Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tawker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Tawker

Seeing some very valid concerns, I have withdrawn my nomination until I can rectify them -- Tawker 02:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Final (6/5/3) ended 02:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawker (talk · contribs) – Tawker has been tireless in fighting vandalism. With over 7000 well distributed edits, its my pleasure to nominate him joshbuddytalk 22:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept Tawker 23:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. He definitely should be an admin. --Khoikhoi 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support -- thought he was an admin already. Has my full support. - Longhair 00:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support- 7000 edits-WOW! --WikieZach| talk 00:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Joe I 00:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support A trustworthy user and would make good use of admin tools. Where (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. About 18 months ago, I had 7000 edits and was up for adminship. As far as I can see it, the people opposing would have opposed me too if given the chance. I wouldn't do that to you. Mike H. That's hot 01:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Sadly Oppose Tawker is a great guy but this is just too soon Almost all edits was last month, few wikiname space experience, needs to create more content, will support in a later date but not now --Jaranda wat's sup 00:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose with a matter of a few weeks of editing, no matter the number, this is just much too soon to be an admin. A bit of experience of the way things flow is very useful, as is seeing the way things change and evolve and that's just not possible to accumulate in 4 weeks. -Splashtalk 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    Incidentally, and strikingly unusually, 4500 of those 7000+ are to User talk as vandal warnings which makes judging the interactional nature of things quite hard. -Splashtalk 00:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. STRONG oppose per Aranda and Splash - this is far too soon. We are about building an encyclopedia, and yet you don't have many major contributions to articles. People will oppose you for that, and in every future RFA you attempt until you contribute more to article space. Remember my rant - good vandal fighter != good administrator! NSLE (T+C) at 00:39 UTC (2006-03-04)
  4. Oppose way too soon. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Too soon. Some experience only comes with time. --NormanEinstein 01:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I like Tawker a lot, and I think he'll be a great admin sooner rather than later. He does a lot of great development work in the area of bots and open proxy detection, and I am greatly indebted to him for the loan of server resources. However, given that nearly all of his contribs (and what lovely contribs they are :-D ) came in the last month, I think it's a bit early. Give us another month like last month, and I'll nominate you myself! Essjay Talk • Contact 01:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Essjay. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. NeutralI too think it is a bit early, seeing as you gain a lot of experience from the amount of time on wikipedia. A month should give you enough time, i will be voting then.--Ali K 01:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 50% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 32 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 00:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Tawker's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
I should note that I may have accidentally tagged a few minor edits as major and when I was pasting in an edit summary and hit the checkbox instead of pasting in properly -- Tawker 00:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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.
A. 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.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have mostly been reverting vandalism, I have made some minor edits to various articles and when I find useful information I do add it. I think every page is pleasing, and I don't pick favourites :)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have had some issues with an anon IP who vandalised that I had reverted. The anon IP then went to making various legal threats against Wikipedia and various Wikipedians, I believe I kept a cool head and discussed the issue camly with wikipoliteness.

I'm also constantly on IRC on #wikipedia / #wikimedia / #wikipedia-en-vandalism if you have any questions/comments that you want an instant response for.

I recently had my RfA on Wiktionary reach consensus, I have been running a MediaWiki powered site for a while and I know what the buttons do. I've also spent a good many hours as of late reading various WP policies. I really wasn't expecting an nomination this early and some people may say I don't have enough experience. I understand this is a valid concern and I am the first to admit that I don't know everything but then again, nobody does (and thats what Wikipedia is here for.) If you have any questions / pop quizzes you want to give me, feel free to give me a shout, I like to "tawk" a lot.

I should also note that nobody is perfect, there was an occasion where I accidentally thought something was something it wasn't, the user left a note on my talk page and I promptly fixed my mistake and apologized. Communication is a vital thing on Wikipedia and editors need to be able to hear from someone when something happens. Unless I openly state I'm taking a Wikibreak on my user / talk pages, I check my messages every 24 hours at a minimum and respond promptly.

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?
Communication, I would post on WP:AN and in IRC. I would also leave a note on their userpage and try and determine if there is a rational reason for what is going on. I would not act offensively without due reason
  1. 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?
I would make a note on the other admin's talk page with a link to a sandboxed copy of the page, I wouldn't re-create or re-post without figuring out what is going on. Wikipedia is about consensus, not power trips.
  1. 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?
I would ask another admin to have a look, blocking users who I have a clear conflict of interest with would be inappropriate.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.