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.--
MONGO02:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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 |
Talk04:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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. --
BorgQueen13:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 McConaughey17:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
patsw01:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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.
jnothmantalk07:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Xoloz18:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
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)reply
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
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)reply
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.
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.--
MONGO02:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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 |
Talk04:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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. --
BorgQueen13:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 McConaughey17:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
patsw01:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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.
jnothmantalk07:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Xoloz18:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
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)reply
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
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)reply
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.