Login
Login

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/TommyBoy



Username:	TommyBoy


User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer


First edit:	Nov 09, 2004 23:46:09


Unique pages edited:	9,638


Average edits per page:	2.36


Live edits:	22,442


Deleted edits:	316


Total edits (including deleted):	22,758


Namespace Totals


Article	14282	63.64%


Talk	5183	23.10%


User	560	2.50%


User talk	972	4.33%


Wikipedia	891	3.97%


Wikipedia talk	11	0.05%


MediaWiki talk	1	0.00%


Template	69	0.31%


Template talk	17	0.08%


Category	393	1.75%


Category talk	22	0.10%


Portal	40	0.18%


Portal talk	1	0.00%


Month counts


2004/11	49


2004/12	147


2005/01	189


2005/02	140


2005/03	279


2005/04	433


2005/05	199


2005/06	55


2005/07	86


2005/08	344


2005/09	724


2005/10	579


2005/11	172


2005/12	263


2006/01	319


2006/02	231


2006/03	345


2006/04	383


2006/05	251


2006/06	518


2006/07	512


2006/08	185


2006/09	139


2006/10	256


2006/11	359


2006/12	37


2007/01	215


2007/02	180


2007/03	137


2007/04	7


2007/05	62


2007/06	56


2007/07	27


2007/08	143


2007/09	24


2007/10	4


2007/11	177


2007/12	403


2008/01	429


2008/02	578


2008/03	632


2008/04	241


2008/05	48


2008/06	144


2008/07	108


2008/08	163


2008/09	157


2008/10	132


2008/11	53


2008/12	83


2009/01	193


2009/02	156


2009/03	162


2009/04	147


2009/05	183


2009/06	453


2009/07	339


2009/08	409


2009/09	488


2009/10	112


2009/11	25


2009/12	31


2010/01	64


2010/02	131


2010/03	36


2010/04	77


2010/05	45


2010/06	44


2010/07	49


2010/08	80


2010/09	111


2010/10	164


2010/11	72


2010/12	112


2011/01	147


2011/02	146


2011/03	999


2011/04	532


2011/05	56


2011/06	43


2011/07	329


2011/08	466


2011/09	397


2011/10	323


2011/11	353


2011/12	454


2012/01	90


2012/02	211


2012/03	443


2012/04	271


2012/05	766


2012/06	269


2012/07	130


2012/08	257


2012/09	148


2012/10	396


2012/11	140


Top edited pages


Article


222 - Hague_Academy_of_International_Law


106 - Claire_McCaskill


79 - Kathy_Augustine


78 - John_Y._Brown,_Jr.


77 - Susanna_M._Salter


73 - List_of_Hague_Academy_of_International_Law_people


66 - Carroll_A._Campbell,_Jr.


62 - Democratic_Governors_Association


60 - David_Hall_(Oklahoma_governor)


59 - George_Nigh


Talk


12 - Claire_McCaskill


12 - Kathy_Augustine


10 - Rod_Blagojevich


10 - Mark_Warner


9 - John_Y._Brown,_Jr.


9 - James_E._Edmondson


8 - Alfred_C._Richmond


8 - Susanna_M._Salter


7 - Mike_Coffman


7 - Floride_Calhoun


User


555 - TommyBoy


2 - BD2412/Third_dated_archive


2 - SuggestBot/Requests


1 - Robert_K_S


1 - TommyBoy/EditCounterOptIn.js


User talk


112 - TommyBoy


15 - Rougher07


9 - Refsworldlee


8 - Rrius


7 - Will_Beback/Revisions


6 - DaveWGilliland


6 - Djsasso


6 - Jeffpw


6 - Artoasis


6 - Hekerui


Wikipedia


551 - WikiProject_Biography/Assessment


94 - WikiProject_Missouri/Assessment


62 - WikiProject_Virginia/Assessment


18 - WikiProject_U.S._Congress/Assessment


11 - Requests_for_page_protection


9 - Requests_for_expansion


8 - Proposed_mergers


7 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism


7 - Requests_for_adminship/TommyBoy


4 - WikiProject_Oklahoma


Wikipedia talk


2 - WikiProject_Biography/Assessment


2 - WikiProject_Missouri


2 - WikiProject_Chicago


1 - WikiProject_Law_Enforcement/Peer_review


1 - WikiProject_Oklahoma


1 - WikiProject_Biography


1 - Suspected_copyright_violations


1 - WikiProject_Law_Enforcement


MediaWiki talk


1 - Spam-whitelist


Template


11 - U.S._State_Treasurers


8 - U.S._state_attorneys_general


6 - U.S._State_Secretaries_of_State


5 - Current_Oklahoma_statewide_political_officials


3 - U.S._State_Auditors


2 - Current_Oklahoma_Cabinet


2 - David_Paterson_cabinet_infobox


2 - Current_Oklahoma_Legislature


2 - MOTreasurers


2 - Current_U.S._Lieutenant_Governors


Template talk


4 - U.S._State_Senate_Majority_Leaders


4 - U.S._State_Treasurers


4 - Vice_Presidents_Succeeding_Presidents


2 - MOTreasurers


2 - Current_Oklahoma_Legislature


1 - Current_Oklahoma_Cabinet


Category


12 - State_cabinet_secretaries_of_the_United_States


9 - State_treasurers_of_Delaware


7 - State_cabinet_secretaries_of_Illinois


7 - State_cabinet_secretaries_of_Oklahoma


7 - State_cabinet_secretaries_of_California


6 - State_cabinet_secretaries_of_Florida


6 - California_sheriffs


6 - State_cabinet_secretaries_of_Kansas


6 - State_cabinet_secretaries_of_Massachusetts


6 - Hague_Academy_of_International_Law_people


Category talk


4 - State_treasurers_of_Missouri


1 - Roanoke_metropolitan_area


1 - Burials_at_Hollywood_Cemetery_(Richmond,_Virginia)


1 - Television_stations_in_Joplin,_Missouri


1 - United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security_offi...


1 - Directors_of_the_United_States_National_Park_Servi...


1 - Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation


1 - Chairs_of_the_Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporatio...


1 - United_States_National_Park_Service


1 - Carnahan_family


Portal


2 - Current_events/2010_December_13


2 - Current_events/2008_February_21


2 - Current_events/2010_September_7


1 - Current_events/2010_February_5


1 - Current_events/2010_February_7


1 - Current_events/2010_February_13


1 - Current_events/Sidebar


1 - Current_events/2010_June_26


1 - Current_events/2010_February_19


1 - Current_events/2009_September_8


Portal talk


1 - Current_events

Extended thread from neutral section

  1. TommyBoy is a solid content contributor, for sure, and they are more valuable to us than admins; however, there is next to no evidence of actual work in admin-type areas (7 edits to AIV and 11 to RFPP are the sum total of his contributions to admin areas of projectspace). I'm somewhat concerned with the relatively high level of support already evident here given this situation, and would appreciate some clarification from those presently supporting (of the nine at the moment, only Kaldari has offered any proper rationale in the form of the nomination itself, and even that is unconvincing). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. :I don't believe that a user with over 8 years of experience and the knowledge of policies and dedication to the project owes us anything else. Activity in admin related areas shouldn't be a prerequisite to the tools. If the user should have a need to use them, the tools should be available to the user because we trust them. Should they want to help with admin related work, that's helpful. Should they not, we're absolutely no worse off for having given them to this user. The tools are cheap and given no evidence of behaviors that might lead to misuse of the tools, then I think they should be granted.--v/r - TP 14:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. ::I disagree. We shouldn't be giving tools to editors who aren't going to use them. Being an admin is not a badge of honor. It's a job. In addition to what Chris said, I also don't think that not being involved in difficult disputes is a plus. Admins should have some experience with disputes, and there should be evidence that they know how to handle them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. ::::"No use for the tools" is one of the worst responses in the RfA playbook. You're right that being an administrator is a job, but like every other job under the sun, it's one you have to learn. An apprentice carpenter could theoretically wade in and start using the most powerful tools in the workshop, but won't, because they run the danger of sawing off somebody else's fingers. Instead, they're taught and learn from other, more experienced workers. If you prevented them from even going into the workshop until they'd spent a lot of time hanging around outside looking for bits of wood to hand to the actual carpenters, your business would never get anywhere. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  5. ::::::There are really two interrelated issues. One is whether experience in admin-related areas is necessary or desirable before becoming ann admin, and the other is whether we should have admins who don't use - or rarely use - the tools. The first was raised by Chris, and the second by TP. I addressed both, albeit cursorily. I don't have an RfA playbook, at least not last time I checked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  6. :::::I concur with that. RfA should evaluate Trust, Knowledge and Judgment rather than experience in admin-related areas. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  7. ::::::You are trying to make the point that work in admin areas provides much less experience than work in those areas with admin tools. If I understand you correctly, the only "real" requirements at RfA are account age and no messups throughout their account. If that's the case, then please wait as I phone my uncle and tell him that, despite his dislike of drama on the project, he can reactivate his account from '02 and get admin rights without doing more than lifting a finger. Buggie111 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::How long has your uncle been absent from the project? If we're talking years and years, then no. If we're talking a short time after a long and unblemished editing career, then yes, in an ideal world he should be able to, if he definitively returned to the project. But we're not living in an ideal world, nor is your hyperbole about "lifting a finger" applicable to that ideal world. What we are talking about is access to maintenance tools here, now, on today's Wikipedia. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::Chris, to answer your question, I think that diversity it good and he has shown he can be trusted to get along, not template other users (zero automated edits, I might add) and actually engages users. His article talk page contributions have increased over the years, showing me a willingness to engage. He isn't just gnoming, he is active yet avoids problems. To me, that is worth the risk. He likely won't be the most active, but that isn't important. Trust is key, and I think he has earned that by his deeds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::::@Hex, what I'm saying is that the standards (at least in this RfA) seem to have swung rapidly from "Must show that they are active in admin-areas" to "Must be trusted", which, put simply, completely surprises me. Buggie111 (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::::The standards have swung towards a trust basis? {{oldid|Wikipedia:Recently created admins#Paul A|1449021|Oh, you young'uns.}} — Hex (❝...❞) 22:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm getting nauseous, too much swinging these past ten years. Buggie111 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}

Thank you, Dennis and others. I refreshed and saw what I was about to try to write. I look for some breadth of experience and especially trustworthiness. TommyBoy exhibits both. I don't just look at numbers; some with huge edit counts did little more than correct spelling and punctuation errors while a low count may mean that the editor writes paragraphs or entire articles on a text editor and then pastes them into WP. Both are valid ways of working. To start, I suspect TB will look around for where a backlog requiring admin's exists, review the applicable policies, guidelines and probably essays and some closures and then help out. He might even ask some other admins to take a look before he hits "Save page" and that's all good. I waited to see answers to the added questions and look at his stats and search some older contribs. I'm convinced and now off to add my support even though I'm an old young'un. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 22:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I would also add that a newish admin, I can assure you that becoming an admin changes everything as to what areas you work in, and you have no idea where until you actually have the bit. I used to mainly gnome around and did a tremendous amount of AFD work, 1600 of them. However, in the 7 months since the bit, I've created more articles than my first 5 years, yet spend most of my time simply helping others who make requests on my take page: moving pages, undeleting pages into userspace, reviewing personality clashes, and just pointing editors to the right policy, guideline or forum. I seldom gnome or work AFD now. And no matter what anyone thinks, you can't "be ready" for the admin bit. You can be trustworthy and have clue, but you learn 90% of what you need to know after you get the bit. Skills can be learned, attitude can't, which is why demeanor and clue are my primary criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • :Dennis has this spot on, though I might say more like 60%, and I might also add that candidate could (and in my estimation should) show a knowledge and understanding of the basic pillars/policies (such as WP:CON) as an editor. One need not be an admin to have taken the time to read over some of the more basic policies (or better, to show through their edit history that they understand and follow them.) This is something that is, in my estimation, all-too-often often overlooked by candidates, and those nominating them.
  • :In this case, for all the candidate's length of editorship on Wikipedia, I'm rather concerned about what I'm seeing in the question responses. They seem to have a fundamental non-understanding of the consensus process, for example. And one need not be an admin to understand that. I'm still looking through their contribution history, though, so I'm hoping I will find something to assuage my rising concerns. - jc37 17:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • :I also support Mr. Brown's main point (like jc, I hope the percentage is a little hyperbolic). The areas I work in now are entirely unlike what I expected to work in. I've done far more deletions that I would have ever guessed; I don't think I did any copyright work before getting the bit—I did very little with images, and now spend a chunk of my day at Commons, so you never know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • :::Maybe you guys were just much smarter than me pre-bit ;-) Some of that wisdom isn't just the "rules", but understanding when exceptions make sense, when WP:IAR really applies, etc. While I could quote policy verbatim before the bit, I understand those words much better now that I've had to apply them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ::::I agree, especially the applicability of IAR to specific admin actions. Hence why I commented that showing that understanding in relation to editor behaviour/actions/choices is something that a candidate can indicate. There's a lot more to editing Wikipedia than enacting the tools and responsibilities of adminship. And an editor's contribution history can help indicate concerning trusting the candidate with more tools than they currently have. - jc37 19:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Project-space editing