powers, and he seems like a useful contributor. - Greg Asche (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Support main reason for opposition in previous rFa was lack of experience. Certainly worthy of mop now Borisblue 06:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Support Looks good ;] -- VileRage ( Talk| Cont) 07:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Support I worked with Harro5 on the George W Bush article and found his contributions there to be excellent. [1]-- MONGO 10:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Merovingian 11:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Strong Support for helping where needed in less glamorous admin tasks. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 11:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Support, aye. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
8. That made me chuckle: leading to a majority being overruled by the minority — what an intro! He has no chance. El_C 13:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Support- I think he deserves now. -- Bhadani 13:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Strong Support Great guy, really deserves this in my opinion. Ban e s 15:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Support. Harro5 has seen more action than many actual admins, and handles conflict with skill and tolerance. Bishonen| talk 17:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Good guy Martin 20:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Looking good.-- Sean| Bla ck 20:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
15. Sup R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Support. Well earned. BD2412 T 00:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Support. Good luck. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 00:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Support seems like mop wielding material to me. Alf ^melmac 02:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
19. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
20. Support as I ran into him on my RC Patrol. -- Gurubrahma 07:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
21. Support pgk^{( talk)} 08:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
22. Support will be good admin. Gator (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
23. You must promote him... with a herring! — JIP | Talk 13:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
24. Support, 2 times out of 3.  Grue  13:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
25. Support. And I was going to nominate him... guess now I'm just a Johnny-Come-Lately. -- LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
26. Support, I'm making up for missing RfA voting, I've been doing stuff. Don't yell at me. Fahrenheit Royal e 17:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
27. Support on the basis of interaction on Australian articles-- A Y Arktos 23:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
28. Support has made a valuable contribution especially on Australian articles. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
29. Support for all the work he has done on Australian related articles. Roisterer 00:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
30. Support; I'd been wondering when he'd become an admin. Good luck! Deltabeignet 02:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
31. Support. As the lone neutral last time, I wholeheartedly support this time. -- JamesTeterenko 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
32. Support -- Rogerd 06:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
33. Support. Commonly pops up on my Australian watchlist with good edits. I followed his Request for Comment and it was handled well. Cnwb 09:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
34. Support without hesitation. Hall Monitor 21:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
35. Support Article work looks good. Dlyons493 Talk 22:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
36. Support -- tomf688^{{ talk}} 03:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
37. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
38. Support - Alot of things can change in four months, eh? – ClockworkSoul 05:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
39. Support because "I can almost taste the sweet taste of the rollback button" is a wonderful line, and because I've encountered him so often on RC patrol. -- PeruvianLlama^{( spit)} 10:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
40. Support Geogre 12:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC) (who has nothing to add, for once) reply
41. Support Persistence is a good trait for an admin. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
42. Support Kefalonia 18:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
43. Support - Happy to support this fine Aussie editor. Cheers!! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
44. Support dedicated to keeping the wiki vandal free, must be mopped. Alf ^melmac 11:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
45. Support Izehar 19:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
46. Troppus noelip emertxe. R adiant _>|< 19:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
47. Definite support. +sj + 06:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC) reply
48. Support he took our criticism of his last 2 RFAs in stride, and has shown a marked improvement since then. I think he's ready now.   ALKIVAR ™ 07:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC) reply
49. Support. His cool and courteous handling of previous constructive criticism makes me wish some current administrators were more like him. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC) reply
50. Cliché support. -- D e ath phoenix 13:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC) reply
51. Support No longer does it stand at 50. Derktar 17:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC). reply
52. Support. -- DS1953 18:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC) reply
53. Support. Job e 6 19:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC) reply
54. Support -- I'm a little late to the party :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC) reply
55. "Sorry I'm so late" support. NSLE _{( 讨论+ extra)} 08:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC) reply
56. Support Sarah Ewart 11:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC) reply
57. -- Jaranda( ^{watz sup}) 18:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• which failed due to a small number of votes being cast leading to a majority being overruled by the minority- can you please clarify your understanding of "cosensus", Harro5? Borisblue 05:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry, I thought that was an iffy choice of words. The RFA saw 11 support votes to 4 oppose votes and 1 neutral, which shows about 70% support. If there had been more votes cast (some other RFAs at the time, and now, attract over 50 or even 100 votes), and that ratio haad continued, the outcome may have been different. I know consensus in the community must be a very strong majority (about 75-80%+), but what I was looking to convery is that the RFA was unsuccessful because of mixed results, not a flat oppose from the community where everyone voted no. Sorry for any confusion, and don't read too much into it. Harro5 05:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, if the ratio had continued the result would still be 70%. Ooh, sorry, couldn't resist nitpicking your math there :) Borisblue 05:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • And I just sat my VCE Maths exams a fortnight ago. Uh oh... Harro5 05:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • You just sat for your VCE Maths exams a fortnight ago. I hope you weren't taking the grammar exams as well! :) Borisblue 16:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Could you explain this edit, which was brought up at your previous RFA? Coffee 05:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • That edit was made 6 months ago, and was meant as a bit of a joke; I'd only been a serious editor for a month. I have made no other similar edits in over 5000 now (milestone achieved this week on RC-Patrol), and believe I have proven that it in no way demonstrates what sort of contributor I have been to Wikipedia. Hoep that settles this. Harro 5 05:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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. I have always been involved in various things like these, and seem to go through a cycle of involvement in areas. I get involved in the various deletion processes (particularly speedy deletions in WP:NP, as shown by over 400 edits to now deletd articles; and AFD, TFD), and would also lend a hand at Did You Know, In the News, blocking/unblocking, and generally answering the call for a mop around the place. Plus, I can almost taste the sweet taste of the rollback button.

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

A. Obviously my pet, featured article Caulfield Grammar School, but also various endeavours and contributions, including the School Portal (which I manage), helping the NBA WikProject get up off the ground, and the other articles I've written or edited, of which there are many.

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. Most notably, and recently, was a Request for Comment brought on by my reverting vandals-turned-victims, in which my actions were totally vindicated (see Bishonen's summary and supports for a good idea of what really was involved). I'm glad to say progress with these guys is being made to allow good editing to continue on what were the disputed articles. Other than that, I've had no major issues except for a little misudnerstanding where a user continually posted articles with no content (eg. [2] [3]) and I, on RC-Patrol at the time, left a brief note for content was read the wrong way by the user. But I'm pretty good with dispute resolution, and haven't had any trouble with long-time users or people contributing positively in their edits.

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.