Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tawker 2

Tawker

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tawker2|action=edit}} Vote here] (69/21/14) ending 1:21, 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)

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

Support

1. Nominate and support. – WB 01:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Danny 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. —Guanaco 01:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong support. Would make a great admin. — TheKMan^talk 01:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   Also, please look at JoshuaZ's support comment below. — TheKMan^talk 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Support; absolutely. Antandrus (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
7. Support. per above. exactly what I was thinking. pschemp | talk 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support confident he'll make good use of admin tools. --W.marsh 03:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. You know what you doing. — Apr. 3, '06 [03:35] <freakofnur_xture|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)
12. Support. Knowledgeable, friendly, trustworthy, dedicated. Per W.marsh. ~ PseudoSudo 03:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
15. Support. A bit early perhaps, but I think Tawker deserves the mop and bucket. - Tangotango 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support - for the same reason I supported him last time. --Khoikhoi 06:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
18. Strong support per Rory096. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 10:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - Major contributions to Wikipedia. Keeps his head in the face of criticism and conflict. --CBDunkerson 10:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - If he needs and deserves the tools, why waiting? Afonso Silva 10:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
23. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 12:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
26. Support Will be a great admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
27. would make a great candidate. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 13:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support per Joshua. Guettarda 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support after some consideration. TimBentley (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support I think hes ready eh? Keep up the good work. Mike _{(T C)} 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
34. supportBenon 18:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Very good vandal whacker. _-M ^o P-_ 18:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
40. Support A veritable dynamo of awesomeness. --InShaneee 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
42. Support absolutely. Perhaps has done more to fight vandalism than any other user, ever. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support per vandal fighting. -- King of Hearts ^talk 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support per JoshuaZ and Tawker's answers below. Impressive. Gwernol 00:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
48. Strong support per JoshuaZ, Makemi, and Rory. Joe 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
50. Support per JoshuaZ. Mikker ^(...) 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support per nomination. ~Linuxerist L / T 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
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. joshbuddy^talk 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, but anons cannot vote in RfAs. You are welcome to get an account and then vote. JoshuaZ 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

    Whoops, sorry, I thought I was logged in. joshbuddy^talk 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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)
54. Strong support I can't tell who does a better job, CSCWEM or Tawker. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Support: Great vandalismfighter!! Go! Go! Go! --Andy123(talk) 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Support —Wayward ^Talk 07:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
    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)
58. Support. A trustworthy user (and that's the only qualification you need!) Waggers 11:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
62. Martin 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
63. SupportStabiloBoss 17:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
67. Support Jedi6-(need help?) 22:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Support, changing vote, great user, with a good grasp on policy. JohnnyBGood 00:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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)
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. -Splash^talk 02:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   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)

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)
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)

   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)

   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)

6. Oppose 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)

   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)

7. 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)
8. Oppose - as above. Keep up the good work though. Tawkerbot is the win. - Hahnchen 08:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per above. Weatherman90 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak oppose. Has done a lot of good work, but have to oppose per NSLE and others. Aucaman^Talk 17:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Seems like a good guy, but some experience only comes with time. --NormanEinstein 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
12. 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)
13. 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)
14. Oppose Inexperience, too quick on the draw. --Masssiveego 06:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
15. 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)
16. 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)
17. 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)
18. 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)
19. Oppose: not really long enough experience, sorry. Thumbelina 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
20. 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)
21. 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)

Neutral

1. Neutral per NSLE, needs more experince, may change vote if it's close --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
2. 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)
3. Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 02:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   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

4. Neutral, maybe next time as per NSLE oppose. Needs more major edits to the article mainspace. --Terence Ong 09:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral - as all above. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. Neutral No reason to oppose, but he's a little too new. Moe ε 21:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
11. 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)
12. 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)
13. 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)
14. 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)
15. 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)

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)
• See Tawker's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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 :)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. joshbuddy^talk 21:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)