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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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. &mdash; Hex    (❝ ?!  ❞)   16:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; 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&cent;    &copy;   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? &mdash;  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)

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&cent;    &copy;   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&cent;    &copy;   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

 * Comment - I've only gotten through a few years so far, but it looks like back then, he primarily acted through WP:BOLD editing. There isn't much in the way of interacting with others to find consensus. If I ignore minor edits and several talk page requests to merge a page due to lack of stand alone notability, here's what I am finding:
 * - I like that (as another long time editor) he understands the "many hands" philosophy which used to be more prevalent in understanding on Wikipedia.
 * Articles for deletion/Lance Cargill - His first XfD edit. (From before AfD was called AfD.)
 * Talk:Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons - another merge discussion, though this where he faced opposition.
 * Articles_for_deletion/Hussein_'Abd_al-Majid - His next AfD. Noting that the page still exists as a single line stub (plus Wiki formatting/templates/etc.) Hussein 'Abd al-Majid
 * Talk:Otis_R._Bowen - Making an assessment on what he considers to not be contentious.
 * - Related to the one above, a posting to RfD.
 * Talk:Joseph Medill Patterson Albright and Talk:Madeleine_Albright - Nomination, and showing acceptance when consensus goes against his nom.
 * Talk:Steven W. Taylor - A note about licencing (I have to admit, I chuckled when reading the second post.)
 * Talk:Cabinet_of_the_United_States - explaining the reversion of someone's edits.
 * Articles for deletion/Zeta Phi - as a commenter in a discussion he didn't nominate.
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_27 - Cfd nom (which was opposed.)
 * request for expansion, which he then followed up with a thank you.
 * Wikipedia_talk:Suspected_copyright_violations/Archive_1 fixing a copyright issue.
 * Talk:Abraham_McClellan_(Missouri_politician) - removing a PROD
 * WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/American politicians/Federal judges - Helped out here with three entries.
 * - Joined Wikiproject Biography
 * asked for help at WP:WP:BIO, and though no comments there, did get some at the article talk page: Talk:James_E._Edmondson
 * - asking for help because he is unsure of policy
 * User_talk:TMS63112 note to another editor concerning Talk:Claire_McCaskill
 * - portal edit
 * - An RM
 * - request for page protection
 * Articles for deletion/Kevin Beary - Another Afd, but he canvassed the editors of the page to come comment, and several did.
 * At first glance, this list may look like a lot, but with the exceptions I noted above (like minor or gnomish talk page edits, or merge/move requests) - and it's possible something may have slipped through the cracks - but after going through thousands of edits into his first several years, afaict, this was everything. That said, this isn't 2007, it's 2012, so I'm still ongoing. But I was getting to the point of too many pages open... - jc37 00:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I finished going through his contribs. Other than some requests for merges or moves, I also find a few requests for page protections, joining several WikiProjects, and a couple edits to sub-pages of Portal:Current events. Besides that:
 * - Some thought in a BLP-related survey
 * - a request concerning the whitelist. Declined here. (Though I found it interesting that two other pages from that site apparently did make it to the whitelist.)
 * - Noting a missing editor
 * - an AN/I post.
 * And here are the rest of the XFD postings:
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_29
 * Articles_for_deletion/Whitney_Gravel
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_7
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_8
 * Articles_for_deletion/Todd_Palin (and apology)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_11
 * Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_23
 * Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_23
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_10
 * Articles for deletion/Jason Hannasch
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Proposed mergers
 * Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates (2nd nomination)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_12
 * Articles for deletion/Catherine Curran O'Malley
 * Articles for deletion/Marc Mezvinsky (2nd nomination)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_23
 * Articles for deletion/Swiss Consulate General, Toronto
 * While this might not be considered much for having been here for 8 years, it definitelly is more than "no XfD edits", and more than "no edits in project space". - jc37 07:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (I left off some anti-vandalism related editing for obvious WP:DENY reasons. I didn't count them, but it didn't appear to be an incredible amount.) - jc37 07:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)