Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tawker 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Tawker[edit]

Final (129/35/19) ending 01:21, April 10, 2006 (UTC)

Tawker (talk · contribs) – One of the most diligent users in terms of vandalism fighting, 10,000+ edits in varied namespaces in two months, and who doesn't know about his famous Tawkerbot2 (talk · contribs · count)? One of the "must-be" admins in Wikipedia as far as I think. (Previously nominated by Joshbuddy at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tawker) – WB 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: -- Thanks, the people on IRC convinced me to accept -- Tawker 01:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Nominate and support. – WB 01:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Danny 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. —Guanaco 01:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support. Would make a great admin. — TheKMantalk 01:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please look at JoshuaZ's support comment below. — TheKMantalk 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support; absolutely. Antandrus (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - need to work on major/minor edits as NSLE notes below, but to me that doesn't outweigh positive contributions and strong policy knowledge. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. per above. exactly what I was thinking. pschemp | talk 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support confident he'll make good use of admin tools. --W.marsh 03:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. You know what you doing. — Apr. 3, '06 [03:35] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  11. Support - If successful, it would be one of the most rapid rise to adminship of any user in recent memory. But I think that Tawker has the stuff. He's demonstrated that he'll revert vandalism ad nauseam. What more do I need to see? - Richardcavell 03:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Knowledgeable, friendly, trustworthy, dedicated. Per W.marsh. ~ PseudoSudo 03:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support good user, takes criticism well and responds carefully and kindly, which is very important in a vandal fighter. Makemi 04:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I'm worried about how early this nomination is, but you're an incredibly hard-core vandal fighter, so as far as I'm concerned you should get the mop and bucket now. Your responses clearly indicate you want the tools for vandal-fighting and not a newfound interest in closing AfDs (or whatever); otherwise I could not support you. -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. A bit early perhaps, but I think Tawker deserves the mop and bucket. - Tangotango 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - for the same reason I supported him last time. --Khoikhoi 06:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Super strong support. He's a great vandalwhacker, and that IS what adminship is about (not completely, of course, but moreso than article writing). Everybody has an edit button; only admins have admin rollback and blocks. --Rory096 07:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support per Rory096. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 10:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Major contributions to Wikipedia. Keeps his head in the face of criticism and conflict. --CBDunkerson 10:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - If he needs and deserves the tools, why waiting? Afonso Silva 10:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per pretty well all above supports (addition: and JoshuaZ's support below, which does an excellent job of detailing my reasoning for this support Petros471 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)). I find absolutely no evidence that Tawker will abuse admin powers- supported by the responses to many questions below. There is plenty to suggest that good use will be made of them, and all evidence points to Tawker having the right attitude towards it (well IMHO at least!). I am still slightly puzzled as to why people see article contributions as an important admin criteria. Whilst I have no doubt that article writing is the most important job here (after all Wikipedia wouldn't exist without it), admin tools have nothing to do with actual article writing. Petros471 12:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support On one hand your bot targeted an OLD pic of mine, on the other hand you do a lot of anti-vandal work, and given the amount of obsessed craven vandals on Wikipedia lately, we need good admins...so you get my support...congrats!TruthCrusader 12:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 12:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I don't often give my reasons for voting one way or another in an RfA, but in this case I will due to the importance of the RfA and the unique nature of the candidate. I apologize in advance for the length of this note. I think that we often lose sight over what RfAs should be about. An RfA should determine 3 things: 1) Can the user benefit from admin priveleges? 2) Is the user likely to abuse the admin priveleges? 3) Is the user lacking in knowledge of policy or general competence to an extent that they can do serious accidental damage with admin priveleges? To determine answers to these questions, people have developed a battery of different tests. Common criteria involve edit counts, edit summary percentages, number of articles brought up to "good" or "featured article" status etc. However, we sometimes forget that these criteria are a means to an end, not definite necesseties in and of themselves. The fact is that Tawker is a unique case where we can answer these questions without using standard criteria. Can he benefit from admin abilities? The answer here seems to be unequivocably yes given his various answers. Is he likely to abuse them? The answer should be again obvious, no. Even after spending months combating vandals, he has never once lost his temper with one, and is by everyone's descriptions a reasonable individual who works well enough with the community that he has constructed not one, but two bots, one of which we have let him put on active on an almost completely general basis. Is he incompetent or unaware of policy? I think again, the answer is obviously no. The competence required to construct and maintain his bots indicates a level of technical knowledge exceeding that of many admins and in the process he has learned a large amount about the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Furthermore, his other edits and his general vandal reversions have let him pick up a good understanding of other rules and guidelines. I am also confident that if he does not know the relevant rules/guidelines/past precedents on something, he will ask others for assistance. Given all this, I do not see why he should not be an admin. JoshuaZ 12:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Will be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. would make a great candidate. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 13:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per Joshua. Guettarda 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support after some consideration. TimBentley (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I think hes ready eh? Keep up the good work. Mike (T C) 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strongest possible support Go go gadget IRC vandal fighting!!! Tawker has shown me every intention of being a great admin. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, after spending a whle reading his answers and thinking about it and then spending even longer working out where the last voter's signature ends. Palmiro | Talk 17:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support based mostly on the TawkerBot2. 13,000 vandalisms reverted in a month convinces me this guy deserves the mop. I doubt most of us here have ever had 13,000 reverts. Tawker accomplishes in a month what most of us couldn't accomplish in a year. Smart, smart, smart. --Firsfron 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. supportBenon 18:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Very good vandal whacker. _-M o P-_ 18:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:23, 3 April 2006]
  37. Support. I've given this one quite a bit of thought. Usually, this would be far too new for me to support. However, my experiences with Tawker both on IRC and in Wikipedia User talk space have been very positive. I have absolutely no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools, nor reason to believe that he doesn't understand the policies which use of those tools are governed by. In the end, for me, this user was too good to not support. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Tawker is a solid member of the counter-vandalism effort, operating bots, and helping out at IRC. He'd do just fine with the mop. --Jay(Reply) 21:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support 'Tawker and the bots' have helped Wikipedia greatly, even if not in the conventional way. Prodego talk 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support A veritable dynamo of awesomeness. --InShaneee 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Yes it's early but after considering the man, the bot and the answers below I can't see any reason other than "too soon" not to support, yet it's not too soon for Tawker to be a massive help to WP. Deizio 22:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support absolutely. Perhaps has done more to fight vandalism than any other user, ever. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per vandal fighting. -- King of Hearts talk 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per JoshuaZ and Tawker's answers below. Impressive. Gwernol 00:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support Tawker is the author of one of our main vandal-fighting tools and his work would certainly benefit from the access to the tools. What more can be said? abakharev 00:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support one of the first people I would go to if I needed help with something. He is certainly commited to wikipedia. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 01:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong support per JoshuaZ, Makemi, and Rory. Joe 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Just came out of IRC arguing vehemently against Tawker unblocking his own bot... saying that it would be wrong for an admin to unblock his own bot! when Tawker pointed out he wasn't an admin! Imagine my surprise. So anyway... this is an odd case, he doesn't fit the numericals of many of us but darnit, he's admin material. Yes, please, do become more well rounded but... STRONG support. PS he wasn't arguing in favour of unblocking his own bot anyway, I was confused two ways there... ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per JoshuaZ. Mikker (...) 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per nomination. ~Linuxerist L / T 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support helpful cheerful very positive user. Knows wikipedia's in and outs pretty well, though I'm sure he has more to learn, but then again, so do we all. joshbuddytalk 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but anons cannot vote in RfAs. You are welcome to get an account and then vote. JoshuaZ 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, sorry, I thought I was logged in. joshbuddytalk 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Very very very very strong support. He's been absolutely incredible so far. I was going to nominate him myself but I guess someone already beat me to it. This guy should be given the mop pronto. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 06:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong support I can't tell who does a better job, CSCWEM or Tawker. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: Great vandalismfighter!! Go! Go! Go! --Andy123(talk) 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support —Wayward Talk 07:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. weak Support. Tawker would do a hell of a lot of good for the CVU with block-powers. Not quite sure about about his non-vandal-revert contributions, I'd expect more encyclopedic involvement from my admins. +Hexagon1 (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, looking over recent contributions, it appears he has started making more encyclopedic edits, and I'm a little scared at how fast he replied to my vote. I was also convinced by Rory096's vote - after all, admin-ism is just vandalwhacking powers beyond the scope of normal users. +Hexagon1 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. A trustworthy user (and that's the only qualification you need!) Waggers 11:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support not likely to abuse the tools and hey, might figure out a few new tricks for us while he's at it. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 12:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per JoshuaZ. I admire the user a lot. So what if his edits are bot-like? He would make an extremely useful admin. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, the feedback he has been handling about his bots has already made him well informed and in line with Wikipedia policy issues. He is ready. NoSeptember talk 15:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Martin 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. SupportStabiloBoss 17:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. It's funny, when people mostly work on writing/expanding/copyediting articles, their admin noms are opposed because "admin tools are not essential for that". When they fight vandalism, they get oppose votes because "they are not active in the main space". It's a miracle we have any admins at all.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong support. Several objections below are that the candidate is primarily a vandal fighter. In my opinion, that is exactly why this RfA is in order. The most important thing a vandal fighter can do is to block persistent and incorrigible vandals. Until they have admin status, they can only warn and then wait for an admin to show up to finish the job. In the meantime, more pages are vandalized. Give this guy the ability to block vandals. That is for me a sufficient justification for my vote. Bucketsofg 19:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Like many of the opposers, I generally prefer to see a longer membership; but I've had Tawker's bot's talk page on my watchlist for a while and I have seen him put up with and respond considerately to more than enough hasty (read: uncivil) comments for me to feel I know his style well enough to offer wholehearted support. I find his responses below balanced and reassuring too ~ Veledan • Talk 21:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Jedi6-(need help?) 22:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, changing vote, great user, with a good grasp on policy. JohnnyBGood 00:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason you changed your vote? --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, and if you must know, I've reviewed this user's work more indepth and found them more then qualified. JohnnyBGood 00:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    More qualified due to their actions against me? --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, just more qualified all around. I'd dismissed him as too new but he's done alot with his short time here. And your implication would assume bad faith or WP:DICK on my part. JohnnyBGood 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Editcountitis need not apply here, good user that needs a mop. T K E 00:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 02:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-05 04:03Z
  73. Support Joe I 04:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support --Connel MacKenzie 04:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support: excellent vandal fighter whom I have run into on a number of occasions. I have also been impressed by his work with Tawkerbot2 - not only with its ability to revert vandalism, but also with Tawker's willingness to address issues with the both while being upfront and courteous about the problems. Would make a great administrator. --Hetar 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Normally, I would not support a new editor, but the sheer volume of vandal fighting he's done and helped others do has given editors more time to edit Wikipedia. If he weren't a level-headed person of course, that wouldn't matter a hill of beans. But, this isn't the case. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-04-05 06:02Z
  77. Support One of those people who works hard behind the scenes with little reward to keep wikipedia vandalism free --Spook (my talk | my contribs) 06:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support --Irpen 07:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, great work and no reason to suspect anything bad in the future. --AySz88^-^ 07:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. --Carnildo 08:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, great vandal fighter but I would like him to have more major edits in the article space. --Terence Ong 08:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Grön sv 11:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Vandalfighters of the world, unite and take over[reply]
  83. Support. Shame on the opposers. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Yeah. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Naturally. Agathoclea 22:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support (low risk of misuse) + (significant benefit to Wikipedia) = (my support) -- JamesTeterenko 22:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support, bitch. Screw lack of article-edits or whatever you're whining about. This guy is not going to abuse admin tools, period. Werdna648T/C\@ 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strong support Dedicated,level-headed editor who will get a lot of use from the tools and will not abuse them. TigerShark 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. You don't need a PhD in Armchair Philosophy to revert clearcut vandalism, and it seems appropriate for him to be able to add a little more muscle to his bag of anti-vandalism tricks. Since he'll probably continue to spend most of his time on vandalism issues, he has plenty of time to gradually get acquainted with other administrative tasks and associated policies if he ever finds the time or the inclination. -- Curps 05:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support per dedication to Wikipedia. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 06:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support he needs power tools to do his job to the best of his ability. I trust him with them. -- Samir (the scope) 07:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support because Wikipedia will be a better place once this person is given the tools necessary to fully clean up after vandals. Silensor 07:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. A great wikipedian who will benefit from Adminship. GfloresTalk 17:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support, for Tawkerbot2, fastest blanking revert in the west! CaptainVindaloo 18:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. full support -- so he fights vandals and doesn't contribute to articles so much? The amount of work he put into vandalfighting alone merit my support. Hell, I'd support adminship for his bot too, admins looking after existing articles is exactly the backup needed by editors who prefer to busy themselves with writing articles. dab (ᛏ) 21:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. if sysop tools will enhance his abilities to keep this place ticking over, wikipedia can only benefit.--cjllw | TALK 01:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Andre (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support, going to be a good admin. Vulcanstar6 02:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support yes. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Strong Support Tawker, you've created a super-good vandal-fighting bot, Tawkerbot2. I respect you very much. Everytime i'm vandal-fighting, I come across your bot, and I always know that someone is with us to protect Wikipedia until the end. Funnybunny 03:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Why on earth not? There's nothing wrong with specialty admins, and this one would certainly be trustworthy. Chick Bowen 04:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support.-Ravedave 06:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Very good. this guy deserves adminship. if you can do that much in reverts i can see you doing a lot with admin rights. --preschooler.at.heart my talk - contribs 06:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. I looked over his edits and am confident that he will be a capable trustworthy admin.--Dakota ~ ° 06:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Mega support. No question.--Adam (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. I am Tawker, please insert support Sceptre (Talk) 12:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. support Not just supporting Tawker because I wrote on my "manifesto" that he was already an admin. A vandal-cruncher. --Dangherous 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Okay, so he doesn't do anything but whack vandals — so what? He whacks them good'n'hard. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 15:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. I usually would want an editor to be here longer before becoming and admin but Tawker is amazing. Love the bot. --Alabamaboy 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Jon Harald Søby 17:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support 10,000 is two months??? Keep up the good work pal. The ed17 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
  114. Strong Support - We need more good programmers to be admins. And I've talked with Tawker (he setup a Wikipedia channel on his Ventrilo server) and he's great. A lot of the oppose votes below are based on "not enough time". We need to examine what that really means ... they're basically saying, "Not enough days have elapsed since the account was created". In actuality, Tawker has put in a lot more of his time than most RfA candidates have. Number of months is relative. We've seen enough of him in these past two months to know he's going to be a great admin. We don't unnecessarily need to wait any extra time before we hand him the mop. --Cyde Weys 19:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support -- Psy guy Talk 22:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support per nom. I'm sure Tawker will make a great admin. --Arnzy (Talk) 01:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support --Count Chocula 02:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support per JoshuaZ and the idea that adminship should be no big deal. — TKD::Talk 04:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Edits to project space can quickly and easily be inflated in someone is attempting to become an admin. On the other hand fighting vandalism is becoming a full time job and if someone wants to do that then provide them with the tools to help. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support —Xezbeth 11:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Strong Support Leidiot 12:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support per JoshuaZ. —Ruud 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. Based upon my own personal interactions with Tawker, I believe him to be a trustworthy individual who, as an administrator, will only improve the Wikipedia experience for visitors and editors alike. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. Wikipedia will benefit from having Tawker as an administrator. While there are valid concerns in the oppose votes, I believe Tawker can address them by going slow on the non-vandal related admin functions at the beginning, and gain more experience in these areas on the job. Kusma (討論) 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. A fine administrator on Wiktionary, and certainly has shown general good judgment from all I can see. --Dvortygirl 08:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. Adapted himself quickly to wiki practice and standards and shows ability to cooperate and communicate. Vildricianus 10:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. I totally support him to become an admin. The RFA is getting weired every day. I mean: Too much Vandal revert? No contribution to articles? C'mon, thats what admins are for. Counteracting vandalism! Now only people making supposedly good contributions to articles are allowed as admins and vandal fighters are shunned? Come on! --Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 10:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Quite unlikely to abuse the tools, and I think we have seen enough of Tawker to make a fairly reasonable judgment. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. After reading this page and doing a random check of Tawker's edit history, his relative youth is a non-issue for me; he gets it. Besides, if somehow he (or any other SysOp) was somehow possessed of demons after receiving the tools, well, it's as easy for the community to taketh away, is it not? RadioKirk talk to me 19:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I really hate to be a dampener, and hope you understand there's nothing personal in this (not even your bot going wacky and targetting me), but how many of your article edits have been to improve and expand? They've mostly been vandal reverts, no? High usertalk edits are warnings? Project space contribution is low. I recognise your contribution of Tawkerbot2, but I think that for now, the only thing you need is godmode-light. Reluctant but strong and firm oppose. (I've included my optional questions below, a good answer could cause me to sway to neutral or support...) NSLE (T+C) at 01:26 UTC (2006-04-03)
    Addendum, now that MathBot has finally provided the stats - only 51 major edits? I'm sorry, that counts against you in my book. NSLE (T+C) at 01:33 UTC (2006-04-03)
  2. Oppose. Definitely on the right track. Keep this up for a few more months, and I will be happy to support your RfA. Covington 01:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Two months is too new. Previous RfA failed because of too-newness, but the editor hasn't waited graciously for the (imo fairly-bright) line of three months. Makes me feel that he is too eager. Also, does essentially only vandal fighting for which admin powers are a help but not a necessity. Thus, little participation in other areas of the project (and essential experience in them), including the writing of, wait for it, the encyclopedia. Needs longer, broader and more general experience. Lots of hours being entertaining on IRC has little to nothing to do with what is needed in an admin, imo. Also, no particular evidence of policy knowledge beyond WP:VAND and WP:CSD — has the editor participated in such discussions, and can that be usefully guaged in 8 weeks anyway? (Not that I think him ignorant, but it seems like a strange assertion that needs challenging.) And I want to be absolutely clear that, should this succeed, it does not mandate Tawker giving any of his bots admin access. -Splashtalk 02:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a note on Splash's talk page about most of the other concerns but I want to make this one fact boldly clear under no situations whatsoever will Tawkerbot2 touch my "Tawker" account. If a supermajority of users (95% or so) wants the bot to have sysop, sure, I'll think about it, but that would be a clearly marked as bot account being promoted not mine -- Tawker 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Too few major edits in the article namespace indeed. An administrator should have more experience in that area. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per NSLE and Splash. 51 major edits + only two months active editing + second nomination already = a very uneasy feeling about this candidate for now. I look forward to supporting someday, but please do spend some time do content editing, and wait a tad for adminship. Some content editing is a very important prerequisite to mophood. Xoloz 03:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to admit my one big WikiSin here (and I'm sure I'm going to get hammered for it.) I have the option for "auto mark all edits as minor" enabled and I am horrible at turning it off. I've worked on fair number more articles than my major edits count. Feel free to attack me for this terrible crime :) -- Tawker 03:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, one major example of this seems to be Canadian federal election 2006 with 8 contributions[1]. From a glance it looks like Tawker has about another 50 or so major edits, many of them significant. JoshuaZ 03:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Per all the above really, not much else I could say. Great at whack-a-vandal, but I'd like to see more contribs to article writing and/or improving. KnowledgeOfSelf 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - as above. Keep up the good work though. Tawkerbot is the win. - Hahnchen 08:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per above. Weatherman90 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose. Has done a lot of good work, but have to oppose per NSLE and others. AucamanTalk 17:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Seems like a good guy, but some experience only comes with time. --NormanEinstein 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. My reason for opposing is simply one of time. It is my firm belief that an Admin nominee must demonstrate a reasonable amount of contribution to the Wiki, quantitatively judged by edit distribution and quanity, and qualitatively judged by, well, examining edits. I also believe that a nominee must also demonstrate commitment to the Wiki in terms of time. I believe that three months is the absolute minimum, and my personal preference is for four to five. This is not a statement about the quality of a candidate...a candidate that has what it takes to be a good Administrator has those qualities from their very first day on the Wiki, and a candidate that does not posess those qualities will not aquire them even in months of contribution to the Wiki. I believe that requiring a certain time commitment serves both as an opportunity for the candidate to observe and digest the various elements of the community, but also allows the community time to evaluate the candidate. Trust, but verify. Verification requires time. That is why I am Opposing. I would also like to comment on some elements of your answers that I noted. These are my opinions, and do not neccessarily reflect the viewpoints of the community as a whole. I happen to dislike NSLE's question #3, as I don't neccesarily agree that blocking abusive vandals who have targeted you is a conflict of interest, so to me the question itself is problematic. My feeling is that if users are vandalising and being uncivil, that is problematic, no matter if they are attacking you or someone else. If you would block them if their actions were directed at another user, I have no issue with you blocking them yourself. However, it's perfectly alright to get a second opinion, I just don't feel it's an absolute neccessity. Also, your answer to NSLE's question #1 seems to discuss taking steps to confirm whether the established editor is really using a sockpuppet or not. This is just me being picky about semantics, but in my mind the phrasing of the question you find out that an editor, ... has been using sockpuppets abusively. Implies the editor is a sockpuppet...in other words, you are informed as as established fact that an editor is abusing sockpuppets. I'd be interested to see what your response was, with that interpretation. I do however like your answers to a lot of the other questions, and I thank you for your work with Tawkerbot2...the more tools we have to fight vandalism with, the better. I think you are on the right path, but I feel you need some more time to experience Wikipedia, and learn more about the subleties of the culture here. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. After visiting this page three times to think it over. I definitely appreciate how useful the bots are and Tawker has always been friendly when I've looked over his talk. However, two months of solid contributions is just too little. I simply do not think there are enough examples of how Tawker works with others, outside of bot-related activity, to make an informed decision. The two RFAs in just short of a month make me uneasy as well. This is definitely a case where the "come back later" is for my benefit rather than the nominee's. - BanyanTree 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Inexperience, too quick on the draw. --Masssiveego 06:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There is further discussion of this comment, which may help to clarify Masssiveego's statement, on Tawker's talk page here (Masssiveego's comments/replies) and on Masssiveego's talk page here (Tawker's initial request for clarification and replies). Hbackman 05:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Too new, too low on major edits and major edit summaries, and as I state in my admin standards, vandal whacking alone doesn't provide the proper perspective for dispute resolution and making decisions on deletions. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose I share the concerns of NSLE and others above. And two months just isn't enough time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These quick requests for admin mean I must reluctantly Oppose, even though I am grateful for the efforts and the vandal fighting. Just feel that an admin should have a longer exposure to the community to help guide thier admin decisions Trödel 12:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC) See Neutral below[reply]
  16. Oppose really only active for 2 months. As others have said before, some experience only comes with time. --Mmounties (Talk) 13:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose: not really long enough experience, sorry. Thumbelina 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, but try again in a few months. Please use edit summaries more and turn off the minor edit default. Jonathunder 20:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Revert wars over {{unblock}} templates, calling their restoration "disruptive". [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] --SPUI (talk - RFC) 23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose try again in 6 months Merecat 02:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak oppose, has only been really active for two months. JIP | Talk 06:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose the tawkerbot is reverting good faith edits which is rather worrying. Tim (meep) 16:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a little note about the bot, if its malfunctioning please let me know, RfA pages are not exactly the best place for bot bug reports. If anyone has any questions at all about the bot, positive negative or just saying hi, please do leave me a message and I'll do my best to address your issue -- Tawker 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship is about responsibility, and you must take responsibility for the actions of your bot. I'm assuming that long-time editors will complain to you directly if they have been agrieved, but when I see that during your RFA it gives a bad impression. Tim (meep) 16:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little puzzled about your comment of how I have not taken responsibility for the bots actions. As soon as I found out about the error I took steps to correct it, once I found out about the bug the bot was fixed within an hour and an explanation was provided to the user who the bot reverted . Bots are complex and are bound to have some bugs, when I find the bugs I take steps to correct them, I don't know how you can see that as not taking responsibility -- Tawker 17:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - Sorry, two months is just to soon to really know where you're going with this. I have no further advice beyond what others have said, but between the bot and AWB, 10,000 edits isn't what it used to be. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Don't get me wrong, I like behind the scenes guys and vandalfighters, but he is still too new for now.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Being an admin is more than vandalfighting. It requires familiarity with the ins-n-outs of Wikipedia, Wikipedia policy, and Wikipedia culture. Two months of super vandal fighting is a great vote of confidence. Waiting another four months won't kill you, and I have few doubts that your nomination then will be overwhelmingly successful.—thames 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per NSLE, Splash, Ëvilphoenix and BanyanTree. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Tough one, because I think Tawker is a great contributor to Wikipedia. Other editors I respect disagree, but I don't think a concentration on vandal-fighting is a negative. However, I do strongly believe that two months as an active editor, no matter how great I think that editor is, is not enough time. Even if such a new user is completely familiar with our policies and guidelines, has a firm grasp on how Things Are Done - some more time is needed to fully process meta-themes and memes that float below (sometimes far below) the surface here. It requires not just knowledge and understanding, not just large and valuable contributions - but a longer-term feel for the community, how it reacts and how it doesn't. Personally, three months of active and meaningful contributions is the *absolute* minimum for my support, even for such a top-notch contributor as Tawker. For contributors without his Herculian contributions, 4-6 months of active and substantial editing is needed in my opinion. If this RfA fails, I would cast a support vote for him a month or two from now, barring any unlikely negatives between now and then. --Krich (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Not enough experience. Sorry. SushiGeek 01:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per above.  Grue  07:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose for distribution of power reasons. Tawker's programs and bots do so much for Wikipedia that Tawker definitely "deserves" to be an administrator, but he has said that he will start enforcing the same areas that his programs control for information, giving him God-powers over Wikipedia with no oversight. The people who take action against others based on specific information should never be same people who generate the information. --Dragon's Blood 16:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious note: User does not appear on Interiot's tool [8] due to replication lag, because the account was created only yesterday. What brings you to this RFA, sir? — Apr. 7, '06 [19:35] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    This account being a clear sock made me think of something. This comment is like saying that checkusers shouldn't be admins because they shouldn't have the power to block off the information they gain while doing a checkuser. Would we ever do that? I doubt it, and it's a pretty stupid idea, too, if you ask me. --Rory096 00:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This account does indeed appear to be a sock puppet account. I get suspicious when I see people already voting for WP adminship after just registering an account a few hours earlier. There's "assuming good faith", and there's "assume we're all idiots". After an apparently accidental double-vote for 'oppose', I start seeing red flags go off. I just want us to be careful; the voting should be fair, and now in two instances, it appears possibly rigged. I want to assume good faith, but this seems suspicious to me.--Firsfron 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose on time. Probably the great user the 100+ people above say, but given that it's extremely difficult and time-consuming to de-op unsuitable admins (and effectively impossible to de-op the marginal ones who'd there'd be no consensus to promote on the basis of "what we know now") a modicum of precaution is indicated, and two months isn't a sensible interval to assess this. I note that it very much tends to be the vandal-fighting specialists that are nominated on such bases, by and supported by others, and call upon them to apply a bit of self-correction in their community standards, and a bit less haste. Alai 17:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Weak oppose Great user, on the right track, but now is just not the time. --Pilot|guy 02:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Too soon after last nomination. That with some of the other thing mentioned (time, etc.) leads me to oppose for now. Sorry. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    oppose - wait 3 more months. Merecat 07:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (duplicate votes are not allowed)[reply]
  34. oppose - too new and apparently too young. (Not even young enough to drink.)[9]--Primetime 08:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See [10] and comment below.--Dvortygirl 09:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to appear to be interfering with a vote but please see this diff and this diff for Primetime deleting Dvortygirl's note as to the context that this vote came in as well as this vote change. This occured within 5 minutes of my deletion of what was agreed on to be deleted (in fact, it was a speedy as a recreate of deleted content) -- Tawker 09:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose, with sorrow, per above. Excellent contributor, but Splash and EvilPhoenix make good points. Hiding talk 16:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral per NSLE, needs more experince, may change vote if it's close --Jaranda wat's sup 01:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm torn here. On the one hand, he's only been active for two months. On the other hand, he's been very active with vandal-fighting for those two months. --Carnildo 01:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 02:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral: Only two months and 51 major edits to main namespace (plus some more that should have been major), but I don't really foresee problems if he had the admin tools. TimBentley (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC) changed to support[reply]
    Neutral, maybe next time as per NSLE oppose. Needs more major edits to the article mainspace. --Terence Ong 09:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - as all above. This is a very close one; good vandle fighter (and Twakerbot 2 keeps getting better, it would seem), honest and intelligent user, but its the fact that this is a second RfA so soon after the other. For me, a set length isn't perhaps necessary, but some sort of regularity is required. The whole accidental minor edits things if the sort of the we newbies tend to do, it needs some time to iron that sort of thing out. if I were you I would take heed of the User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me debacle. A significant number of Wikipedians will reject all admin nominees for people who have been contributing regulalry for under about 6 months, for perfectly understandable - if a little inflexible - reasons. Set a date - say the end of June - reject all nominations before then, and if your contributions are hlaf as good and as useful as they are at the moment then you'll sail through. Robdurbar 10:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - won't oppose, as I don't think he'd do anything dumb given the tools, and will be a benefit to the Pedia, but I can't bring myself to support Tawker; he's had very little experience of anything other than vandal-whacking and AWB. And just disable the 'mark all edits as minor' thing. Proto||type 11:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, As per Proto I must plead the Swiss. But in another month or so if Tawker continues will have my unreserved support.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, I've come across the user on many occasions, but put simply: 2 months is too new. I, for one, now have 3-4 months of experience and have failed 2 RfAs, and I only plan another one in mid-May. Great vandal fighter, many edits, but too new! Computerjoe's talk 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I suggest taking 2 months to focus on building articles and train others to fight vandalism. Would give a better perspective of Wikipedia. GChriss 19:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral No reason to oppose, but he's a little too new. Moe ε 21:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral because I'm not a regular RfA commenter or reader, otherwise moderate support because I agree with Moe that 2 months normally isn't enough, even for intensely active editors (in fact I'm afraid of editors like that burning out or going berserk over something). However, Tawker apparently brings experience from maintaining other wikis that would apply here, given that I'd think of him as a "specialist" admin whose main activities would involve technical tools. The usual admin candidate qualities I'd look for (basically, lots of on-wiki time with understanding of WP editing and admin culture, good dispute-handling experience and thick skin; candidates who say they've never been in a stressful wikidispute probably are not experienced enough) apply to Tawker somewhat less. I also wonder if he'd like to contribute to server side coding (or maybe already has contributed) and I'd think such back-end contributions are also relevant to RfA's wrt examining the candidate's participation level. Phr 10:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Though all of that in two months is impressive, two months just isn't enough time to decide whether one is a trustworthy member. JaredW! 11:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Good contribution especially in such a short period of time, but I would feel more comfortable supporting the RfA after a few more months. --BenjaminTsai Talk 11:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral. Please use edit summaries more often as I do not consider 67% for major edits high enough. Deleting pages after your success will even require reasons.--Jusjih 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral. Impressive number of edits, but not enough editing/writing of articles for me to support. Nephron  T|C 23:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral needs 1-2 more months of such power editing. After all, time is key, not necessarily edits. Great user though. — Deckiller 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral Great guy and great programmer, but two months and not much interaction in the Wilkipedia namespace is not enough. WHat is the rush? Give it a couple of months, get involved in the community and I will surely support. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral while i don't think that tawker should be denied a mop and broom because he spends all his time fighting vandals- rather, i think ardent vandal fighters benefit greatly from admin tools- only 51 major edits is a bit concerning. will probably change to support if needed . . . --He:ah? 06:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Moved to Neutral Your bots are doing some productive work, but you don't quite meet my usual thresholds, most of your edits seem robotic in nautre themselves (many via AWB's). I'd suggest moving all of your automated editing to one of your bot accounts. — xaosflux Talk 03:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did have about 500 AWB assisted subst's in there, everything bot'ish has now been moved to Tawkerbot and the vandal fighting on Tawkerbot2 -- Tawker 03:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After further research I don't see a good reason to keep this at oppose. — xaosflux Talk 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral (Change from oppose) Have had some interactions with this user since my vote above and also reviewed more of his edits. I can't underestimate the value of his and Joshbuddy's contributions to Wikipedia through the Tawkerbot. I would vote full support, but just can't bring myself to do it because of the short time on wikipedia. But I think he will be a great admin, whether now - or in a couple months when I will definitely support. Trödel 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. After a lot of consideration, I'm placing an opinion here, rather than in the section above. I like the user; I think the user has the right stuff needed in a competent, sensible, head-screwed-on admin. I think, given time, that stuff will manifest. I don't see quite enough of the sort of editing I'd hope for in someone who is going to find, very quickly, that they'll be at the front line of a lot of disputes; your first month of adminship is rather comparable to being tied up in stocks while shit is thrown from all directions. This alone would drop me to a neutral here. Then I see the responses to the questions I placed below. I'm not too keen on two of them, which don't, to me, quite grasp what I was after. I'm still not opposing, because, as I said, I think the user should be an admin. Just, I don't think it should happen yet. Rob Church (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Neutral - I don't think Tawker deserves an oppose, and I don't go in for arbitrary time periods/numbers of edits, but I'm concerned that his amount of time editing is relatively short and the evidence above suggests more experience of major edits would be useful before becoming an admin. I'd probably support in the near future once these criteria are met. —Whouk (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 67% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 51 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 01:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summary usage for Tawker: 80% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 95 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. (an updated one just go give people a little perspective) -- Tawker 20:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Tawker's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • I suspect Primetime's oppose vote this evening was a direct attack based on Tawker's deletion of IP edits by the still-blocked Primetime, adding mischief to Wiktionary. Primetime resists adminships because admins might make xyr copyvio and other questionable edits harder. Besides, Wikipedia has plenty of admins not *old* enough to drink but still doing great things.--Dvortygirl 08:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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.
    I would be using it to deal with blocked proxies (see WP:OP) either blocking or unblocking depending on scans (the proxycheck script on the OP page is hosted by myself). I do RC patrol a fair bit and if I'm not mistaken admin rollback is faster and more efficient (both time and server resources wise) than the godmodelight script I am presently using. I also do image patrol and I have had users request that I delete images that I have tagged. While it is not a massive annoyance for another admin to click on a delete link, it does take up time. I also have Tawkerbot2 give me a nice little poke whenever someone triggers it multiple times, being able to respond to those might be a bit of an asset.
  2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    My pet project this month has been Queen of the North - I started the article as a stub, a bunch of editors beat me to making it into a real article whilst I was away at work but I've been updating the page a lot finding images (and gosh they're hard to find) etc as well as providing information broadcast via the local media. I think I like this article as it was one of my "I managed to beat other editors" (for once) and that made me happy :)
Update: Having just spent the last day rewriting West Vancouver I think my most pleasing edit has changed. This one was a little difficult to find information on, it was 2 hours at the library just to find the information I added though I really am pleased at the result. With West Vancouver likely to become a fairly well hit article with the 2010 games being hosted in part in the District, an excellent Wikipedia page is fairly important. I've also started steps to obtain copyright clearances (aka gfdl licensing) for various historical photos which will improve the visual aspects of the article bringing the history hopefully more "to life"
  1. 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?
    I wouldn't say I have been in any conflicts in the sense of the word with a good faith editor. A vandal decided to attack me publicly (as well as several other editors) but as the editor refused to talk, it ended up in other admins just blocking for legal threats. Tawkerbot2 has brought up a little controversy (as I would expect it to do), I've always responded to every suggestion / comment about the bot, and I think I've satisfied everyone, though if anyone has any questions, I'm usually on IRC and my talk page is always open.

Any more questions are welcome here, I'll do my best to get back to you within an hour (though I'm afraid I will never be as fast as Tawkerbot2 :)

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    I would make a note on the "original" editors talk page and see if it is actually them. One question that comes up is how do I know that they are using the socks without a checkuser. If they don't reply I'd post on WP:AN and ask on IRC and see what people think, we never want to annoy one of our valued editors.
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    Wikipedia is by consensus, if I felt that some concerns were not addressed I'd leave a talk page message but I wouldn't undelete, thats wheel warring and that is not a good thing.
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
    Ask another admin to take a look, conflict of interest scenarios are lose-lose normally and its best to avoid them
  4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    I obviously wouldn't undo another admin's actions without talking to them first. I would likely make a statement of what happened and my attemps to get both sides talking on WP:RFAR but apart from that, ArbCom's consensus would know better than me. If ArbCom decides to reject the case, I would ask someone else to try and mediate, maybe a new party might start the needed dialogue.

Questions from JoshuaZ:

  1. How would you respond to users who argue that your work has been almost exclusively in vandal fighting(even the article which you are most proud of you only have 14 edits, most of which are adding pictures) and that this lack of constructive (rather than anti-destructive) edits gives them reservations about making you an admin?
    Well, I admit I am one to use talk pages more to propose a change than to be BOLD. I've done a fair bit of work on creating stubs on Vancouver related articles, I've created some Canadian Scouting related articles, though in a sense they didn't get on the front page, hence I'm a little biased :). As for the people who will argue that this is not constructive to Wikipedia, if Wikipedia is corrupted by vandalism, Wikipedia doesn't work. I've run other Wiki's that have essentially nosedived due to the blatant amounts of vandalism that occur on them, its not likely to happen on Wikipedia but it does show the value of vandalism fighting.
  2. (This question is the sort one gets in the US Senate when one is a presidential appointee in a comfirmation hearing and the President's party enjoys a majority in the senate). Given how helpful tawkerbot and tawkerbot2 have been, how would you respond to worries that if you are given admin tools you will spend too much time doing normal admin stuff and not as much time making the unique, useful sorts of major labor savers that you have previously made?
    I can't read WB's mind as to why he nominated me but I think he nominated me mostly so I can deal with the odd time the bot starts pestering me with lots and lots of messages (a mass vandalbot attack). I've sort of fallen in love with Tawkerbot2 (no offense to Tawkerbot(1) and unless it’s perfect it’s not going to be left alone. One of the other points that has come up is the odd revert where someone has asked a question about why the bot reverted. With the entries deleted, I'm in the dark as to what the content was, and leaving a "I really can't tell you" is not something I like to do
    Can't the bot archive its diffs off-wiki as it makes them? I'm not trying to doubt your candidacy, I think most of your answers are excellent and I'm just scratching my head a bit about this one. Phr 10:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (Sort of a follow up of 2) Is there any aspect of your bot programing/similar work that would benefit from you having Admin abilities. If yes, please explain how.
    First of all, the bot will not have admin under any situation under my personal account. The example I've pointed out in the previous question is the biggest advantage it would have in bot delevopment would be the ability to review deleted edits. One could argue that the ability to unblock the bot once it's fixed would be nice (I haven't seen a block in there that isn't "feel free to unblock when its fixed" and it would save someone else's time but to me its a non-concern. The only "close to admin" feature that would be nice is the rollback button and if Request for Rollback passed that would solve that problem. Mostly it would just ease strain a little, both on the bots side and the servers side, and that would be nice IMHO.
  4. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    I think most aspects in the concept of Wikipedia work very well considering the scope of the project. The one little gripe I have right now is the current (technical) limitations that prevent some "good" editors from contributing due to the fact that ISP's and locations force them to use sharedip's which have been (rightfully) blocked for repeat vandalism. Obviously adminship won't solve that problem and I know it will be solved eventually (having discussed strategies on IRC to solve it, I know its very very possible) and is the biggest gripe I have with the site as is.
  5. Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    Open proxies and extremely obvious sockpuppets (for example the impostors of Tawkerbot2 that seem to sprout up). The former because its a written in stone policy, the latter because impostors can easily wreck the reputation of an valued editor and its a threat to Wikipedia.
  6. If you were constructing a level of editor between user and admin, how would they be choosen and what privileges would this new class have?
    This would be the rollback button only usergroup which would give access to the rollback button and the rollback button alone. This would basically go with the proposal already out there, the request wait a few days and if no objections be granted permissions.
    Of course, another possibly group could be the "trusted to bypass IP blocks" group but that might be better as an auto group and doesn't really mean any additional access.
  7. If you could give any normally non-admin ability to all users what would it be?
    I'm not in favour of granting any ability to all users
  8. What do you think of WP:BEANS?
    WP:BEANS is a necessary evil. As I interpret BEANS it means don't feed vandals information they could use to vandalize Wikipedia. While I rather the code for Tawkerbot2 be out in the open for everyone (as opposed to its current state of being open to "trusted" users), the BEANS idea of don't give vandals code that could cause a lot of harm to Wikipedia. In short, I would prefer that BEANS wouldn't have to exist but it exists for a good reason.
  9. How do you draw the line between extreme POV pushing and vandalism?
    There is a massive grey area between the two and in a lot of cases people cannot say which an edit is. The rule of thumb I think of is "If I can explain why it's POV pushing it's POV pushing" otherwise its probably vandalism (or neither.) POV disputes are always something you want to have multiple people discussing, I don't think its the greatest idea for a single admin to impose anything based on their determination of a grey POV push.
  10. Suppose you are closing and AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is you answer any different if the two possibilities are between "no consensus" and "delete"?
    I would error on the side of caution and request a second opinion on the matter, possibly leaving it longer on the AfD and/or asking people to check it out, either on IRC or on a noticeboard. The only exception might be if all of the sockpuppet's are simply voting the exact same way.
  11. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express there opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    Well, sadly a lot of AfD's do not get the attention they probally should get. I think at a very very minimum 5 votes should be required (in ArbCom style, a no vote cancels out a yes vote). If that has not been reached, I would leave it open and possibly put it on an "votes not reaching consensus" page (if it doesn't already exist, I've been searching and haven't found it yet but it might be hidden). Wikipedia:Consensus amd Wikipedia:Supermajority do not give any exact figures with respect to minimum votes, only 2/3 (66%) for AFD.

Question from Naconkantari e|t||c|m (because you asked me to):

  1. Why did you decide to join Wikipedia?
I did edit as an ip for a while and I think I had another account a fair amount of time ago, but bringing me into serious editing I was brought in by a friend. I think the fact that I used it a lot for projects and such, its my primary source of information and I just became a wikiholic. (I like questions, more more more :)

Follow up question I figure someone will ask: Why did you start major vandal fighting / working on Tawkerbot2?

Well, it ties into the info I was grabbing from Wikipedia and I ran across a vandal. It bugged me. I first was going crazy doing it manually it wasn't work, it was fun, almost a game. After that, I realized editing articles is more fun and that vandal fighting is a pretty good task for bots and Joshbuddy and I started work on the bot. I had the server so I guess it was named after me but it really is a join effort.

Follow-up question from — xaosflux Talk

  1. Would unblocking other accounts of yours be your primary remedy for their unblocking?
    Re: "One could argue that the ability to unblock the bot once it's fixed would be nice". If another admin blocked anyof your accounts when do you think it is approriate for you to lift the blocks yourself and why? — xaosflux Talk 04:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does depend on the block summary summary. Most admins have either stated that the block is to be lifted as soon as the bot is fixed, some admins have said that they use the block button as a means of controlling the bot, stopping it so I can fix it. Take a look at the block log and you'll see most of them fit in the category. In those cases I think it's appropiate just to unblock when the bot is fixed. If the block is for something other than a "bot has a bug please fix and feel free to unblock" then it’s the judgment of someone else -- Tawker 04:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a second read of the question with another shot of espresso, I should point out that the only account in question is Tawkerbot2 and only for cases where its clearly marked that the big red (block) button is to control the bot due to a bug. -- Tawker 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just took an actual detailed look through the votes and I think I should point out the fact that Tawkerbot2 was a joint effort between Joshbuddy and myself. I guess the main reason its named the way it is was the fact that originally it was a fork on Tawkerbot(1) to detect a couple mass vandals and then we got the idea of expanding it and well, it went from there. It's probably 50/50, the bot is a lot more work than just the code, it’s the other bot related stuff. The monitoring of the bot (oh yes, its monitored most of the time, I have a monitor (no pun intended) with its status screen going pretty much whenever I'm in the office has been mostly handled by myself (with the odd IM to Joshbuddy whenever I think we can improve something (false positive, missed obvious edit etc.) - Oh, and then there's the server (and the whatever it is a month I'm paying for it (though I admit, it doesn't just run WP bots, I've got some toys on it). In short, please oh gosh don't think this bot is my work and my work alone, its not. Joshbuddy and I spend the most time on it but lots of other editors help out too, way too many names to mention here (this page is already pretty long, don’t want to make it even longer) -- Tawker 21:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a delineation of work, Tawker handles the user complains, monitors the bot and hosts the bot and pays for hosting costs. I programmed the bot and I monitor it, add feature requests and generally make sure its running in good health. Many others have contributed ideas and time to make to all run as smoothly as possible. I wrote the bot so I could get back to actually writing content, but maintaining the bot has become a rather full-time job. joshbuddytalk 21:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from —Locke Cole • t • c

  1. Can you explain your actions in these diffs– [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] (all fairly recent)? Is this the type of conduct you would engage in as a sysop? If not, what did you learn from this experience, and how would you handle such a situation as a sysop? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking back at the situation, I do feel I reverted a few times too many and would not revert that many times in the future. I was on #wikipedia at the time and the general view was to disallow the unblock requests though I feel the best course of action now would have been to revert once and leave it at that (and/or ask someone else if I am already involved.) -- Tawker 05:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, and to be clear for those reading this, I asked for clarification on IRC–
    <LockeCole> Just so we're on the same page; you mean you'd remove the {{unblock}} once and not revert?
    <Tawker> correct
    This answer is (to me) perfect and I'll be keeping my support vote in place. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can butt in here, and ask the obvious dumb question: as you're not (currently) an admin, why are you reviewing and denying unblock requests at all? Or were you re-stating that the previous admin who looked at this has denied it? If so, this is from clear. Alai 22:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, its not really a dumb question at all, all of them were already denied by previous users, I was just restating what had happened, you were correct -- Tawker 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. Alai 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Rob Church
  1. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    Answer Stress in some type of situation is something that every person has to deal with. In the past I've dealt in high stress situations, both in the real world managing various events during my years apast as the "go to" guy on various councils and committees. I have been told that I have been able to effectively and efficiently manage these situations, and I haven't felt burnt out though I did enjoy sleeping in the next day on a few occasions. Every now and then, everyone feels a little more stressed than they normally should be, it is at these times that it is often appropriate to take a short Wikibreak and go on vacation (and imagine, taking more photos). In short, if external or internal situations caused a little more pressure on me than necessary I might take a short Wikibreak, (and a break from the other things) and relax.
  2. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    Answer While going through Wikipedia, finding interesting information, sharing information and more there things on occasion that are not right and require what is commonly referred to as "the mop" to fix. On occasion I have come across material that doesn't fit on Wikipedia, gibberish pages which serve no purpose but to attack another user, the (relatively rare in terms of the number of editors) user who refuses to stop causing harm to Wikipedia. Most of the time, I've just sent a request to an admin, either on instant messaging applications or on the freenode network, some of the admins (especially Water Bottle, the nominator who is often my first target due to his nice prominent MSN username that puts him at the top of my list) have simply said it would be better use of everyone's time if I simple preformed the actions myself. As several users have pointed out above in the votes, I won't be your "typical" admin in the sense of "typical" (as if we can define admins as being "typical"), I may use the sysop if I reach consensus to help stop the odd user who has chosen not to be constructive to the role of this site (Tawkerbot2 so nicely points out such users to me in big bold text for review) as well as look at the rare deleted edit where someone has asked a question about Tawkerbot2's actions and the edit in question has been deleted.
  3. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    Answer Mostly a technical position, administrators (by themselves or in groups) do not have the power to override the consensus of all editors. Administrators are somewhat like the police force, they enforce the guidelines and policies (laws) but they do not enforce policy that has not reached consensus.
  4. What do you understand will happen at the end of this seven day discussion process?
    Answer If I may quote the Guide to Adminship "Sometime after the seven days for the RfA have elapsed, a bureaucrat will review the RfA and close it. A bureaucrat will close the RfA as soon as this is feasible, which may be hours or even a day or two after the formal closing date." In short, a bureaucrat will take a look at all of the votes all 3 ways and will determine if Wikipedia:Consensus has been reached. I will then be notified by talk page message of the decision. Pending the closure of this, I will probally make a note on my user / user talk page thanking everyone for voting (regardless of how they voted, some of the oppose votes have been just as insightful as the support votes), though having another look at the Guide to Adminship, I don't think I will be using up a lot of disk space posting ""thanks for voting" messages to the voters' talk pages. (As) this is unneeded and a waste of resources"

Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question (stolen from Clown's RfA): Which tie do you think goes best with a black shirt and a black dress jacket, a red one or a pearly white one? JIP | Talk 18:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it depends on the situation and the impression someone was going to make :)

Optional Question (stolen from Clown's RfA): Got milk? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do support local dairy farmers, Milk is good for you (though I prefer mine in the form of Ice cream :)

Even More Questions (well one) from Robdurbar

  1. Although still high, your number of edits in March were less than half the of those that you completed in Februrary. Is there any reason for this and what level do you - roughly - expect to to be contributing at in the future? Also, what caused your sudden interest in editing Wikipedia, after a slow start? Robdurbar 11:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I had an account for a while (and my edits were editing mostly election data, that sort of thing; then a friend got me addicted) to the site. My edits will drop mostly because there's a lot less direct vandalism fighting, its more monitoring the bot and that sort of thing. It's giving me time to actually edit articles (and go to a Libary and find out how happy people are to find information especially if you say you want to improve Wikipedia). Editcountis can be fatal, a few extensive edits can be a lot better (and use a lot less disk space) than many many many small ones.

Unanswerable question from Carnildo & Onthost

  1. Have you stopped beating your wife? --Carnildo 01:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not shoving beans up my nose by providing an answer to that question. Actually, I'm single :) -- Tawker 06:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood? The amount of questions in this RFA is ridiclious just like these questions. Mike (T C) 04:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, assuming the wood chuck would chuck wood its output would be factored on various conditions including hardness of the wood, muscular mass of the wood chuck, water content of the wood. It is a formula, not a fixed number :) -- Tawker 06:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very important question from Buchanan-Hermit

  1. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a stink? --Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you typoed the question and meant to say sound, which Wikipedia defines as "a disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave. Humans perceive sound by the sense of hearing." The falling of the tree would most certainly cause the majority of its potential energy to be converted into other forms of energy so yes, it does make a sound although nobody would be in the area to hear / record it. The fact that a sound is not heard does not make it a sound -- Tawker 18:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he meant "raise a stink", and the correct answer is, it depends on the forest and previous activity therein. Illegal logging, for example, would raise a stink, while a natural collapse could raise the concern of public and private officials immediately descending upon the area to determine if it was simple tree rot or something far more serious, like Sudden Oak Death Syndrome. You fail. (With tongue planted firmly in cheek, RadioKirk talk to me 18:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tawker_2&oldid=1125660096"