Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Harrias

Username:	Harrias User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Dec 24, 2005 00:29:41 Unique pages edited:	7,159 Average edits per page:	2.79 Live edits:	19,492 Deleted edits:	477 Total edits (including deleted):	19,969

Namespace Totals

Article	9213	47.27% Talk	4840	24.83% User	2001	10.27% User talk	646	3.31% Wikipedia	1154	5.92% Wikipedia talk	400	2.05% File	37	0.19% File talk	7	0.04% Template	488	2.50% Template talk	457	2.34% Category	93	0.48% Category talk	32	0.16% Portal	121	0.62% Portal talk	3	0.02%

Month counts

2005/12	30	2006/01	1	2006/02	0	2006/03	1	2006/04	0	2006/05	0	2006/06	30	2006/07	25	2006/08	18	2006/09	42	2006/10	0	2006/11	1	2006/12	36	2007/01	0	2007/02	0	2007/03	22	2007/04	27	2007/05	106	2007/06	4	2007/07	4	2007/08	22	2007/09	5	2007/10	0	2007/11	5	2007/12	1	2008/01	0	2008/02	0	2008/03	0	2008/04	24	2008/05	5	2008/06	1	2008/07	2	2008/08	5	2008/09	0	2008/10	1	2008/11	0	2008/12	0	2009/01	2	2009/02	0	2009/03	0	2009/04	0	2009/05	0	2009/06	0	2009/07	0	2009/08	667	2009/09	721	2009/10	1176	2009/11	1056	2009/12	621	2010/01	800	2010/02	671	2010/03	753	2010/04	519	2010/05	485	2010/06	858	2010/07	254	2010/08	384	2010/09	592	2010/10	567	2010/11	1150	2010/12	161	2011/01	227	2011/02	708	2011/03	624	2011/04	308	2011/05	203	2011/06	136	2011/07	154	2011/08	117	2011/09	300	2011/10	799	2011/11	859	2011/12	273	2012/01	163	2012/02	94	2012/03	306	2012/04	697	2012/05	301	2012/06	174	2012/07	487	2012/08	65	2012/09	138	2012/10	127	2012/11	377

Top edited pages

Article 281 - Southern_100 202 - Somerset_County_Cricket_Club_in_2009 145 - Herbie_Hewett 144 - Somerset_County_Cricket_Club 105 - 2010_ICC_Under-19_Cricket_World_Cup 97 - South_Africa_national_women's_cricket_team 80 - Cameron_White 63 - Jos_Buttler 61 - Red_Dragon_(1595) 57 - List_of_South_Africa_women_Test_cricketers

Talk 14 - Herbie_Hewett 11 - Izzy_Westbury 10 - Taunton 8 - Yemi_Odubade/GA1 8 - List_of_South_Africa_women_Test_cricketers 7 - Ron_Hextall/GA1 7 - George_Hirst/GA1 7 - Somerset_County_Cricket_Club_in_2009 7 - Lara_Croft/GA1 7 - Cameron_White/GA1

User 561 - Harrias 470 - Harrias/sandbox2 452 - Harrias/sandbox3 91 - Harrias/DYK 64 - Harrias/Somerset_Players 62 - Harrias/sandbox 54 - Harrias/sandbox4 26 - Harrias/Women_cricketers 23 - Harrias/Lyttletons 21 - Harrias/CCWinners

User talk 80 - Sarastro1 36 - YellowMonkey 35 - Harrias 27 - The_Rambling_Man 23 - Johnlp 17 - Rodw 13 - SGGH 12 - Aaroncrick 11 - David_Underdown 11 - Jhall1

Wikipedia 84 - WikiProject_Cricket 76 - WikiProject_Cricket/Unreferenced_BLPs 62 - WikiProject_Cricket/requested_infoboxes 33 - Good_article_nominations 27 - Featured_article_candidates/Herbie_Hewett/archive1 24 - Featured_article_candidates/Somerset_County_Cricke... 24 - Featured_list_candidates 18 - WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Harrias 15 - Good_articles/Everyday_life 15 - Featured_list_candidates/List_of_National_Hockey_L...

Wikipedia talk 308 - WikiProject_Cricket 54 - Did_you_know 6 - WikiProject_Ships 6 - WikiProject_Cricket/to_do 4 - WikiProject_Indian_Premier_League 3 - Featured_list_candidates 2 - WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format 2 - WikiProject_Isle_of_Man 2 - WikiProject_Ice_Hockey 2 - WikiProject_Somerset

File 5 - Porthlevenlogo.jpg 2 - CTBTurner.jpg 2 - Manny_martindale.jpg 2 - HTHewett1892.jpg 2 - Peter_Roebuck.jpg 2 - Penzanceafc.jpg 2 - Hnaalston.jpg 2 - AJFothergill.jpg 1 - Somerset1892_RedLillywhite1893.jpg 1 - Tauntonscoreboard.jpg

File talk 1 - Kieron_pollard_batting.jpg 1 - Sammy_woods.JPG 1 - WGGrace.jpg 1 - Adil_rashid.jpg 1 - Off_break_small.gif 1 - Cricketer_bowled.jpg 1 - Leicestershire_celebrate.jpg

Template 27 - Somerset_County_Cricket_Club_squad 16 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1 13 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_3 11 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2 11 - Somerset_CCC 10 - International_cricket_centuries 7 - Infobox_cricketer 7 - International_cricket_in_2010–11 6 - International_women's_cricket_series_involving_Sou... 5 - Infobox_cricket_ground

Template talk 432 - Did_you_know 7 - Infobox_cricketer 3 - International_women's_cricket_series_involving_Sou... 1 - 1979_English_cricket_season 1 - International_cricket_in_2010–11 1 - West_of_England_Premier_League_teamlist 1 - South_Western_League_teamlist 1 - Cricket_in_the_Great_War_timeline 1 - 1970_English_cricket_season 1 - 1969_English_cricket_season

Category 2 - Somerset_women_cricket_captains 2 - Welsh_women_cricketers 2 - Somerset_cricket_captains 2 - London_Counties_cricketers 2 - Women's_cricket_articles_by_quality 2 - Pakistan_women's_cricket_team_tours 1 - Durham_County_Cricket_Club_seasons 1 - Lancashire_cricket_captains 1 - Leicestershire_cricket_captains 1 - Kent_cricket_captains

Category talk 2 - Cornwall_County_Cricket_Club 1 - New_South_Wales_Breakers_cricketers 1 - England_women_One_Day_International_cricketers 1 - Sri_Lanka_women_Twenty20_International_cricketers 1 - Australia_women_One_Day_International_cricketers 1 - People_from_Colombo 1 - People_from_Moratuwa 1 - Australia_women_Test_cricketers 1 - Wayamba_cricketers 1 - South_Africa_women_Test_cricketers

Portal 11 - IndyCar/Championship_standings 11 - IndyCar 5 - IndyCar/Selected_picture/2 5 - Cricket/In_the_news 5 - IndyCar/Selected_article/2 4 - IndyCar/Did_you_know 4 - IndyCar/Did_you_know/2 4 - IndyCar/Selected_picture 4 - IndyCar/Did_you_know/1 4 - IndyCar/Selected_article/3

Portal talk 1 - Current_events/Sports 1 - Isle_of_Man 1 - IndyCar

Thread regarding a now-stricken question

 * Out of curiosity, if it was you would you !vote support or oppose?  Go   Phightins  !  01:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno, if I were the nominee, I'd find a way of politely avoiding answering Q4, an obviously loaded question. I have trouble imagining an answer that doesn't piss someone off. Has this kind of question been asked before at RfA?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've seen it once or twice; I was just trying to find out about who he admires. Go   Phightins  !  02:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the fairest admin of them all?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I just was interested in seeing what he said, since no one had asked any thing yet. Go   Phightins  !  02:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is a loaded question. If he chooses to go off question and just state what characteristics he likes in admin in a general way, I don't think anyone could blame him. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I was kind of hoping that's what he did; I am not expecting him to actually name a name, but in any case, should this discussion progress, we should probably move it to the talk page as this is off topic. Go   Phightins  !  02:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, um, bullshit. If you were hoping that's what he did, you would have simply asked him what characteristics he admires in admin, rather than beginning the question with: "Which current Wikipedia administrator do you aspire to emulate". In fact, if you were "kind of hoping" he wouldn't name a name, you might have instead begun the question with: "Without naming any names...". You weren't hoping for that. You asked a horrible question, you got called on it, and now instead of simply admitting you were wrong, you're attempting to play damage control. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never seen that question before at RFA and I hope I never see it again. Awful question. GiantSnowman 10:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 99% sure I've seen it before, I'm looking through old ones to remember where; it was a poorly worded question...I really just wanted to hear his explanation for why so and so is a great admin, I really wasn't that concerned with the who. That said, and this may be for the best, he doesn't appear to want to answer it, and I really have no problem with that, I was just trying to understand his philosophy a bit more on what who he felt the best admins are (e.g., what qualities they hold). Go   Phightins  !  11:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep shoveling it. It's getting deep. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick search turned up Nev1, which in turn links to Jza84 (both 2008). -- Trevj (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's a perfectly fine question.  It's more fun and less serious than usual RfA questions but the only place it would be improper is in a society that has divisions where an answer should show which clique or cabal the user falls into.  And we have none of those here, right? (I'm serious).--v/r - TP 14:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a question clearly designed to create the kind of drama that has gotten RfA into ill repute. And it has succeeded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This ain't drama. No one has called for a desysop yet.  We're just talking.  I think it's fine.  I think a lot of us are jaded about RfA and we have someone newer and fresher asking a harmless question because they haven't had Wikipedia ruined for them yet.--v/r - TP 15:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Would anyone care to explain how this has caused any real damage to the RfA, or at least to the candidate? It has not. Things are going along just fine. If I was the candidate, I would simply be grateful for the very small amount of questions so far.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 15:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This is why RfA is broken. There was really no need for any of this.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 15:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. There was no need for your sidekick to ask such a loaded question, which caused all of this. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's how you really feel, why did you ask Q6? You've obviously been around here long enough to know that you shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially such a ridiculous point that has no merit.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 16:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Q6 looks rather POINT-y in the light of this thread, IMHO. — sparklism  hey! 16:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who cares? Let him have it.  We can all form our own opinions on the question, the user who asked it, and the eventual answer.--v/r - TP 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a great way of looking at it. I agree completely. — sparklism  hey! 16:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I must disagree. Phightins!, acting in good faith, asked a perfectly harmless question and was subjected to quite a bit of unpleasantness, from Joe among others. Now, Joe has hypocritically asked a question that cannot possibly qualify as good faith, yet he is allowed to post it without being challenged? Why the double standard?  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 16:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I thought Phightins! question was rather dubious, but I agree that it perhaps didn't warrant (all of) the backlash it provoked. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was just misguided. Joe's follow-up question appears very POINT-y to me, given what has been said above, but TParis is right - we can all form our own opinions on that. POINT-y things are usually carried out with the intention of creating a bit of drama, and I'd rather not get sucked into that here. — sparklism  hey! 16:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What was really dubious was his quietly amending the question to make it look like he wasn't asking for specific names (he was), and responses like "I was kind of hoping" he wouldn't answer the question (he wasn't). Joefromrandb (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine he was quite a bit taken aback by the reaction to his question. I would like to know what you are looking for with your question? Also, I am waiting for somebody to explain why Phightins! question might cause harm.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 16:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I on the other hand, would imagine that he was embarassed after being chided for asking such a ridiculous question. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is important for everyone to remember that a candidate at RFA is under no obligation to answer any questions. If there is a question that the candidate feels is loaded, or otherwise inappropriate, they have several options: 1) Just ignore the question entirely, 2) Explicitly refuse to answer as an answer, 3) Answer the question in a way that avoids the part(s) of the question the candidate objects to, or 4) Just answer the question anyway. An admin is likely to face loaded questions, other rhetorical traps, and various other methods of manipulation, how a candidate responds to such questions is informative. In this particular case, only option 4 would have reflected poorly on the candidate in my opinion. While I personally wouldn't ask such a question, I can also see the value. Monty  845  16:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I still have not seen why the question is harmful and why it was necessary to assume bad faith on the part of the editor who asked it. You still haven't bothered to given a valid reason for your (Joe's) disruptive question.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 16:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)



A consensus has emerged that this question shouldn't be asked, so it's been dropped. It was, however, hardly the most egregiously wrongheaded question ever posted on an RfA. I don't think there's too much further value to be found in debating whether it was a good question or why it was asked. However, somewhat in disagreement with Monty845 just above, I think that questions should be posted to an RfA only when the questioner believes it's appropriate for the candidate to answer. Deliberately posting a question that shouldnt be answered, just to see whether the candidate has the sense or the courage not to answer, is a poor practice, in part because it's inevitable that someone will think the question should have been answered after all, and an unnecessary side issue will be created. For example, if question 4 had been asked in my RfA, I definitely would have given a substantive response to it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I basically agree. I am looking to see if the candidate has the courage to answer. Giving an honest answer to that question in the middle of an RfA shows exactly the type of character that would make me likely to support someone. It's hard to believe that anyone would have no problem with the first question while objecting to its counterpart being asked.Joefromrandb (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it's question 4 that I thought was defensible, even though it's been dropped per consensus. Question 6 clearly should not have been asked, and I'm going to mark it as such. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As is evident by reading the previous thread, I've not been around a computer all day. I struck the question because clearly others didn't think it was a good idea, and I'll respect those opinions. Personally, as I've said before, I was more interested in the explanation rather than the name itself, but I really don't understand most of the backlash from this. I always respect constructive criticism such as that from Dennis, Sparklism and Bbb23 who at least had the courtesy to assume good faith while advising me in a respectful manner they didn't think my question was necessary. I struck it because there was backlash, and the backlash was irrelevant to the candidate, who is obviously well-qualified to be an admin. Thanks. Go   Phightins  !  20:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I strongly disagree that it was appropriate for q6 (as it was) to be removed by anyone other than the person who placed it, per WP:TALKO (and even then, it should have preferably been struck through rather than removed). The candidate was obviously bound to have seen all of this discussion and could choose to answer the question in any way (or not at all). And now, as we've seen, it's been answered anyway. -- Trevj (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was indeed extremely inappropriate. But when you're part of the cabal or one of their sycophants, you can get away with anything. Meanwhile, poor schleps like me get blocked for reverting vandalism. It comes with the territory. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Figured that was your motivation. Everyone, just ignore Joefromrandb at this point.  He's got a big ol' axe to grind against admins and admin candidates because he got blocked for edit warring with an IP and he's mad because the normal anti-IP-bias didn't cover for him.--v/r - TP 13:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And that post perfectly illustrates my point. The bulletproof admin that can make policy-violating blocks and then make up lies about it. I have nothing against admins or admin candidates in general but you bet your ass I have an axe to grind with the corrupt ones.Joefromrandb (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Noted Joe. Point is, if you actually have a genuine axe to grind, and it's, say, being "blocked for reverting vandalism", it's probably not directly related to a specific admin, more likely it's related to an issue with a policy or guideline or an admin you'd like to discuss further. I'd like to hope your grievance can be taken seriously, and I'm more than happy to help you with that (email me if it makes things easier?) but I think adopting an anti-admin stance at this RFA is not really appropriate. Having said that, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion here, and I'm not suggesting you aren't, nor am I disagreeing with you. Just think it'd be cool if we could make progress somehow? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus, overreacting much, guys? The question was entirely harmless, reasonable, non-offensive. I'm stunned, with all the issues affecting Wikipedia, this stupid stuff is what gets us all worked up. Come on, guys. Grow up.  Swarm   X 22:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FTR I'm referring to Phightins's question, obviously. I don't think anyone can dispute that Joe's question was patently disruptive and was rightfully removed. My overarching point is that the original question required no response whatsoever...much less this absurd sideshow.  Swarm   X 00:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @RamblingMan-Thank you sincerely for your kind response, but in no way am I "adopting an anti-admin stance at RfA". I wound up supporting this candidate; I'm not 100% sure, but I'm rather certain that I have supported far more candidates than I have opposed. (I'm sure there must be a way to check?) Joefromrandb (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Go  Phightins  !  03:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And there you go. Hardly the stats you would expect from someone adopting an anti-admin stance. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Swarm-You are of course entitled to your opinion, but please don't presume to speak for the entire community. Trevj, for one, felt it was wrongfully removed. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. While there's not consensus that it was appropriate for the former q6 to be posed, there's not consensus for it to have been removed by a third party, either. So if there's no consensus, then who feels like stating the obvious? -- Trevj (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Swarm feels that I am "no one"; I didn't realize he thinks you are "no one" as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go there if I were you. It's a rash assumption and probably completely untrue. But what is true is that there are differences of opinion and editors with varying levels of experience. -- Trevj (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "I don't think anyone can dispute..." Figurative, not literal. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I get it now: if we're not "anyone" we must be "no one"! LOL (an expression I rarely use, generally even less so as part of Wikipedia discussions). -- Trevj (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I indeed use "no one" hyperbolically, the same way one might say "no one believes the earth is flat". There will always be people on the fringes with incredible and ridiculous opinions; luckily we as a consensus-driven community don't have to humor or even listen to these opinions. The notion that two people agreeing on something somehow validates or makes an opinion less ridiculous is laughable&mdash;and I do mean that literally.  Swarm   X 05:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)