Page extended-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured articles, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Tamzin 188 3 2 98 Open 02:19, 2 May 2022 5 days, 3 hours no report
Current time is 22:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Tamzin 188 3 2 98 Open 02:19, 2 May 2022 5 days, 3 hours no report
Current time is 22:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Colin M RfA Successful 9 Apr 2022 178 0 3 100
Sdrqaz RfA Successful 25 Mar 2022 202 5 5 98
Ifnord RfA Withdrawn 13 Mar 2022 33 16 3 67
Firefly RfA Successful 11 Mar 2022 246 0 0 100
Modussiccandi RfA Successful 1 Feb 2022 196 0 1 100
theleekycauldron RfA Withdrawn 29 Jan 2022 95 50 13 66

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an account on Wikipedia. However, editing the RfA page is limited to extended confirmed users, so editors without an extended confirmed account may have their RfA subpage transcluded by someone who is. This is due to the community deeming that editors without the requisite experience (500 edits and 30 days of experience) are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship.[1] The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll. If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA, but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters". There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting, or responding to comments, in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like "baiting") consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[2] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[3] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 22:21:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Tamzin

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (188/3/2); Scheduled to end 02:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

Tamzin (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Tamzin, formerly known as User:PinkAmpersand, for adminship. I've known Tamzin since they were a brand-new recent-changes patroller in 2012, a lifetime ago, and was already impressed with their common sense and intelligence, not to mention their sense of humor. I love it when editors take Wikipedia and its policies seriously but are also able to show their humanity and a spirit of collaboration.

Tamzin is a longtime and seasoned editor here with a variety of skills, many of them very technical, but they are a proven content writer as well. Recently they've been taking care of business over at WP:SPI, being very helpful and doing the important and not always visible work, and that's obviously an area where they can use the tool.

Tamzin is a writer too, as evidenced by the recent front page appearance of List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, and lest you think that's just a list of names--it is not, it's an actual article that required work and references, including article talk page diplomacy. And as a writer on sometimes controversial topics, Tamzin has also engaged in the conversations necessary to reach consensus and make sure article content meets our standards for NPOV and proper verification. Tamzin has gained a lot of valuable experience in a wide variety of topic areas and parts of Wikipedia, for over ten years, and I have faith that they will put the tools to good use. They have good common sense, a sense of humor, and the maturity we need from an administrator. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I simply can't sing Tamzin's praises enough. I too knew her under her previous name, and in fact didn't make the connection until I began looking into encouraging her to stand for adminship; it was a delight to find out, and only strengthened my conviction. I otherwise echo Drmies in praising her depth and breadth of contributions, e.g., I had enthusiastically encouraged her before seeing she was helping out at SPI too.

What initially motivated me was seeing her participation at RFD. It's certainly not glamorous work, but important for understanding how to help readers navigate the encyclopedia. Fitting for the author of NOTGAME—which, hey, came up due to an RFD!—this is a sign to me that she understands the stakes, that this is all ultimately about running this wonderful project, not hat collecting and high scores.

Look over her user page and you'll get a sense of the breadth of her work: articles, wonky stuff like templates and modules, thoughtful guidance, incredible transparency, and yes, the humor. I'd give her a cetacean if I could. Failing that, I just give my enthusiastic, unqualified support. --BDD (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank Drmies and BDD for their nominations and their kindness, and accept those nominations (and forgive the lack of cetaceans). All necessary disclosures can be found at User:Tamzin/Disclosures and commitments. As a subsection of that page's accountability section, I've explained under what circumstances I would submit to a reconfirmation RfA. I thank the community for taking the time to consider my candidacy. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I would like to give back to a project and community that have become a very important part of my life. Most of my projectspace activity is at RfD, where I am a regular participant and closer, and SPI, where I am a trainee clerk. As an admin I would be able to close RfDs as delete and block identified sockpuppets, and would be better-equipped to respond to SPIs involving deleted evidence or overlapping with other sorts of policy violation. (With four active non-admin clerks at the moment, often such cases sit waiting for attention significantly longer than others, even when all that is needed is "Yep, that's the same draft all right".) I would also like to help out in standard administrative work at AIV, RFPP, CAT:CSD, revdel requests, and AN(I), all of which I have a fair amount of experience with. Once I've had some time to get my sea legs as an admin, I'm also interested in working CAT:UNBLOCK and participating at AE.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Taking "best" as "highest-quality", I would say my work on the twin articles Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013) and Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018). I'd wanted to write those articles for years, and finally taking the time to sit down with a bunch of court decisions and news articles and law journal articles was a rewarding experience, and one that I hope will benefit readers who want to know about what counts as a vessel in the U.S. or when you can sue for retaliatory arrest.
Taking "best" as "most impactful", in terms of content I would point to the creation of List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, which gets several hundred views per day, informing readers of an oft-overlooked horror of war. And in terms of projectspace impact I'd highlight my discovery and pursuit of a long-term sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry ring that had successfully skewed all coverage of Swaminarayan Sampradaya, a major Hindu movement, for years, driving away content creators in the process. The most important part of anti-sockpuppetry is making sure that editors are always free to improve articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I don't like conflict. One might say that I've picked a strange line of "work" here, then, and it's true that at SPI I don't shy away from coming down hard on sox, nor from calling out editors who file spurious reports, but I try not to get drawn into arguments, as SPI or elsewhere. If it's a consensus-building discussion, then once I've said my piece all I can do is sit back and see if others see things my way, even if that means having to watch consensus be "wrong". If I warn someone and they don't see that they did something wrong and aren't open to a constructive discussion, then it's a question of if I should report them now or keep an eye on them for later, but not an invitation to argue. And if a good-faith disagreement comes to an impasse, then so it goes; I move on. Even if I think someone is entirely wrong, I like to think of myself as very patient with anyone who I think is here to build an encyclopedia and isn't ignoring constructive criticism. (Conversely, I have little patience for those who disrupt the project in the pursuit of an end against Wikipedia's purpose.)
The main situation where I'll get into a longer back-and-forth is if I think someone has misused their tools or their status. I've had a few such conversations recently—two with admins, a few with rollbackers. I approach such cases constructively, not reproachfully, and usually have been able to come to an understanding with the other editor. As an admin, I would continue to take such approaches.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Barkeep49
4. On your disclosures page you quote the admin who blocked you saying don't delve too deeply and quickly in the back-office aspects of the project – it's rather seedy back there and you'll end up with a jaundiced view. Not unlike mine, I suppose. To what degree do you feel projectspace participation has made you jaundiced? How will (or won't) you act on this idea with the block tool if made an admin?
A: Coren's advice to me then has stuck with me ever since, and was the only reason I hesitated to join the SPI team. What I've learned in the past 8 months or so as a trainee clerk is that it's important to balance "back-office" work with work more directly related to the encyclopedia we as a community produce—both because it keeps you in touch with why we do this and because it allows you to recalibrate your senses, forestalling that sort of jaundice. If you do nonstop SPI work, working through cases that are at times bone-chilling, at times infuriating, at times both, sooner or later you'll reach the point where a case comes up of someone who has used multiple accounts but without clear intent to deceive, and you'll throw the book at them purely out of habit, chasing off a good-faith contributor who really just needed a {{uw-login}}. That's what I've strived to avoid, primarily by taking breaks from SPI when necessary. I think that, so far, I've done a good job at maintaining my ability to assume good faith despite no small amount of exposure to those seediest parts.
If this RfA succeeds, I don't plan to be a "blocking admin". Due to the prolificity of vandals and LTA sockpuppets, I'm sure I'd make a numerically large number of blocks, but when it comes to users where there's any shred of AGF to be had, I don't anticipate relying on the blocking tool much more than I currently rely on the option to report to admins. If there's a 95% chance that someone is here in bad faith, then that's a 5% chance that blocking them will antagonize someone who might have gone on to be our next power-content-creator. Instead I'd prefer to have a conversation with them; usually you can separate good faith from bad faith pretty quickly based on how someone responds to something like "No, you cannot add links to your blog to random articles". And then, if they're refusing to accept that their actions are disruptive, I'd be willing to block them. And if I did find myself becoming jaundiced, too heavy on the block button, too quick to assume troll or sock, I would follow the same technique I've followed at SPI: Step back and find something to do for a few days or weeks that doesn't have anything to do with user conduct. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Volten001
5. Thank you candidate for your contributions and for offering to serve as an admin. My question is, if you are successful and become an admin, would you be open for recall in future?
A: I think that the reconfirmation criteria I set out at User:Tamzin/Disclosures and commitments § Admin version of this, if I am sysopped are tantamount to a set of recall criteria, enough so that I would list myself at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. To save people the click:

I have no interest in serving as an admin if I do not have the community's enduring support. If anything should happen to make me think that I no longer have the community's support, or if an uninvolved bureaucrat notifies me that they have reached that conclusion, I will promptly stand for a reconfirmation RfA, with the same support threshold as for any other RfA, and will not use the admin tools while that process is pending.

I considered adding some sort of enforcement mechanism—"and if I don't do this, I give permission in advance to desysop me"—but it's "constitutionally" unclear if an admin can make an irrevocable recall commitment, and if an admin can be trusted to not later rescind that enforcement mechanism, then they can be trusted to keep to the underlying commitment in the first place. I know that I would keep my word, and I think that the community making me an admin would mean they believe the same. That said, if the community does ever establish a formal "no take-backs" procedure to make one's recall criteria binding, I would enter into that, because why not.
Optional question from Nosebagbear
6. I see you have some edit filter activity - including EFH. Would you be looking towards EFM in the future? What type of edit filter work do you participate in (please feel free to have a certain degree of breadth/vagueness to avoid ceding private filter details)
A: If sysopped, I plan to self-grant EFM soon enough, although I have no intention to rush into that. (A wiki-lifetime ago—when there were, in my defense, fewer sanity checks in Special:AbuseFilter—I edited a filter on Wikidata such that it briefly matched an empty item description, and suffice it to say that that was a sobering experience.) As an EFH I've been working on a new filter with Firefly to detect mass changes to transgender of nonbinary people's pronouns, currently in log-only at 1190. I anticipate that my EFM would be a mix of that—coming up with creative regex-based solutions to user-conduct problems—and a continuation of what I already do at EFFP fixing subtle errors in existing filters, now without having to ping Suffusion of Yellow 20 times a day (although initially at least I'd probably be pinging them even more often to ask "Am I doing this right???").
Optional question from RoySmith
7. This is your second RfA, the first being wikidata:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/PinkAmpersand. Could you talk about that, and in particular, why you're not anymore?
A: I RfA'd on Wikidata in February 2013, that infant project's first "native" admin. I was an active there for some time, making almost 4,000 deletions, all manual. Dreaded real life things caught up to me, and I became less active across all Wikimedia for a while. While I was less active, Wikidata passed some fairly strict activity enquirements (not that I object to them!) and in June of 2014 I came up short. I got the talkpage message notifying me of impending removal, and resolved to go action a few deletion requests to retain the bit, but it was a sunny day in Manchester and by the time I got back to the hostel I'd been desysopped. I don't really regret that. Sometimes you have to put real life first. (N.B.: When I've told this story in the past, I've said "sunny day in Marseille", but looking at my travelogue I was apparently in Manchester on 1 July 2014, which makes sense because now that I think of it, I recall being in London on July 4th. Not sure how I managed to get those two cities mixed up!) I've thought at times of re-RfAing on Wikidata, where I remain active to a degree, but have not yet had the time to refamiliarize myself with how that project has evolved since 2014.
Optional question from Colin M
8. Could you share one (or more) examples of difficult closes you've performed at RfD? I'd be particularly interested in an example where you found consensus for an outcome other than what would be suggested by a simple head count.
A: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 8 § Mass formation psychosis is a good example of a close somewhat against the numbers. By head count it was a straight keep, but looking at the strength of the policy arguments (or lack thereof) and reading beyond just the boldfaced bits, it was clear to me that there was not a consensus that this is a wholly unobjectionable redirect; thus I closed as "keep for now", even though only two users had explicitly favored that outcome. The most difficult close I've done, though, is probably the triple-close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26 § Kyiv Offensive, Talk:Kyiv offensive (2022) § Requested move 26 February 2022, and Talk:Kiev Offensive § Requested move 27 February 2022. That required judging three separate discussions all with the same core question (is Kiev vs. Kyiv sufficient disambiguation under WP:SMALLDETAILS?). Of them, the third would probably have been a no-consensus judged entirely on its own, but from the arguments presented across all three I saw a general consensus that that disambiguation is insufficient. There have also been other closes that were difficult simply because there was nothing close to a numerical consensus for any one idea—a particular vulnerability at RfD given that it's not a venue for just keep vs. delete—but where there was consensus against the status quo. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5 § Getting wet is a good example of one, where 11 commenters discussed six different potential outcomes. With help from Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion, I closed that as "no consensus (default to disambiguate)". Sometimes it's just a matter of picking the least worst option.
Optional question from ArsenalGhanaPartey
9. You make a controversial decision that the majority of the community disagrees with. (Closing an AfD, etc.) How would you approach a situation like this?
A: This is already a scenario I might encounter through my work at RfD or SPI (although I haven't yet). I wouldn't make a decision that I know in advance the majority of the community would disagree with. If it becomes clear after an action that my decision does not have the community's support, I will revise it, although it is important to distinguish between "the majority of the community oppose a decision" and "a small group of people are loudly complaining about a decision" (as can happen when, say, closing an XfD where one side has dug in, or blocking a popular user for unambiguous sockpuppetry). We are not governed by the loudest people in the room, and if there's ambiguity as to which of those two things is occurring, I would refer people to the appropriate venue for review. Getting more eyes on something never hurts.
Optional question from PerryPerryD
10 What do you wish for the Wikipedia project as a whole?
A: To be a force for good in the lives of our readers and editors, while respecting the dignity of the subjects we cover.
Optional question from Lkb335
11. Which policy would you say most guides your actions on the site, or is most important to your day-to-day editing?
A: This may sound like a strange answer, but, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It's not that on a daily basis I'm explicitly or even implicitly invoking IAR, but IAR is an eternal reminder that all policies and guidelines exist in service of our encyclopedic mission, not the other way around. And it is the "parent policy", so to speak, of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTBURO, both of which should inform any decision an editor makes. Often at SPI I have to make common-sense decisions based on nuances that aren't explicitly written down in WP:SOCK. And often at RfD I encounter situations that stray slightly outside of that venue's normal jurisdiction, but which it would be pointlessly bureaucratic to refer elsewhere. (At the same time, "Common sense" only gets you so far, and one must always be careful to distinguish between "common sense" and "it makes sense to me"; I've seen editors plead common sense as justification for making statements inconsistent with reliable sources. And if someone brings something to RfD that is just squarely beyond that venue's remit—say, a non-procedural move request in disguise—it's not unduly bureaucratic to close that discussion and point them to the right venue.)
Optional question from Liz
12. First I should say, you have my support. I'm familiar with your good work at RFD and SPI and I look forward to working with you. You gave a very diplomatic answer to question #3 and I like to see specifics and examples with this question because it is so important when you become an admin. Recently, there have been administrators who lost their tools because they didn't respond appropriately or timely to criticism or confrontation and I'd like it if you offered a specific incident (or two) where you found yourself in a conflict and how you sought to resolve it. You don't have to name names (that's not important) but since you say you dislike conflict, the times when it has happened probably stand out in your memory. If you could just describe a couple of scenarios where this occurred and how it was resolved, I'd appreciate it. For me, at least, it doesn't matter whether these situations occurred early in your time on Wikipedia or last week. Many thanks and good luck!
A: One recent example of a conflict arising from someone criticizing me was at Talk:List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Wuerzele charged that the list was "bloated and cluttered" and that I was "exhibit[ing] WP:Ownership-like behavior" because I had reverted them. The first thing I did was look into whether they were right. The last thing I would ever want is to double down in a conflict when clearly on the wrong side. I looked through some featured lists and concluded that the list I'd written was no more prose-heavy than a good number of them. I then replied to lay out my case for why I thought the way I had done it was acceptable, giving examples of other similar lists; I chose to show rather than tell my lack of ownership by soliciting their further input. They never did reply, but a week later, giving the list another read-through, I realized I agreed with one point they'd made (about there being too many section-level hatnotes), and edited the list accordingly.
An example more about administrative actions than content work would be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 15 § Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria, the incident Huggums referred to in their vote below. I considered the merits of their close challenge, found that I was unpersuaded that my reading of consensus had been incorrect, and responded point-by-point to their concerns. In that kind of interaction I try to be direct and clear, and not to take a defensive tone. There was one point I had erred on (although actually in Huggums' favor), and I acknowledged it. Finally, I never want to come off as telling someone "That's just the way it is," so I made sure to point Huggums toward DRV (analogous to one of the scenarios I describe in A9). They took me up on that; that discussion was resolved in favor of my close.
It would be disingenuous, and not in keeping with the spirit of your question, to only give examples where I was right, so I'll also give one where I was wrong: User talk:Tamzin § Not sure why this is worth the argument (permalink). Elinruby gave a good explanation of the edit they'd made to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I responded by explaining why my revert had made sense to me at the time that I made it, but didn't try to argue that I was in the right and they were in the wrong, because, yeah, they were right. I should not have reverted. I apologized, and we had a constructive discussion about the nuances of CS1's |url-access= parameter. At that point, the question becomes one of mistakes made and lessons learned. One lesson I learned was that |url-access=limited exists, meaning that the better course of action would have been to change subscription to limited and perhaps ping Elinruby in the edit summary. The other lesson learned was a more general reminder to consider alternatives to reverting, a reminder I think many of us need from time to time. The important thing is that, by taking all complaints seriously and being open to the fact that one is wrong, those reminders can take the form of pleasant conversations like Elinruby and I had, rather than getting hauled to ANI or ArbCom.
I hope that answers your question. If not, I'm happy to elaborate further.


Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Has my trust, support without question. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support -- Prodipto Deloar (Talk • Contribute) 02:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Positive experiences interacting with this user on SPI and technical issues. Great candidate. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Obviously deserves to be an administrator considering her allover knowledge and her work at SPI. I had always been waiting for this RFA to begin. I fully support her RFA. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 02:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support easily based on past interactions at RfD, where they are a valued contributor and closer. eviolite (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 👍 It's finally happening — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 100%, without any hesitation. SQLQuery Me! 03:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Of course! As co-nom. --BDD (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I've seen their work and am happy to see and support this nomination. Funcrunch (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. in just now, but support :) A competent, qualified, and friendly editor—absolutely trust them with the mop. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, does great work, deserves the mop. Great contributions, and a nice person as well. Sea Cow (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per their noms and their outstanding answer to Q4. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: So glad this one is finally happening. No hesitation from me. Bsoyka (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support without hesitation. I'm happy to see this, but it's four years overdue! -- Tavix (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - seems to have sufficient good sense and experience, and I've seen nothing to indicate they'd abuse the tools. Thanks for volunteering. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Have had nothing but good interactions. Should make an excellent admin. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Hands down. Nardog (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Having seen Tamzin around, I tend to think of Tamzin as a thoughtful and conscientious editor. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Long solid history of editing and interactions with others. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support- Considering I had previously thought that they were already an admin, I will definitely support this candidate, based on what I have seen and heard. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 04:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - she already does a lot of admin-adjacent work and has a track record of thoughtful and valuable contributions in this capacity. signed, Rosguill talk 04:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Thoughtful, experienced and competent. Would make a good admin. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support strongly. I've interacted with Tamzin frequently, and they're a classic admin without tools—highly competent, thoughtful, pleasant to be around, and overall deserving of the community's trust. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support has a need, not a jerk. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I found this by chance shortly before the transclusion, was ready to jump in! Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Enthusiastic support. Nothing but positive interactions. Checks all the boxes and then some. Will be a great fit. El_C 05:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Trusted user, need for the tools. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 05:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - I'm happy to see this user asking for the bit. I'm familiar with their work, cluefulness, and demeanor. Would make a good admin! - tucoxn\talk 05:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support completely. Tamzin would make a great admin. ––FormalDude talk 05:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Tamzin is among the most thoughtful and eloquent editors I’ve had the pleasure of coming across. This is a no-brainer. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - per their excellent work and very thoughtful answer to Q4. firefly ( t · c ) 06:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, precious. We met by Maks Levin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Yes please. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support: One of those How aren't you an admin already? editors. Glad to support. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 07:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Enthusiastic Support (I was looking to watchlist the redlink for this RFA this morning, only to find it's already a bluelink) Tamzin is doing great work already. Looking forward to more. Cabayi (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Why not? --Victor Trevor (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support without reservation. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - I see no problems. Deb (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support based on my experiences of working with them at SPI. Plenty of clue, no discernable jerkiness. Girth Summit (blether) 08:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, knowledgeable and clueful editor. This request has been a long time coming. I've always enjoyed our interactions and conversations over the years. Graham87 08:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I've seen this user's work from afar and have no concerns. The quality nominators help too. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Extremely clueful editor with great technical and social competence, will make a fine admin. —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Yeah! Viewer719/Contribs! 09:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support She seems to be a bit of a worker bee which is a good thing in this day and age. I don't see anything that tells me she wouldn't make a fine admin and a welcome addition to the corps. scope_creepTalk 10:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Use for tools, has my trust, fits what I expect from a candidate. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support From contribution history, seems a net positive. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I've interacted with Tamzin now for a considerable period of time, and she's definitely a good enough person to be trusted with the tools and obviously being in SPI means that need is pretty evident. Not knowing much about RfD I'll leave any review on that to others, but I'd be surprised if something was found that rendered them unfit for the mop. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Why not --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support can be trusted with the tool.--- FitIndia Talk (A/CU) on Commons 11:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Thought they should have been an admin about 5-6 years ago. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Absolutely unreservedly. stwalkerster (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support ZettaComposer (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Definitely. - Astrophobe (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - based on their SPI work I am happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 11:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support – very thoughtful responses to the questions so far and clear need for admin tools. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Answered my question intelligently and either way, I believe she will make a great admin.Volten001 ☎ 12:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Tamzin is a great editor. I’ve had a few encounters with her and she has helped me clear up an argument I was having with someone. Overall definitely deserving of it. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support -- lomrjyo 🇺🇦 12:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  62. When I saw this was Tamzin, obvs I thought, ah, the wannabe admin; I'll sit this out. but—but—when I realised this was &, who was fantastic many moons ago, then it was a dead cert. Didn't notice the years-long gap in editing in that time though. Hope it was life-upturning times! This is also, explicitly, per Drmies's nom. Cheers, SN54129 12:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Will make an excellent admin. Lennart97 (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Definitely a right fit. — Golden call me maybe? 12:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support per NOBIGDEAL; will be (and from what I can tell, was) a great admin. HouseBlastertalk 13:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Well intentioned and has a brain. Ceoil (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong support Their work at SPI has shown that they are ready for the bit. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 13:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  68. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Solid editor with an excellent record. No red or yellow flags that I could find. The sole oppose is (as usual) singularly unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  70. I usually don't bother to vote in obvious RFAs, but I'll make an exception here. Previous interactions have always left me impressed with their knowledge and approach. Plus I'm scared to cross Drmies. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - I feel comfortable that they wouldn't abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support No qualms about Tamzin's suitability for the toolbox. Schazjmd (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Welcome to the mop corps. Katietalk 14:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Complete Support Tamzin is a very trustable user to have the tools. They and other users helped me get through my sockpuppetry block. They show that they can handle the tools even while they weren't an administrator. Congratulations and thank you! SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 14:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  75. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support -Kpddg (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support ~StyyxTalk? 14:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Terasail[✉️] 14:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  80. An enthusiastic support from me. I honestly thought she was an admin already. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support – I also thought she was one already Face-smile.svg. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Positive interactions with this editor at WP:SPI. FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. What an excellent candidate. I wish her well on her chosen path. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support would be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Chlod (say hi!) 15:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support should've been one years ago. Legoktm (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support, from my interactions with her they are definitely deserving of admin perms (even though it's not a big deal). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Face-smile.svg --Vacant0 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  91. It would be an honor to be helped by this candidate, whether or not she's an admin. This is one of WP's truly awesome editors! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support per nominators and my interactions --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting for discussion sake that I have reviewed the oppose rationales and my support is unwavering. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Very happy to be in this column. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Good head on her shoulders. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Deeply thoughtful person. Glad she's here, glad she's running for admin. -- asilvering (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support I am so glad that Tamzin has volunteered. I have interacted with her a great deal at Rfd and elsewhere, and I have not seen another user with a better command of policy, or more importantly, with a more intelligent, logical, and level-headed application of it. She readily comes up with consensus-gaining solutions to problems appearing at RfD that have escaped others. Will be an excellent admin. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support About time! ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 17:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. No question. Incredible cantidate. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support per above. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Looks good. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support no issues. I'm not convinced by the oppose votes; one is from a habitual opposer and the other has no rationale whatsoever.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Candidate seems to be able to do administrator work, Twemoji12 1f941.svg Drummingman Talk‍ 17:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support: delighted to be the 100th support, and hope there to be 100 more. — Bilorv (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the 100th support at the time, at least. — Bilorv (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll come back with a proper rationale. Tamzin has an excellent and lengthy history of strong contributions in behind-the-scenes areas of the site. Due to their tenure at RfD and SPI, I thoroughly trust them to close discussions according to policy and act appropriately in cases of vandalism and socking. But more than this, it means that I expect Tamzin to excel at any other areas of administrative work that they set their mind to. They also have strong content creation contributions, which is important for an admin to be able to empathise with writers during content disputes. I see no temperament or conduct issues; rather, Tamzin strikes me as a very principled and consistent volunteer who we will be lucky to have as an admin. As for whether winning "Rock around the clock" shows dedication or poor judgement... well, I'm not in a position to judge myself. :) — Bilorv (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support seen them around a lot, they would make an excellent admin. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - A solid admin candidate with a broad range of skills, the right temperment and the need for tools. Great work clerking at SPI. A trustworthy member of the community and a pleasant, thoughtful presence. I have a lot of respect for her work here. I've been hoping she would run, so very glad to see this RfA. Netherzone (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support No issues as far as I'm concerned. Will wield the mop for good, rather than evil IMO.   Aloha27  talk 
  107. Support - Happy to trust the judgement of old Adminosaurus Rex, aka "Doc Mice". But I've even read the questions and answers (as far as they've got) this time. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. I am late to the part! I would've supported sooner had I known!! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Great work at SPI and extremely strong noms (plus, who in their right mind, would dare oppose a Drmies/BDD nom!). --RegentsPark (comment) 18:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Looks like a good choice. Happy (Slap me) 18:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Clearly qualified. ceranthor 18:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support I have interacted with Tamzin quite a bit and have a high level of confidence that she'll be a good administrator. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. I've encountered Tamzin a number of times, and always found her an excellent and level-headed editor. I'm certain she'll make an excellent administrator. JBW (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - all around solid contributor from what Ive seen, fair and even-keeled. nableezy - 18:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support seen Tamzin around various areas and found their work, editor engagement to be excellent. Mop would be great new accessory for them. Star Mississippi 18:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support I honestly can't imagine how a candidate could be more qualified. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 18:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  117. From my experience with her, I believe Tamzin will be a good admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Trusted, competent. Overdue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support No concerns. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support - At Rfd, I have had only positive interactions with her. Havradim leaf a message 19:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. Regarding my question #7 above, I wasn't expecting anything sinister; I was vaguely aware of this, didn't know the details, and this seemed like an appropriate time to ask. In any case, my interaction with Tamzin has been mostly at SPI where they are a clerk trainee, and doing an excellent job at that. From time to time, they get to tell grouchy old me that I've screwed something up, which they always do with tact, politeness, and a total lack of drama. The ability to do that is an important skill for an admin. I'm looking forward to the day when they no longer need to use {{SPI case status|admin}} and can start using {{Adminshirt}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Absolutely! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support of course. And please do self-assign EFM right away; you're more careful than most. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support I know her from the SPI cases. She is doing good job. I wholeheartedly support her adminship!--Kadı Message 20:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Good to have an another admin. Severestorm28 20:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support without hesitation, have seen her around SPI, will definitely be a net positive. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support I've run across Tamzin at VRT and I've found her work supporting those who seek assistance exemplary. Highly in favor of her bid for the mop and best wishes. Geoff | Who, me? 22:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support About damn time. If you asked me to name a single non-admin who I most wanted to run for adminship, it would be Tamzin. Extremely helpful at SPI and just in general. Highly qualified and experienced. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Imagine my surprise when I saw this hit my watchlist. You're not an admin already? Next you're gonna tell me that Robert McClenon isn't an admin yet [Humor] Plus we both have pink in our sig.
    Oh, wait, I should probably do what I would do for a normal editor around here. Right - ticks all my boxes. 1. Knows what they don't know, 2. Knows what a mainspace is, 3. Not going to destroy everything. casualdejekyll 23:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support without hesitation; I've seen them around SPI and this would make them more helpful there. Welcome to the corps! --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support - Has been an effective SPI clerk, which shows judgment and knowledge, and would be an even more effective SPI clerk with admin tools. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support even though I have had some strong disagreement with them on one particular topic. They generally seem intelligent, competent, and trustworthy enough to hold the tools. Disagreements sometimes happen, and that should not be enough to prevent us from getting more admins/editors that we need. Huggums537 (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support – I trust Tamzin to use the tools with care and sensitivity. Thanks for stepping up ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Good answers to questions, exhibits competence, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Lkb335 (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support very good content work, admin tools will help at SPI and RfD, no reason to oppose Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support I like what I've seen of the candidate. Happy to pile on. Miniapolis 23:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Done more than enough to be trusted with the tools. --Find bruce (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - I've encountered Tamzin at SPI and found her to be effective and diligent, and everything I can see indicates she would make a good administrator. --Sable232 (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support quality content work, good attitude, apparent maturity, and two great noms. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support - Trusted user. I see no reason to not support. Rin (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support No worries, great candidate. Equineducklings (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. Oh my gosh finally. What a superb candidate. Thank you for standing. 🤍 Folly Mox (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Good candidate and good argument for adminship. Thingofme (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. Tamzin is an absolute treasure to Wikipedia and I am confident that she will be excellent with the tools. I am extremely happy to see her step forward into this role. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. I have seen nothing but positive things from Tamzin, seems like a great candidate. --TylerBurden (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Yeah why not? :D Justiyaya 01:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 01:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. Looks like a great candidate, no concerns. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. Seen her around a lot, I'm confident she'd be a great addition. Yeeno (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. There is great need for people like Tamzin to be given the mop. – Anon423 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  154. While "sysop without tools" is complete nonsense in my opinion, due to the nature of sysops being editors with extra tools, a sysop without tools is just an editor, and is another way to "reward" editors or treat editing in "sysop" areas to make people more likely to gain clout or the tools or both, but the question is are there issues that should prevent the user from being a sysop? The answer, in my belief, is no. And it's really the only question to be answered. Naleksuh (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support. I have come across this editor in various contexts, and they have all been positive. BD2412 T 03:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. I have good interactions with the editor at RfD. I would welcome an admin that will work on the wiki's backwaters. --Lenticel (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support. Very competent. Hemantha (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. No issues from my interactions with her, and I am impressed by the other supporters and honored to add my name with them. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. Lots of good work per above, along with humor and not overreacting to (my) mistakes. WP:NOBIGDEAL, right? Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. Very clear need for the tools. Trustworthy, clued up, transparent. The Achilles' heel is obviously content creation and it was a very good idea to get a few articles underway. The work on the journalists killed list is solid so that satisfies my desire for knowing how to create content. Schwede66 05:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Normally I'd automatically oppose per my I don't think a candidate needs to have "audited content" provided they've done demonstrably useful collaborative content work, but you don't seem to me to have demonstrated a reasonable amount of content contribution. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. boilerplate, but this is an exception. The candidate is asking for the toolset to use in one specific area, has demonstrated why it would be useful, and most importantly has been active long enough to give a reasonable degree of confidence that she understands her own limitations and isn't going to start throwing her weight around in content and conduct disputes. ‑ Iridescent 06:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support without reservation. Some good content creation work and excellent investigative skills displayed at SPI, where the tools will be of clear value. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support qualified candidate. --Assyrtiko (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support - demonstrates a need for the tools, and is one of the most level-headed and thoughtful candidates I've seen in ages. I can't imagine them causing any drama when using the tools. I respectfully disagree with those who believe an admin needs to be a content creator, especially in cases like this where the candidate wants the tools to help in technical areas like SPI, and with RfD. IMO, you don't need a background in content creation to do that. Neiltonks (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support Leijurv (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support qualified candidate, all the best for you Mila vecto (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support Mer mensch iz gut. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support - Tolly4bolly 10:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support very qualified --DB1729 (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support—Didn't recognize the username at first, but then I saw "formerly known as PinkAmpersand". And based on what I've seen from that name, this is a very easy support. Kurtis (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support I've seen her around a bit and she seems very reasonable and the way she discusses things is very articulate. Exactly what we need in an admin.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support I'm not sure where I recall seeing their name, probably at an SPI or something, but I have a positive association with it, so good enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support. Has done good work at SPI and could use the tools to further help both there and at RfD. Loopy30 (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support Recently interacted with them for the first time not to long ago, they are a kind competent user. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support. Wait, Tazmin wasn't an admin already?? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support I have no reason to oppose and see no reason not to give them a shot. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support I have no reason to believe that the nominee would misuse the tools. --Jayron32 14:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support, as clear evidence of previous good work in relevant admin-related areas. Bibeyjj (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support - Húsönd 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support Based on the nominations and answers. The percentage of nominated articles for deletion that were kept I think is a bit high, but I am sure that as an admin will also improve in that area. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support. Tamzin is great and I am happy to see she is willing to take on more responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎StarryGrandma (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support I was wondering when Tamzin would be nominated for adminship, I couldn’t pass up on voting, Tamzin is a great editor and does a lot of work with the edit filters and in SPI. Zippybonzo | talk 18:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support. Whenever we've crossed paths at AIV or the odd occasion I venture into SPI, you've seemed level-headed and sensible. Just remember Coren's advice about balancing back-end functions like SPI with things that more directly affect the reader. With respect to the opposers, I do look for some track record in the mainspace from an admin, but mostly to demonstrate that they understand the key policies that they'll be charged with upholding, rather than to produce something flawless and immaculate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support. I thought she already was an admin (and a good one at that!). JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support: No concerns. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support have run across Tamzin's contributions and comments on several occasions and always found them to be clueful, as is also evidenced from their answer to Q11 and third bullet-point here. Abecedare (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 03:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - on reviewing the articles that he has worked on, the first one Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013) has major problems. Although the talk page states that is uses the Bluebook citation style, it does not, and it's impossible to tell which one is being used. The title of the article does not follow the MOS:LAW and should be titled Lozman v. Riviera Beach (2013). It is correctly evaluated, but an Admin should be able to follow the rules on writing content, otherwise how are we supposed to trust him to handle content disputes? I will note that the second Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) is better, but has some of the same referencing problems.GregJackP Boomer! 04:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, GregJackP. Not at all trying to argue with your oppose, but since I always want to address any concerns about my work: I put "City of" in the title to match articles like Kelo v. City of New London and Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. As to the citation style, when I wrote/expanded the articles, {{bluebook website}} didn't have all of the necessary parameters to explain some of the archival/paywall situations. I hadn't noticed that Wugapodes had pushed the changes I'd suggested that address that issue. Now that they have, I'll update both articles in just a moment. Thank you for pointing this out. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Oh, also, I take no offense to an honest mistake—per my own essay—but just so you know I take she / her or they / them pronouns.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are using Justia as your source for case opinions, they normally title the case correctly, so they use Kelo v. New London and Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah. There are always exceptions (IAR) to case names, but there should be a good reason for not following the MOS. Another good site for Bluebook rules is [1]. I'll use the proper pronouns in the future. Regards: GregJackP Boomer! 05:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, Bluebook rule 10.2.1(f) provides: "Omit 'City of' ... unless the expression begins a party name" and gives "Butts v. City of New York" as a citation example, so the "City of Riviera Beach" article titles are in correct Bluebook/MOS form as is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Willbb234 15:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'm arguing with your vote, but do you have a reason for opposing this candidate? ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably "I fancy trolling RfA for a good laugh" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333 Nobody's laughing though.. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 18:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    i am not required to give a reason, and saying shit like this doesn't help anyone. Willbb234 19:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This oppose is most inarguable so it is quite enough to !sway me. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bureaucrat note: Voter has declined to expand upon their initial comment, let's just leave it there. Primefac (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per GregJackP's initial criteria. I've perused the 20-or-so most recent pages (500 edits per page mode) of this user's contributions, and there appears to be absolutely zero content creation experience, from what I've seen. Lots of minor punctuation changes via bots, disambiguation fixes, some page moves. In fact, I've seen very few substantive edits to mainspace at all. Content creation is not a requirement for adminship, but I would like to see some experience in content creation before supporting because I believe it is of fundamental importance that all proposed admins have an understanding of Wiki policy. Their response to question #11 about Wiki policy leaves a lot to be desired. Responses to questions 8 and 9 made me question this user's interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS—which left me scratching my head. Also, there is nothing in the nomination statements explaining why this user needs the admin tools. Could they not continue as they have been? Sorry, but I have to pass—for the time being, at least. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I take all responsibility for any deficiencies in nominating statements. As others have noted, Tamzin's work at SPI could greatly benefit from the tools. -- BDD (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make this a bit more clear, when a non-admin SPI clerk analyzes a case and comes to the conclusion that a block should be issued, they need to round up an admin to do it. If I'm going to be that admin, I need to re-do a fair amount of their work to convince myself that the block is justified because it's going to have my name on it. Certain kinds of case merges also require a non-admin clerk to enlist an admin to do a histmerge. So it's not just that she'll be able to do her SPI work better, it's also that the rest of the SPI team will be more efficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who has been in disagreement with this candidate regarding their interpretation of consensus, I can tell you that it might have been a concern of mine as well if it weren't for the fact that not only did I hold the minority view (so she had the numbers right anyway), but she also stood up for IP users (something I believe in) even though she is a regular at SPI. I think one of my main concerns was the reasoning behind the consensus rather than the consensus itself since the way something is closed is often more important than the fact that it has consensus or not. This part was never resolved. However, I still support the candidate anyway. Huggums537 (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing what RoySmith said above. An active SPI clerk has a clear need for the tools. Having worked in that arena alongside them for months I have a high degree of faith in Tamzin's judgment, and it would clearly (in my view) be of benefit to the project for them to have the technical ability to implement the decisions they make. Girth Summit (blether) 08:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    clearly. One more administrator without tools who wants to become one more administrator with tools. 🌳 Σούρα Αρκ 🌳 (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Tamzin is the personification of an "administrator without tools", who holds herself to an incredibly high standard of conduct, transparency and knowledge. I would be placing this in the support section, but thought best to check with Tamzin per a previous shared IP disclosure—as further credit to her integrity, she has asked that I refrain from doing so. The closing bureaucrat(s), however, have no such need to listen and could well count this as a support in full Face-wink.svg ~TNT (talk • she/her) 12:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Worse oppose ever, TNT. El_C 13:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheresNoTime The most WP:POINTY or IPointy oppose ever 😅. This is very WP:SERIOUS stuff! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if the above two comments are meant in jest, but in case they aren't I'd note that (1) this isn't an oppose, and (2) it sounds like the candidate specifically requested TNT not to support, presumably due to them knowing each other in real life. I wouldn't personally think such caution is necessary, but it's their choice at the end of the day and the crats are free to interpret this as a "support" if they like.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not my moms! 😾 El_C 17:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone pile on TNT! I've got your cetacean right here! -- BDD (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru, I'm gonna guess its jest just based on the link in Shushugah's reply. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, leaning weak oppose - I agree with GregJackP that candidates should have a bit of experience writing reviewed articles (GAs or FAs). Personally, I like seeing at least 1 GA because all admins will eventually be involved in some form of content dispute. While reading the content policies will give you a basic understanding of what an article is, only writing one will give you the experience and understanding of how an article is actually made. When you inevitably get involved in a dispute between a frustrated article writer and someone else, that experience is needed to fully understand the situation and why the author feels the way he or she does. Too often, admins lean into "cop mentality". That said, her answer to Q4 is exceptionally good. I firmly disagree with the "no need" oppose, since admin tools are not a big deal, and even if she makes one singular admin action as an admin, that's still a benefit for the encyclopedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • I've seen the sentiment of "sysop without tools" several times before, but it is being used extensively, more than I've ever seen before, in this thread. Why here? And, at what point, did the community decide sysop tools more than tools? Naleksuh (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen the term around, WP:AWOT if you want to read more. I'd imagine its used a lot in this thread, as people appreciate the work that Tamzin puts into this project. While I appreciate your !v's sentiment that sysop /s tools is just an editor, I think it speaks more to the general view of the editor, you know adminship is about trust, and there are people on the project I trust who arent sysops. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)(updt 03:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    The reason you're seeing it around a lot more is that, while the AWOT page is over a decade old, it's only in the last few months that TolBot has been notifying prospective recipients (e.g. [2]), with endorsements available. SN54129 10:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Shortcut

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They also oversee local change usernames venues in conjunction with the team of global renamers and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert 

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages

Footnotes

  1. ^ Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship § Extended confirmed?
  2. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  3. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1084535335"