Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harish89

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

Harish89

(2/13/7); ended 19:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC), closed per WP:NOTNOW by Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

Nomination

Harish89 (talk · contribs) – Have been a Wikipedia user since 2006. Have contributed immensely in wikipedia, especially elections around the world. Harish89 (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As administrative, I would of course would like to be able to use tools such as CSD, AIV, and also have the ability to semi-protect certain pages. I am mostly interested in improving Indian elections, since the resources for obtaining information from either the government's website or other websites are appalling. In terms of Indian government or Indian elections, there needs to be significant improvement on Wikipedia, and since there are very few users or administrators working to improve it, I feel that if I can be an administrator, I would be able to significantly improve sections corresponding to Indian government and elections. I not only have interests in Indian elections, but also elections around the world. I would certainly work hard trying to get wikipedia, the ultimate source for anyone trying to get information, on politics, government, culture etc. Also if I get access to tools, that administrators are able to get, I can significantly clean up pages that are frequently vandalized or are poorly worked on, since I see many pages on wikipedia like that and I am not able to do anything about it.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I significantly updated Madras legislative assembly election, 1952-Tamil Nadu state assembly election, 2006. I created the election pages for the Tamil Nadu elections from 1952-2001. I also created Indian general election pages from 1984-1991. I am planning to have election pages, from 1952-1984, since they are all compiled in one page, and they are truly underdeveloped. I also created pages for Indian presidential election, 1952-Indian presidential election, 2002. I plan on adding more information on each of the page, since information on these pages are clearly missing online. The reason I am taking deep interest in updating Indian elections, on wikipedia, is information is either poorly represented or very difficult to acquire in other places, and having them on Wikipedia will significantly help outside users garner more information.

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:Yes, especially recently when I was working on Indian general election, 2009, there was significant disagreements, on where things should go, and how it should be presented. I found that the best way to deal with it is to discuss the changes and try to get a consensus on what most users feel is the best way certain information should be presented. I have learned a lot about how to work together and try to present the information the best way possible in wikipedia, and I have learned that Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia that contains information with the way I want to present, but is a group effort, and there are things I have to give up, in order to create a successful page.

Question from FASTILY

4. In your last 500 edits, I notice you have made nearly 100+ edits to Template:Indian general election results 2009. But just a few days ago, you blanked the page. Could you explain this please?

A:This template was used for one of the sections, in Indian general election, 2009. It was very difficult to edit that section, without going to the template page. So I transferred the data from the template page to the actual election page. But now I realize that it was not GFDL standards, I should have left the template page alone, and should have copied the information on to the main article. So It was my mistake on deleting the information on the template page.--Harish89 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Links for Harish89: Harish89 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Harish89 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Harish89 before commenting.

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

Editing stats at talk page. ∗ \ / {talk} 10:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reopened your RFA per the discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Fairly new account closing RFAs and AFDs.Smallman12q (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support- Due to sustained article work. MelissaC1993 (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:User has had made exactly 13 edits, the 13th being to this rfa.

MelissaC1993 (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

User has been blocked for likely sockpuppetry involving the creation of attack accounts. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 08:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Support as Candidate has a block free record since they started editing in 2005. Weak because of a lack of activity in areas where they intend to use the mop. I am also concerned about knowledge of fair use policy as this deleted image was loaded last August. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly moral support per WP:AGF, although per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards, candidate does not have any blocks nor any memorable negative interactions with me. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

~~Oppose~~ Strong oppose - It's fantastic that 90% of you're contributions are in the article space, but the low number of edits in other areas worries me quite a bit. You say that you plan to work at WP:AIV, but looking through your Wikipedia space edits, the creation of this RfA was your first edit ever to this name space. You apparently have commendable article experience, but do the math; roughly 2,000 edits, of which roughly 90% are in the article space. Slash 2,000 edits by a tenth, and you only have roughly 200 edits outside of the article space – that's a huge red flag at RfA. Don't get me wrong, article building is important, but you need to show experience in other areas before you can make a suitable admin. I am sorry that I must oppose you, Harish, and I look forward to watching you learn from any subsequent opposers' concerns, and passing RfA at a later date. --Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 03:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I have concerns about your activity levels, your deleted edits, and your edit summary usage. Whilst your account has existed since 2005, according to X!'s tool, you have only been regularly active since March of this year, although there was a burst of activity in August 2008. You need to be active much more often if you wish to pass RfA; this shows ultimate dedication and loyalty to Wikipedia, an important trait of an administrator. Also according to X!'s tool, you only have 33 deleted edits; you say that you wish to work at WP:CSD, but 33 deleted edits is far too few. You need much more deleted edits (you can accumulate them by actively tagging pages for speedy deletion; that's how I got most of my 1,000 deleted edits) if you wish to be a Wikipedia administrator working in the area of CSD. Lastly, about your edit summary usage; according to X!'s other tool, only 50% of all your major edits have edit summaries, while you have used edit summaries for only 20% of all your minor edits; that's a massive red flag, as edit summaries are highly important mechanisms for communication regarding your edits. Sadly, Harish, I forsee a WP:NOTNOW closure, but I strongly encourage you to keep up the excellent work, learn from my concerns and those of any other subsequent opposers, and shoot for RfA at a later date. Good luck! --Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 03:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the vast majority of Harish's talk page consists of warnings for copyright violations and speedy deletion, I now strongly oppose this request. --Dylan 620 2 _Master 11:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dylan620. And really because of the answer to Question 1. For an admin candidate, as a bare minimum, you should know the terminology used around Wikipedia. WP:AIV and WP:CSD do not refer to tools. Not only that, you do not need Administrators' tools to cleanup vandalism or improve articles - As an established user, you have the ability to edit nearly all the articles in the mainspace. Additionally, reviewing your contribs, I see little to no anti-vandal work - and instead, multiple edits (usually successive edits) to single pages with no edit summary. I agree with Dylan620 that you will need to get experience in other areas of the site other than editing articles/templates. Perhaps in a few months and more experience, I would support. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (ec) Good work on articles, but you'll need much more experience in the other areas of Wikipedia before I'm convinced of your knowledge of policies and procedures. You say you want to work in CSD and AIV, but you have yet to report a vandal or, based solely on your deleted contribs, tagged an article for deletion. All eight of your edits to the Wikipedia namespace are in respect to this RFA. While you may have a solid handle of how everything works behind the scenes, I need to see some more evidence of that. Useight (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, would like to see some more experience in varied areas of the project. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, does not seem to understand what an admin does. You said that you are "mostly interested in improving Indian elections", which does not require admin tools. You have zero edits to the Wikipedia namespace outside of this RFA which also suggests that you are unfamiliar with an admin's role on the project. I would recommend withdrawing this request and trying again in a few months after you have gained more experience. Nakon 04:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Nakon. - Dank (push to talk) 04:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. I think that if you availed yourself of our resources which detail our policies and guidelines, focused on the underlying principles that Wikipedia is founded on, and continued to be a valuable contributer of content, ... then you would quickly get up to speed enough to fly through an RfA process. Please don't be discouraged, and take to heart the suggestions offered by the community. Best — Ched : ? 06:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Whilst the problems listed above were enough, the huge list of copyrighted image problems on the users talkpage was enough to tip me over. Skinny87 (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTNOW. An admin must be experienced in interaction with users. You have been around for an amazing time and have 1800 edits in the mainspace. But seriously, only 2 edits to User talk? You have been doing a great job but you need to do some vandal warning, CSD work and other administrative edits. Pmlinediter ^Talk 08:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I'm not supporter of self-nomination.--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 08:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose I have the distincy impression that you do not understand the function of an admin; your nomination statement and your answers to the questions reveal both a lack of knowledge of the workings of admin-related pages, and a lack of need for admin tools. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You don't have the experience I'd like to see in a candidate, sorry. iMatthew : Chat 11:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I don't want to pile on, I oppose per the above arguments. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 14:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

I would be greatly glad to support you in the future; however, you need much more work in the Wikipedia namespace. -down load ׀ sign! 03:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I worked with Harish89 recently on {{Indian general election results 2009}} and saw his work at Indian general election, 2009, and came to admire his drama-free quiet efficiency. However the user is yet unfamiliar with many of the operational norms and practices on wikipedia that would be required for an admin.(for example he blanked and copied the template content into the article, instead of transcluding/substituting it, which would be preferable to be GFDL compliant) However I should emphasize that these knowledge holes are easily filled with experience, and the user will likely make a good admin at some later date. I hope he is not discouraged by the probable outcome of this RFA and continues making positive contributions to wikipedia. All the best. Abecedare (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your work is very clean and neat and quite professional. However, like other users I'm worried on your namespace edits. You only have 2 User Talk pages so I'm going to assume that your editor interaction somewhat is limited; unless your a regular in IRC (which somebody could possibly hint for me if he is). Get a little more involved with other things as well. Don't cling to just one topic. Try to branch out and be creative. If you look like a fool (which I can boast about a many times), well--welcome to life. At least it shows that your are branching out and exploring new ways to further expand Wikipedia. Renaissancee (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support, your mainspace contributions, as far as I can see, are excellent. With a bit more work in the project space, I would be very happy to support you in a future RFA run. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The problem with your contribution record (apart from the fact that it's only two months of <very> active editing) is that I just cannot see your present and predict your future attitudes as an admin in administrative matters. Inclusion/deletion, free speech/"civility", BLP tolerance, flagged revision etc. Your article work may be a good indicator, but who has the patience of browsing through unfamiliar topic of local Indian politics? Wikipedia also has its politics, and candidates' stance in critical administrative areas must be at least declared. NVO (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't need to understand a candidate's subject area to judge whether they are a civil editor or not. As for attitudes as to how our policies should develop, surely we are deciding if a candidate is ready to administer in accordance with policy, questions as to how they would like to see policy change are only relevant insofar as they cast light on their understanding of the 'pedia. As an example I happen to think that flagged revisions could be a good thing, some supporters in my RFA disagreed with me strongly on that and I've supported several RFA candidates who are opposed to the idea. If we were electing a committee of policy developers then it would be relevant to know which side the candidates took on various issues, but at RFA we look for things like clue, experience, communicativeness and integrity, not faction. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, people are different :)) You say (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are indifferent to candidate's future as policy developer, I say that I expect to see candidate's profile as policy enforcer. At this angle, attitudes to deletion, blocks etc. are important. NVO (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree re attitudes to deletion, and that the severity with which a candidate would enforce policy is important. Though I tend to assume that content writers are unlikely to be rampant deletionists and give them the benefit of the doubt there. But it was your mention of flagged revisions that my comment was focussed on, as whether or not we implement that is a policy change not an enforcement. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In appreciation of your interest to help Wikipedia. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - mostly the right attitudes; not enough experience to support. I will look more thoroughly at contributions in a future RfA, once there's more to see in the other namespaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank (talk • contribs)

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.