Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tide rolls

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Tide rolls

Final (162/2/2); Ended at 18:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC) by ···

Join WikiProject Japan
!

Nomination

Tide rolls (talk · contribs) – Yesterday I thought to myself, "Self, I think RfA needs a landslide or two to raise morale around here." Not in those exact words, of course, but nonetheless the first user who came to mind was Tide rolls, a user whose vandal-fighting efforts I have admired for well over a year. I first became aware of them in March 2009, when I assigned rollback rights to their account. Since then, they have selflessly and gallantly defended the encyclopedia through script-assisted reverting of disruption. Having accumulated nearly 122,000 edits since they joined Wikipedia in mid-2008, this user is undoubtedly among the heavy-hitters of the ongoing anti-spam undertaking; with well over 2,000 contributions to AIV, we can trust this user is only editing for the better of the project.

But ClueBot this user is not. In addition to the monotonous revert, warn cycle which Tide rolls has tolerated nearly continuously for 14 months, they've also been busy tagging pages for speedy-deletion, and while they admit their content work is limited, they do have some experience building articles. In fact, earlier this year they created a well-referenced article on a living person, which appeared as a Did you know? fact on the main page. A quick scan of their talk page shows that they're consistently helpful, polite, and as shown here, able to resolve disputes. Indeed, their efforts have earned them around 60 barnstars from respected members of the community. I've supported hundreds of RfAs and nominated quite a few users myself, but Tide rolls is really an ideal candidate to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I first ran into Tide rolls fairly soon after he registered an account, and since then I have been increasingly impressed by his dedicated anti-vandalism work, his polite demeanour, and his laid back and relaxed nature. I don't think I've ever seen him being rude or uncivil to anyone on Wikipedia. Whilst he has a no nonsense approach to vandalism itself, he is polite to users who have vandalised, and provides (upon request) detailed explanations as to why they have had their edits reverted and how they can improve in future. Tide rolls also has some good content contributions (among them the article Julian has referred to, Ruby Jane Smith), sufficiently so that he can, in his own words "identify with the difficulties and trials of article creation and article improvement". WP:AIV and CAT:CSD always need more help, and the recent changes could definitely use another admin who is able to regularly patrol them and is familiar with article work; an increasingly rare combination of traits. Having another Admin who is going to be able to quietly get on with the task of dealing with vandalism in an efficient manner would definitely be a massive plus for the project and I have absolute confidence that should Tide rolls pass this RfA then he will be an outstanding administrator. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I first met Tide rolls a few months ago when he reverted some vandalism on my talk page. Since then, I have been continuously impressed with his work. His Anti-vandalism work is beyond incredible and rivals that of J. delanoy and The Thing That Should Not Be. I have never seen even one instance out of his 100,000+ contributions where he has made a misguided edit. As pointed out earlier, his DYK is a sign or content creation skills as well. The benefits of Tide rolls becomeing an admin far outweigh the drawback (if any do even exist) He has my full support as a co-nominatior and a regular editor who continually bumps into him on a daily basis. I hope that you all agree as well. Thanks you, --White Shadows you're breaking up 23:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept this nomination. Thanks to Julian and Spitfire for their kind words and expressions of confidence. Tiderolls 20:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Initially, I would be concentrating on issues at
UAA
. My experience is not expansive in those areas, but I would feel obligated to offer more varied contribution if entrusted by the community with extra tools
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Obviously, my best contribution to the project is vandalism scrubbing. I find personal satisfaction, though, in the opportunities that present themselves while watching
Recent Changes
. I see many instances of well meaning individuals that need direction in how to accomplish their goals. Trying to help these folks is a task that I take very seriously. In addition, even though they’re buried in a morass of Huggle edits, my efforts at article improvement and article creation are a source of pride for me
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 believe that stress has an internal origin, not external. Having said that, yes I have had conflicts in my time here. Setting aside the occasional miscreant, most have been simple differences of opinion. I have no problem agreeing to disagree, as long as policy is not compromised.
Question from —fetch·comms
4. In your opinion, which of the CSD criteria is the most often misused (as in placed on a page that does not fulfill the particular criteria, or any of the criteria)?
A: In my observation the A7 is used as a catch-all when grasping for an applicable criterion. Even though it's not very ambiguous (as it was explained to me when I misused it), editors seem to fall back on A7 when they know the other criteria do not apply. Plus, there sometimes exists a bit of confusion between assertion of notability and verifiability. Tiderolls 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Espresso Addict
5. Aside from Ruby Jane Smith, which articles have you created? Could you list a few of your recent substantive edits? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Benjamin Abalos, Jr. after I had accidentally deleted it restoring a dab page redirect. Since the original article was mostly a copy and paste from a copyrighted source, I had to alter the text a good bit. BTW, that copyedit job needs attention as I stated in my talk page edit. So, if you have a spare moment I’d appreciate a review :). My first effort at “real” editing was in an area of personal interest. I believe this is how most of us began. Watching the recent changes page gave me the opportunity to expand this section, fix this redlink and expand this section. Lloyd V. Berkner High School is on my watchlist as it is a vandalism magnet and watching that page led me to Lloyd Berkner to which I added an infobox and some citations so as to remove a “Citations needed” tag. Tiderolls 02:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Additional question from SlimVirgin
6. Hi Tiderolls, apologies if this has been asked and answered already. Before using this account, did you edit with any other account or IP address? SlimVirgin talk contribs 10:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: Tide rolls is the only registered account from which I've edited. I have edited under various work IP's and and my home IP mistakenly thinking I was logged in. Tiderolls 11:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Did you edit with IPs before you set up Tide rolls, and if you did can we see some of those edits, please? SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a question that really stresses the "optional" nature of these questions. You're potentially asking him to disclose his workplace and his home IP, something which I think everyone would understand if Tide rolls preferred not to do (although that's just my opinion, it's up to Tide rolls really) Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not edit before I registered this account. Tiderolls 18:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the relevance of the question. He might have been editing years ago from a dial-up or from a dozen different offices, Internet cafés, or large LANs. In which case, unless he's got an extraordinary good memory, he would't know where and how to find his edits even if he wanted to. See IP address.
Additional question from DGG
7. One of the problems in using automated tools is that the default message is not specific about the problem. I see you mostly do use the default messages; if it is important to sometimes communicate more personally with the contributor, when and how would you go about it? DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: When I see an edit that is obviously not disruptive but just as obviously improper, I manually undo the edit and post a message on the user's talk explaining my actions. By "improper" I mean commentary in article mainspace, BLP issues, copyvio issues, etc. Tiderolls 05:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Following up; I started looking through my contributions for examples in the event you asked and found that I in fact use Huggle to revert in some instances (still with the talk page message, though). Also, I don't always leave the user a talk page message. It was not my intent to mislead you, it seems I have gotten lazy. I still have the examples if you're interested. Tiderolls 06:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tide rolls before commenting.

Discussion

  • Thanks! I think this is my most successful nomination an hour and a half in. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 01:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking this in a negative context, but does this RfA have almost all supports because this user is one of the most popular anti-vandalism users? Are we supporting because the 120,000+ edits is a good qualification for a mostly-Huggle-reverting user to be an administrator? Schfifty3 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Loaded question with the word "popular" to begin with, but I'll bite. Administration of the English Wikipedia does not involve content creation or mediation abilities. Those are certainly a plus, but it has nothing to do with Block, Protect, Delete, or closure of discussions. None of these tasks are mandatory, and we should trust a user to know what they're doing in their field of interest. We should assume good faith that a user will not monkey about in areas that they are unfamiliar with, and there is a learning curve. Lack of article creation≠lack of respect for the process. Keegan (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that this user had been blocked in december 2009 and then almost immediatly thereafter unblocked. Was this an administrator error, it did it result from vandalism after last/only warning? Immunize (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously User:X! made a mistake. That's why Tide rolls was unblocked in a matter of seconds. Also see this thread. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • re SchfiftyThree - Well, vandalism fighting is important too. He does at least like, 500 edits per day (ballpark... edit counters stop after 100,000 edits), many of them are Huggle, yes, but Huggle is an important tool. He's reported over 2,000 vandals so far. That's a lot. He has over 1,000 deleted contributions, and since I have yet to see concerns about the deleted, I assume his speedy tagging is good. He has approximately 12,000 non-automated edits. I don't even have 12,000 edits, let alone non-automated. He has some great contributions, would block vandals like a machine (he already reverts and reports them like one), and I have no doubt that he would do great work with the tools. So the short answer to your question is yes.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Beat-the-noms extra strong support - This RfA is long overdue. Tide rolls would make good use of the admin tools. ~
    NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. As nom. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Literally the strongest support I have ever given I have (and wikipedia as a whole) been waiting for this day for a long time. I first asked for him to go for an RFA last year!--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support —Soap— 23:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support As a fellow Huggler I have seen Tide rolls doing wonderful work. --
    N419BH (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Support - Great user, will no doubt help the project. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I shouldn't think this one will delete the main page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that ANI discussion was one of the funniest things that I've ever read. Hi878 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support Tons of experience, would make a great admin. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Should be one already.  7  23:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support You will be assimilated into the Admin Collective.
    Talk // Contribs 00:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Support Perfectly fit for the mop. May not have the most edits when it comes to expanding content, but that does not degrade of the fact that Tide is very experienced when it comes to overall editing and policy. He is incredibly active and I have seen Tide a countless number of times making edits, all of which were constructive. I have no doubt about adminship and am sure that the tools will be in good hands. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Everything I've seen from him is good. —fetch·comms 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support - Content contribs and edits in other areas are exceptionally low but this candidate is a dedicated janitor. Random stabs at the user's archives show great attention to civility and explanations for edits, and demonstrate a high degree of comprehension of guidelines. Someone I would turn to without hesitation for advice on editing or suggestions for conflict resolution..--Kudpung (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support. Seen him pretty much everywhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support- Civil and tactful, and will be an immense help when AIV is backlogged. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 00:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strongest Support Possible - Yeah, this one's a no brainer.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - one of the names I have scribbled next to my computer with the note 'knows what he's doing at AIV'. I have no problems with specialist admins, be they pure content contributors or pure janitors. Absolutely no concerns here. Kuru (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Stud. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 00:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Can use your skills in the admin corps and I trust you to use the tools responsibly (including knowing when not to use them in areas where greater experience would be beneficial). Abecedare (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Recommend closing per
    WP:SNOW. He can has adminship ASAP? Hamtechperson 00:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  21. Super-strong support — great user who knows what he is doing. Need I say more? @Tiderolls: if you want, add {{RfX-notice|a}} to your user and talk pages. Airplaneman ✈ 00:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per nom. Tide rolls is an outstanding wikipedian and will be an outstanding administrator Traxs7 (Talk) 01:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I've always respected the candidate's contributions. Majoreditor (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Very Strong Support I tried to find the tiniest stain on this candidate's résumé, but I failed miserably. This user is an admin. And I am humbled to support. Húsönd 01:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I can trust this editor with the tools, but as an Auburn fan, his user name is suspect.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. A venerable candidate whom I can support without reservation. ceranthor 01:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Tide rolls, rollback?!? Support puns. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Finally. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. SUPPORT - I could have sworn he already had the mop... --Alan (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Looking through a smattering of edits (hard to look at a good % of them) I found nothing to indicate that they will be anything but a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Support per all of the above. Will be excellent handling the mop. --NeilN talk to me 01:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Definitely.
    talk) 02:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  33. Wow, I can't believe this hasn't happened already. :) Hi878 (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support BejinhanTalk 02:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Yes, please can we have another active admin around here. --
    talk :: contribs) 02:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  36. Support Why not? Looks good to me. Elockid (Talk) 02:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Amazing that someone was finally able to convince this wonderful editor to finally run. All the best Tide Rolls, you'll do just fine with the mop. Calmer Waters 03:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Long since earned my trust. All the above applies to my sentiments as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. For excellent and consistent work protecting the 'pedia. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - I've seen Tide Rolls on vandal patrol and I'm certain s/he can be trusted with the tools. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 04:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. No hesitation whatsoever. Very good candidate. --
    Mkativerata (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  42. Bandwaggoning ftw who needs a better reason? :D Thingg⊕⊗ 05:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Thought the user was one. Keegan (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Although there is something about the name, something I'm forgetting. I also hate conoms, but hey, what can you do. Prodego talk 05:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "But I don't have a mean bone in me!" "Oh yeah? Would you like one?" ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support as the user shows dedication to the project along with
    WP:CLUE -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  46. Support I can find no reason to oppose. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Thanks to you the tide is turning (sorry, couldn't resist!) in the fight against vandalism! Seriously, though, AIV needs more admins so I can do something more interesting! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Another one of those users who, I assumed, wasn't an admin because they didn't want to be one. No brainer. Şłџğģő 06:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Switching to Strong support to, hopefully, offset erroneous opposes oppose. Şłџğģő 08:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that I ought to be blocked Sluggo, just because I've opposed your hero?[1] No wonder wikipedia's governance is in such a mess with that kind of attitude.
    Fatuorum 16:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Ridiculous to say Malleus should be blocked. Also ridiculous to suggest Tide rolls is SluggoOne's "hero". Aiken ♫ 16:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, folks. Keep Juliancolton's advice in mind. There's nothing to be gained by responding to opposes with comments that offer no new evidence. Thanks Tiderolls 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure there is. Şłџğģő 18:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support As co-nom SpitfireTally-ho! 06:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support: Diplomatic, patient and hard working. Tools would be a useful bonus for this editor. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support: Too many threads about not enough RfAs... Oh, and no concerns with the user. Also meets my "but I thought they were an admin already"-criteria. TFOWRThis flag once was red 07:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Certainly. A good vandal fighter and CSDer, with some article building work. I can't see any mopping disasters. GedUK  07:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Not an admin already? Surprised me. -- Ϫ 07:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. I don't think I don't think this editor would
    delete the main page or block Jimbo. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    On the contrary, I would prefer my nominees be smart enough to know how to delete the main page. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 12:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Katerenka (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support Aiken ♫ 08:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Easy support. —SpacemanSpiff 08:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Finally. I've had this page watchlisted for months, Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 08:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. — Aaroncrick TALK 08:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, an excellent candidate, will be a benefit to the project. --Taelus (Talk) 09:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per nom. The tools would certainly allow him to help Wikipedia even more. --Leyo 09:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Have seen contributions. Satisfies my criteria. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 10:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support – [insert most commonly used cliché in all RFAs here]
    piggle 10:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  64. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong support Have seen nothing but top-drawer editing and vandal fighting from this candidate.--Hokeman (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Excellent candidate, I thought you already had the mop. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 12:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support: I've seen people say it about others, but I really had assumed that Tide rolls was already an admin, judging by the unstinting dedication to vandal-fighting that I've seen. A most excellent candidate. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support: I'm surprised Tide Rolls isn't an admin already, as the user is very dedicated to Wikipedia.
    Talk, My master 13:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  69. Support: I have seen Tide rolls around the wiki many times, and so far i never saw anything that concerned me. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong support Seems to be a nearly ideal candidate. Immunize (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support: Dedicated user with sound judgment. Great addition; very pleased to support. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support: I've seen his(?) impressive work vandal-fighting, for which the more the merrier. Rodhullandemu 14:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Good luck, GlassCobra 14:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support He's got so many barnstars and he won the Civility award back last year. I always support civil and calm people. And Tide Rolls is no exception. Minimac (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per nominators. A good addition to the Admin ranks. Jarkeld (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Tide Rolls does a excellent job reverting vandalism. Yesterday I decided to watch recent changes for vandalism, and by the time I clicked the link to the page it was often already reverted. Many times those reverts were by Tide Rolls. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Strong support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Can't see a reason
    why the hell not. Regards SoWhy 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  79. Unconditional Support I honestly thought that this user was already an admin, this came as a bit of a shock to be !voting here. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong support - A tremendous asset. Shadowjams (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. I cannot even express my support! Tide Rolls, you may not remember it, but you helped me out a lot as a new user. You also have helped me along the way here and there. I have seen you all over Wikipedia, and I, like at least five others, thought you already had administrative privileges. If you are so good people assume you're already an administrator, than you certainly deserve it! I think the only reason you haven't been nominated before was because people thought you were already an administrator!  Awesomeness  talk  18:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support TNXMan 18:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong support: without hesitation. Toddst1 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - Great vandal fighter. AlexiusHoratius 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Chomp. Fantastic editor. I don't really have much to add – I've noticed his work for quite some time now, and TR is simply one of those great candidates. JamieS93❤ 18:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support One of the best vandal fighters here, always thought it was weird he didn't have the mop.--
    WP:CFL) 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  88. Support - seen this user around loads. Does a very good job. :) Orphan Wiki 22:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strong Support - I know this doesn't add much, but what can I say that everyone above hasn't already said? Clueful, useful, civil editor that knows his way around. Give him a mop already and put him to work! PrincessofLlyr royal court 22:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - I've done some patrols with this user in the past, I trust them and I'm sure they could make good use of those extra tools. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Strong applicant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support
    Pull My Chain Trib's 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  93. Support From my observation, seems like a very capable choice...Modernist (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. We all contribute to the project in our own way, according to our strengths. I have no doubt that giving Tide rolls the tools will only improve his valuable anti-vandal work, and may allow him to broaden his areas of contribution. --RexxS (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support I honestly thought he was an administrator already. --Bsadowski1 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support does some very valuable work, especially keeping the vandals at bay. Keith D (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Overdue.
    talk) 01:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  98. Super Support - i worked with him before and he is very helpful and he has enough experience to obtain the mop. Dwayne was here! ♫ 01:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Easily. liquidluck✽talk 01:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Yup.  IShadowed  ✰  01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support One of the best vandal fighters out there, no reason to suspect abuse of the admin tools, huge net positive. --
    Speak. 01:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  102. Support See no reason to oppose. Appears qualified.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Yanksox (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Doc Quintana (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Thought you already were :)  --
    (LiberalFascist) 05:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  106. Strongest possible support (second in my RFA voting history and probably the last). I have crossed with the candidate countless times while reviewing their WP:AIV submissions and am more than pleased with their integrity, motivation, judgment and efficiency. Thank you for nominating and keep up your great work. Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strongest possible support (not per Material scientist he just has good wording here ;)) but this person is a class act. Always been impressed with the work done. Zero worries. Full endorsement. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support per
    Cnut the Great--SPhilbrickT 13:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  109. I was delighted when I was doing my usually "wikiwandering" and came across this. Assuming this is where administration rights are granted, I only have strong support for TR. Curteous, helpful, would make an excellent admin, especially after seeing these other comments here. Keep it up, TR --Tommy2010 14:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Yup – B.hotep •talk• 14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Pile-on support I couldn't begin to count the number of articles I've deleted that Tide correctly identified as meeting
    talk) 17:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  112. Support - no concerns about automated edits; with this enormous volume of contribs, the candidate has demonstrated ample trustworthiness, policy knowledge, and cluefulness. Has my trust.  Chzz  ►  18:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - I don't have to read the rest of this page. I've seen this editor's work on numerous pages and have no problems supporting this RfA. ---AussieLegend (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Of course.  f o x  19:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - it's reassuring to see that the right vandal-fighting candidate can get this level of community support. --~TPW 20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Strong Support. I wanted to nominate Tide rolls a long time ago. Tide is one of the most prolific contributers to AIV, knows and applies relevant policy, and I think that he has a serious need for access to the banhammer. Valley2city‽ 22:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Noted strong work already. Will do the work good. --The Evil IP address (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support About time. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Yes, certainly. LadyofShalott 02:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support – Definitely has my trust. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. Tide rolls has been doing valuable defence work for over a year, and doing it in a quantity that defies all expectations. His contribution history (where to begin?) shows that he's willing to step out of automation mode to address an issue, or ask for a consultation when necessary. It's clear that he knows how to handle patrol tasks properly, and would benefit from administratorship—and Wikipedia will no doubt benefit from his service. TheFeds 06:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Strong Support. Absolutely. Whenever I am using huggle, this user always beats me to reverts and reports. This is because he is so quick at reverting/reporting vandals. He would be excellent. --
    Report a Vandal) 16:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  123. Support. Should do fine, I think. I've only had positive interactions with Tide rolls. decltype (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support A user that has beaten me multiple times while reverting vandalism. I can't believe this did not come sooner.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. No concerns whatsoever. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Huggle's Maybe-Large Support. Know him from RC patrol. I can trust him.
    talk · contribs) (typo intended) 21:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  127. Yep. --LP talk 21:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support seen Tide Rolls around a lot and it always means good things are happening or will happen every time I do --
    clipman 02:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  129. Strong Support Outstanding user and track .This was long overdue.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Strong Support As a fellow Huggler I have also seen Tide rolls doing wonderful work.   —
    G. ツ 03:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  131. I've seen your edits appear on my watchlist many times and didn't realize how far-reaching your work is. Good to have you here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Would make a good admin. Pmlineditor ∞ 05:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Like Clayoquot, I've often see Tide Rolls' edits and am pleased to see this RfA.
    talk) 12:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  134. Support Seems to be an excellent candidate. It Is Me Here t / c 15:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support I though Tide rolls was an admin already. Apparently not yet, so I fully support this RfA. Tide rolls is an excellent vandal fighter (has beaten me way too many times to count to reverting vandalism). Brambleclawx 18:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Courteous, conscientious, clueful. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support because of good work in a variety of useful fields, appropriate and humble answers to questions and because Malleus opposed, of course ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support with no concerns. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  139. The name is familiar, and there should be no problems. Also, 100,000+ contributions? Either you're incredibly dedicated or incredibly addicted (or both) - I guess the remedy for either is handing over the mop. ;)
    Talk) 21:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  140. Support from a fellow Huggler, and he's usually faster than I am, but always accurate.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support No issues here. ALI nom nom 01:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support He earned it. wiooiw (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support. Long overdue, as I've been telling Tide for a while. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. choice of inherently calming username is a positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support, I see no compelling reason why not. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  146. Support- Appears to be deserving/trustworthy enough.Smallman12q (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - looks like a great vandal-fighter. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Unfailingly courteous, welcoming to new users, such as me. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. bibliomaniac15 22:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support! Well deserved.
    12p 22:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  151. Support! Excellent candidate. I have seen some of his contributions in areas I normally edit. He has attained "auto-reviewed" status in my watchlist; I know I don't have to review his diffs there. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support His vandal fighting will be even more useful as an admin, and I trust him in other respects. I think content work is very highly advisable, but I no longer oppose candidates without it if they have a really extensive and unimpeachable record otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support I see no rational reason to believe that Tide rolls will not be a good administrator. J.delanoygabsadds 17:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support per nom. --John (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. All good, no negatives. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support - Might as well pile on as well as I can't think of anything to add to what has already been said above. —
    talk) 23:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  158. Support Have seen this user around and no opposition to admin. -- /
    Notify Me\ 02:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  159. Support - I like seeing a fellow vandalism-reverter here - seems like a great editor! Good to see people aren't being so harsh just because he doesn't create a high level of content. Forentitalk 10:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Excellent candidate, I don't think the lack of content work is detrimental in this case as the editor is clearly clueful when it comes to fighting vandalism and maintains civility and decorum while doing so - this display of level-headedness is to be commended. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 13:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support
    talk) previously User:Icewedge 15:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  162. Support I am sure Tide rolls will make an excellent admin. Definitely has my support. -- Marek.69 talk 15:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

#Weak Oppose - While I appreciate this user's conduct and helpfulness to this website, I see most of his edits are almost only reverting with automated tools. I see that this user has CSD and some XFD experience, but the heavy use of automated vandalism reverting nearly every day concerns me. On the other hand, he appears to accurately take care of the vandalism and accurately warn them, too. Best of luck with the tools if this passes! Schfifty3 20:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the candidate has over 122,000 edits (!), 90% of them could be automated and still leave more manual edits than the entire edit count of most people who get the admin mop -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could be true, but every time I look at Tide's contributions, his edits are almost always automated. I kind of have a problem with this, as well as maybe leaving this place for a while if the RfA passes, resulting in that and a feeling of jealousy. Schfifty3 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem with a high percentage of automated edits? You still have to use good judgement, it just makes it easier to do what you would normally. I don't see why so many people think that automated edits are bad things. Hi878 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a bad thing. I just see that most of the candidate's edits are automated vandal reversions; I'm also wondering why so many people here praise that when it comes to RfA. Schfifty3 21:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)They don't praise it; they just don't have a problem with it. I myself don't see why having so many "automated" edits is a bad thing, per se. Tide specializes in vandal patrol, and a tool helps him do it. How does this detract from his ability to be an admin or the quality of his edits? He's still making the edits, just with the help of a tool for efficiency. I myself wouldn't want to patrol recent changes manually. I think others, and me, are asking for a reason for why using automated tools as a primary means of editing concerns you. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 22:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not a bad thing then why oppose? And we are all praiseing it because he has been the greatest asset to vandal fighting here since User:RickK.--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* Okay, it's getting pretty hard for me to explain why I'm opposing. The last thing I'm going to say here is that this is kind of related to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be. Period. Feel free to respond. I'm going to be off this site for the rest of the day anyway. Schfifty3 22:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I and others obviously cannot see why/for what reason you opposed and don't agree to it the least bit, but you're always entitled to your opinion :). I'll leave it at that. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 22:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. He has more non automated edits than you have total! However, you have your opinion and us 90+ have ours. Thanks for takeing the time to answer our questions :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the idea that just because a person does automated edits means they can't be a good admin. Honestly
talk :: z) 23:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, I have to ask, in all seriousness...exactly WHAT is an "automated" vandalism reversion? I've used
Huggle
to speed up the review of recent changes in hunting down vandalism...but, as far as I've ever been able to tell, each and every one of the edits must be approved by the user before it's committed to the system.
At this point in the RfA process, this may be a moot point, but it's still something that should be pointed out (IMHO) to those who frown on the use of such tools. With a typical namespace-wide edit rate on the order of 120 per minute, and an average rate of reversion somewhere in the 8-10% range, use of such tools as Huggle isn't just convenient...it's becoming akin to a necessity.
Just my two cents' worth...save up the change for a bag of pretzels or something... --Alan (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'd like to see a higher automated edit percentage. ;p Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really, automated is probably not the correct way to describe these huggle and twinkle edits, as the user' is the one who makes every edit, just with some help. I feel, rather than a large number of automated edit being against a user, I feel that they simply show a user is dedicated to vandal fighting. Immunize (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it's just a lazy excuse to oppose somebody. Any opposition based on "automated tools" is wrongheaded, unless the edits are in fact automated. When one uses Huggle, as Tide rolls does, it is anything but automated. Aiken ♫ 11:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to debate the merits of an oppose, but this looks much more like "badgering" to me. It appears the oppose was withdrawn not because one of you changed Schfifty's mind, but because the editor was made to feel bad for having the nerve to be the only opposer. I'm all for admins with strong vandal-fighting experience, but this is the first time in recent memory that such a candidate has done so well. Is it really so hard to imagine someone opposing on those grounds?--~TPW 14:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yesterday, I thought to myself, "I think this RfA needs a landslide."
Firstly, I find it difficult to comprehend that so many people support Tide rolls despite the implied allegation of the nominator that the account in question is operated by multiple persons. It's disturbing to fathom that the behavior of one operator may be attributed to the other operators, and thus granting adminship will be a serious fault. The operator whose behavior is being lauded here may pass the RfA and be granted adminship. The other operators will also have new functions to work with, and these powers will be abused.
Secondly, the nominator linked to a post by Tide rolls that supposedly showed the ability to "resolve disputes". Sifting through the contributions of the contributor toward which Tide rolls' post was directed, I have discovered that since that dispute, the user has not done anything useful, instead unproductively playing on talk pages. Tide rolls posted to this user, "Also, this edit is very concerning. Four days ago I warned you that this was not done. Your actions make it appear that you don't care about Wikipedia policies. You need to apologize to User:A little insignificant on their talk page." Tide rolls exhibits impatience and pressures the user to apologize to A little insignificant. (By the way, is A little insignificant operated by multiple persons as well, it seems?) Tide rolls lacks the qualities of a responsible administrator who will cater politely to people's needs.
Thirdly, Tide rolls has a dearth of content contributions. On the first page of contributions, all I see is edits suffixed with "HG", meaning this. Tide rolls advocates the establishment of derogatory nicknames for minorities. People who discriminate openly on Wikipedia should be restrained forthwith and of course should not be given the position of administrator, where they can take discrimination to a whole new level.
Fourth, Schfifty3 had the nerve to oppose Tide rolls when no one else dared to. Unfortunately, Schfifty3's voice has long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Tide rolls' buddies, who loudly proclaim that truth is whatever they say it is. That's troubling. As True Pagan Warrior was kind enough to point out, Schfifty3 was bullied into withdrawing his oppose. Perhaps you may retort, "This isn't Tide rolls' fault." But oh yes it is. Why did Tide rolls not intervene so that Schfifty3 would have a chance to express opinion in the absence of harassment? This shows a serious lack of involvement. Tide rolls should show more respect to opposers rather than letting them be trampled upon. If Tide rolls becomes administrator, anyone who dares to give constructive criticism will be pounced upon and pummeled by Tide rolls' friends to the point that the user must flee, as Schfifty3 has been forced to do by "taking a short wikibreak". If Tide rolls is granted administrator powers, enemies will have nowhere to turn. They will be blocked, and I guarantee you that Wikipedia will become a place that people frequent no longer.
Schfifty3, I encourage you to restore your oppose now that you have some company. We will stand in solidarity against Tide rolls and prevent Wikipedia from becoming a battleground. I will not fall prey to the persecution of the large mass of supporters. I invite anyone else who has seen what happened to Schfifty3 and agree fully with his concerns, but is frightened by the large mass, to stand by Schfifty3 and me to oppose Tide rolls' request for adminship. Digago (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Digago is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 04:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain why?
Talk // Contribs 21:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmm, seems that you are new here. I'll explain better. When someone opposes an RfA, they usually provide some explanation as to why they are opposing the candidate, like if they caused a problem or not, or if they have problems with temperament, civility, etc. Since you haven't provided one, I'm sure more people will ask the same question as I did. You should take some time to... write up an explanation as to why you are opposing Tide rolls.
Talk // Contribs 21:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I have placed a note on his/her talk page.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 21:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if you subscribe to the belief that there are no females on the Internet. Digago (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 21:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See
talk) 23:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps this whole oppose should be scrubbed, but since Digago is now blocked I left it in but indented it so that it wouldnt count. —Soap— 23:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be still in the tally at this point...but that may be my browser cache being stubborn and not wanting to clear. --Alan (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tally only updates every half hour; this page, however, updates every time it's run. —Soap— 23:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Schfifty has been bullied from his opposition to this vandalism warrior, but I won't be, It doesn't require administrator privileges to combat vandalism, and I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in any editor without some demonstrated writing ability under their belt. The last thing wikipedia needs is more enforcers of the law as they interpret it. I want to see some evidence of interaction with other editors in difficult circumstances, not whack-a-mole vandal fighting.
    Fatuorum 00:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    So, how can't we trust him to do what he intends to (CSD, and AIV), without any content work? I'm sure he has had to interact with vandals asking him on his talk page to some extent, as well, but I could be wrong. You are, though entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Until you've actually written something, and seen it nominated for deletion, I doubt you would be able to understand how demotivating that could be. I would like to see some evidence of this candidate, even occasionally, rolling up his sleeves and working on article to justify its retention rather than mindlessly tagging it for deletion. I don't expect to change the mind of anyone in this fan club though, I just felt that the unseemly bullying of Schfifty ought not to go unremarked.
    Fatuorum 00:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Fair enough, I can back down now ;) Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have already pleaded mea culpa to being a content bantam weight, I'm in no position to counter
    User:Malleus Fatuorum's statement. However, in my answer to User:Espresso Addict's additional question I have listed several articles I've worked on. None were in danger of deletion and it's true that my contribution has been minimal, but I have contributed. No bullying intended, Malleus...the "mindlessly tagging" kinda got to me and I thought I needed to respond. Thanks for participating Tiderolls 01:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Can you give me an example of an article you came across during your patrols that you decided to work on rather than tag it for deletion?
    Fatuorum 01:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Every example in my answer to
    Benjamin Abalos, Jr. due to the fact I had obliterated it inadvertently, and it was a copyvio. I don't think I deserve a cookie for that act, but I do understand the pride of article creation. I'll be glad to address any more concerns you have. Tiderolls 01:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    So pick the one you're most proud of, and I'll be happy to take a look.
    Fatuorum 01:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Lloyd Berkner is probably the article that I've done the most work on. Tiderolls 01:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of those tweaks are you most proud of?
    Fatuorum 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I would have to say citing the fact that he proposed the International Geophysical Year to start early. That would most likely be the source of his notability. Tiderolls 02:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to waste your time arguing with an old fart like me, your fan club will obviously do the job.
    Fatuorum 02:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "Don't waste your time" Attempting to sway your !vote? Convince you I'm in your league in the content department? These weren't my aims. I was only responding to your questions. If question time is over, then I say again, thanks for participating. Tiderolls 02:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a safe bet that this RfA will pass. Honestly, though, concerns over lack of content work are hardly irrational, and while I may disagree that one must be experienced in building articles to use the admin buttons, it's not worth arguing the same points that have been debated in countless previous RfAs. I'm not comfortable being presumably considered part of Tide rolls' "fan club", but that could easily be avoided if we didn't respond to each oppose where no new evidence can be presented. Just my thoughts. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: Absolutely terrific candidate from Alabama. However, I believe there are too many admins currently. White Trillium (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I disagree with that for a number of reasons. The number of active admins has been
    WP:AIV is backlogged as I type this. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hamster, this may or may not be an editor who generated some drama in the past ... it makes no difference. What's important is not to go through the same old cycle. On the surface, this looks like a position crafted to generate drama ... just nod and smile, and let's see where it goes from here. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    let's see where it goes from here. Alabama, surely? ;-) TFOWRpropaganda 11:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting !vote of indef blocked sock ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We have enough vandal-fighters here already, and I just don't support candidates with such limited content creation. I firmly believe that expanding the encyclopedia is the single most important thing about this project, so I honestly couldn't give tuppence about reversion and tagging. The time wasted creating hundreds of user talk pages for IP addresses just to give level 1 warnings especially grates with me – you may as well have bashed your head against a brick wall for the last few months. I agree with Malleus that you just don't need the tools to carry on what you have been doing. *waits to be lynched* BigDom 22:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good oppose rationale; I don't think anyone's going to hold it against you. The opposes that were retracted are were, in two cases, made by socks of indefinitely blocked users, and in the other case the opposer changed his mind. There's no pressure to conform. —Soap— 22:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the closest I could come to lynching. But anyway, I agree with Soap. I disagree that vandalism is less valuable than content expansion, as one is worth nothing without the other in my view; but of course, Tide's lack of content work is reason enough to oppose. No reason why, as Soap said, that users shall hold it against you. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly disagree with you. The English Wikipedia has grown so much, and many of the essential articles have already been created and are at the GA status. There are way to many articles that are substandard, but we've done well. I think this Wikipedia has moved from the content creation phase into the content protection phase where new material is being created less and updates to existing pages are becoming more frequent. Because of this, vandalism is on the rise, and we need people who want to fight vandalism. I think because of this, editors like Tide rolls have become invaluable to this encyclopedia. This is one of the reasons I moved to the Simple English Wikipedia; there is just so much more do it. That's my two cents.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are either joking or innumerate. There are only about 8,000 of the English wikipedia's 3.2 million or so articles assessed as GAs, and even fewer as FAs.
    Fatuorum 23:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yeah, there are only 13,756 total GA/FA/FL, which amounts to a whopping... 0.417%. —fetch·comms 06:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one point: "The time wasted creating hundreds of user talk pages for IP addresses just to give level 1 warnings " is first of all, very little time, because one of the advantage of automated tools is that doing this requires almost no extra work at all. Second and much more important, showing anon contributors, even vandals, that we watch over the contents of the encyclopedia is an excellent thing to do--the public perception of WP depends in considerable part on their realization that we nowadays have a very good record for removing vandalism. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the exact numbers, and don't really care what they are. (I'm not active here to begin with) but from the time I was active here, I do know that the articles exist, and there are enough people here willing to fix them up. The numbers are irrelevant, my point is that everybody spends time writing articles, and vandalism gets by. That is inevitable as there are so many edits flowing through RC at a time, but having people dedicated to watching RC instead of writing articles is something we couldn't exist without. Honestly, RC patrol is boring, I would much rather write an article, so having somebody like Tide rolls who actually likes watching RC as an admin would be a strong positive for this Wikipedia.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Honestly, RC patrol is boring" It is? Just my 2 cents, but I actually like RC patrol more than writing articles. It's... naturally fast-paced. I have ADHD, so I tend to get more or less distracted my the smallest things. RC patrol keeps me engaged much better than article writing, but I have added a detail or 2 to a couple articles, and have uploaded audio examples of Severe Weather alerts (I'm a weather nut) to commons and use those examples in some articles. Again, just my $0.02
    Talk // Contribs 23:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Then, you along with tide rolls have my respect, as people like you keep Wikipedia clean. I would just rather be writing. Each to their own.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. I've found nothing that suggests this candidate would abuse the tools, and I appreciate the commitment to vandalism reversion; however, I can't support an editor with such limited contributions to building the encyclopedia. I fear that a history of almost pure vandalism reversion & speedy tagging doesn't lead to consensus-building discussions with other editors, and I see no evidence of engagement with forming encyclopedia policies rather than policing them. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maintenance, IMHO, is at least as important to the development of Wikipedia as construction. Whether it be in
    patrolling new pages or any of the even less-thanked tasks in the Wikiverse, the daily chores of service and support allow other editors to bring new articles into being. Every editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. has their own particular set of strengths, and the RfA process doesn't specify the nominee must have experience in all aspects of Wikipedia. My two cents' worth is to allow everyone to work where they feel they do their best work, and if they wish to branch out from there, nothing's stopping them. Handing this nominee the mop (again, IMHO) will allow him to better support Wikipedia with additional AIV tools, and he's already demonstrated the gorm for proper handling of the mop. --Alan (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I agree. Airplaneman ✈ 01:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't about "abusing the tools", it's about abusing those who've spent however long on creating an article that this candidate decides in a second or two to delete.
    Fatuorum 01:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Malleus, "however long" is a highly variable variable, and might often not be more than the two seconds you think it takes Tide rolls to decide on deletion nomination. I think that Tide in fact takes a lot longer to think about placing a template on a newly created page, and in the realm of vandalism reverters they are a lot more careful and even reticent with their warnings. Look at his talk page archives: I wish I had a temper as even as theirs. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have an opinion. I have an opinion. Let's leave it there.
    Fatuorum 02:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Right. No one would ever hope to make you change your mind, and that is not why I responded. I'm merely pointing out that your dismissive rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Give it a rest, it's become boring.
    Fatuorum 20:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Neutral Although I have seen good vandalism reports at AIV from Tide Rolls, I was disappointed to see that there were no uploads of fair use material, or any moves of pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tide_rolls&oldid=1150995384"