Tamzin

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (252/9/3); 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.

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.

This is what I was looking for although I didn't expect so much detail. I think one aspect of being an admin that may be unexpected is the number of times actions you take that seem straight-forward at the time are contested. And sometimes editors can be very upset about actions you've taken. The ability to hear the criticism, consider whether it is accurate or whether it is not valid, seeing when you need to stand up for your decisions and when you might have made erred and be able to correct it and admit to making a mistake, is crucial to being an admin for the long-term. I appreciate your thorough response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from GeoffreyT2000

13. You appear to have a Reddit account with two posts about your name. Would you use Reddit to post Wikipedia-related questions if you became an admin?

A: Since the "QuestionMark" part of that became untrue once I made the post about deciding on my new middle name, after that I made a new account, u/TamzinHadasa. I do post occasionally in r/wikipedia to answer people's questions about how to edit (or correct people who've given bad answers :P ).

Optional question from User:Ad Orientem

14. Could you please elaborate on this comment which you made at another RfA, parts of which concern me. To be clear your objection to true political extremists is not in itself an issue, and would likely be a deal breaker for me as well. But do you believe that disqualifying political extremism exists only on the far right (Fascists), or does this also include Communists (Stalinists and the like)? In particular I am concerned with your statement that anyone whose politics are right of center could not gain your support at RfA and you expressed comfort with desysopping anyone who supported former president Trump. Are these still your views? Thank you in advance for your reply.

A: So, to take that as three sub-questions:

Support of oppressive regimes should be disqualifying, period. The most common form of that that we see on enwiki is support of far-right oppressive regimes, and that's what was being discussed in that conversation, but certainly the left has its own problems in that regard, including, yes, apologism for the crimes against humanity committed by Stalin, Mao, and other leftists. That ought to be disqualifying too.
I shouldn't have said I would never vote for a right-of-center admin candidate. That was hyperbole during a heated conversation, but that's no excuse. What I was trying to convey is that that is something that would make me tend against supporting. I don't think it's unreasonable to judge someone's fitness for a position of trust based on one's impression of the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of their political views. That's an equal-opportunity thing: If someone concludes that, from their perspective, my political views (to the extent I've ever discussed those publicly) call my judgment into question, then I don't fault them for opposing or declining to support on that basis. Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character, and should not be off-limits in assessing people. At the same time, it should not be the only consideration, definitely not a litmus test, unless someone falls into the groups discussed in Point 1.
I think that avowed, continuing support for Donald Trump constitutes support for an oppressive regime, and thus should be disqualifying for the same reasons discussed in Point 1. Without turning this into a polemic, see generally the aftermath of the 2020 election and the events of January 6th, 2021. Of course, that's entirely hypothetical; I do not expect the community or ArbCom to ever actually impose such a test on administrators, and have no intention to propose one myself.

I think that that comment generated more heat than light, and if I could do it over I wouldn't have phrased it the way that I did. That thread is probably the most intense argument I've gotten into since my return to editing in October of 2020, and I'd just as soon not wind up in that position again. I do better when I'm making people happy, not angry.

ADDENDUM: I awoke to a lot of things to think about. I don't really have a problem with the opposes, generally speaking (although I can't say I take kindly to "disgusting" and "despicable"). Given that my whole point in A14.2 is that political views are a reasonable thing to judge a candidate for, I can't very well take exception to being judged for my own views. All I'd like to do is stress a nuance in the above between two very distinct sentiments: [right-of-U.S.-center politics are] something that would make me tend against supporting [an RfA] and avowed, continuing support for Donald Trump constitutes support for an oppressive regime, and thus should be disqualifying [for adminship].

As to the former... permissions requests, uniquely on Wikipedia, are a place to judge someone's character. And I stand by my take that Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character. We're not judging character at ANI or SPI; we're judging fitness to edit an encyclopedia collaboratively in the former and SOCK violation in the latter. Heavens know that if we were judging on character there'd be plenty of people I'd have requested blocks for at SPI—civil POV-pushers for authoritarian regimes, civil POV-pushers against various groups' rights, and even in one memorable case a user obsessed with showing why all pitbulls should be euthanized (I closed that SPI as "not proven" despite a strong personal desire, as a dog-lover, to see them gone; they were later sockblocked when evidence mounted). But yes, in those rare cases where we're judging character, one thing I look to is someone's views on how the world should be. That tells you a lot about a person. But, I want to emphasize, this is a view about tending not to support. I've never opposed an RfA based on someone being right-of-U.S.-center, and don't intend to. (In fact I don't think I've even, in practice, ever declined to vote on that basis. As a rule I only vote at RfAs where I have preexisting experience with the person, so I sit most out.) And it's certainly not a view about how right-of-U.S.-center users should be treated elsewhere on Wikipedia. Otherwise there's several members of the SPI and steward teams whom I wouldn't be able to work with, while in fact we get along swimmingly.
As to the latter, let me be clear. This isn't about conservatives. It isn't about Republicans. It isn't about people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. It is about people who continue to support him after he spent months trying to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election and his supporters then invaded the hallowed center of our democracy in an overt attempt to unlawfully overturn that election's result and impose an unelected head of state. An event that saw my cousin and uncle and aunt and octogenarian grandmother shelter in place in their home a few blocks away while tear gas, flashbangs, and bullets were fired in the halls of the Capitol. I think that some people—especially those disconnected from U.S. politics, either from lack of interest or living in another country—see Trump as "just another politician". He isn't. He is an unparalleled threat to our democracy. As a lifelong supporter of liberty and opponent of tyranny, I would be being dishonest with myself if I did not take a stance against him.

Again, I want to clarify those nuances so that there's no misunderstanding of what I've said. But—and I want to stress this for some of my supporters—I don't think it's unreasonable to oppose based on this. My whole point here is that I believe in being honest with yourself and others about what you believe. If that path leads you to a conclusion that you can't support me, then I appreciate your honesty.

In closing, all I would like to add is a reminder that I didn't choose to discuss this topic. It was entirely reasonable for Ad Orientem to ask about it, but it's not something I expected to have to take a stand on at my RfA. I hope people understand that I'm a bit "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" on talking about this: One way I'm politicizing things, the other way I'm failing to hold myself accountable. I've put accountability first.

Optional question from User:Fakescientist8000

15. What is (in your opinion) the most valuable asset to Wikipedia (this could be anything - Bots, gadgets, policies and/or guidelines) and why?

A: The most valuable asset to Wikipedia is quality content on topics that benefit our readers. Which means that by extension you could say the most valuable asset is editor-hours geared toward such work. Those can be editor-hours spent writing or maintaining the articles, or spent working on bots and scripts and tools and templates and modules that make the articles better, or spent making sure our readers find what they're looking for and are able to read it, or spent mitigating the efforts of those who would hinder the foregoing groups. The most important thing is that, whatever work one does, one be able to justify how that work ties back to that core priority of quality content. We always need to make sure we're not just doing work for its own sake.

Optional question from 511KeV

16. Let's take a situation, You come across an unblock request. The user has mentioned that this is an old account that he had used but was blocked due to less knowledge about the policies, The user claims to have used another account as a fresh start. The other account is in good standing with no issue that got previous account blocked. How will you take action? or What will be your opinion?

A: This is the exact kind of scenario I was thinking of when I said in A11 that sometimes common sense must be used when dealing with sockpuppetry policy violations. The strict letter-of-the-law answer here is that you block the "clean start" account and tell them to wait six months with no edits and then request an unblock on the older account. I would not do that. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and if someone has created a block-evading account and gone on to do a lot of good work with it, and the original block wasn't for something really nasty like harassment or serious BLP violations, then no misconduct is prevented by sidelining a competent contributor for six months. That's just making the encyclopedia worse in the name of hypercompliance with policy. Something like this did happen with Hatto, and the community consensus was that he should not be blocked, even if technically he was evading. That event has informed my decisionmaking as an SPI clerk in similar situations, and on one occasion I have, with the Hatto case in mind, declined to request a block for some ancient block evasion. (The user in question proceeded to get himself indeffed for other reasons less than 24 hours later, but hey, I can't control that. :P )

So, the upshot of this is that my course of action would be:

Make sure that I fully understand the circumstances of the block, and that no part of it was for one of those "really nasty" things. (If part of it was, then probably block the new account and take the case to AN.)
Make sure that the cause of the original block hasn't been recurring. For some things, like personal attacks, that can be checked easily based on if they've been blocked or warned. But for something like misrepresenting sources or copyright violations, a deeper dive may be needed and I may need to talk further with the user to make sure they definitely understand the policies in question. (If there is recurrence, same approach as above.)
If the blocking admin is still active, reach out to them.
Assuming that there are no issues from the previous three steps, ask the user which of the two accounts they would like to edit under. If they want to stick with the new account, then tell them may continue doing so (and maybe re-indef the old account without autoblock and with an updated explanation). If they want to go back to the original account, then unblock that but block the new account without autoblock. In either case, tell them that as an unblock condition they are subject to a one-account restriction indefinitely. And let them know that they've gotten lucky, and that if they're ever blocked again, please go about things the right way this time, because you probably won't get lucky twice.

Optional question from Andrew D.

17 There's a common feeling that Wikipedia is addictive and there's a current discussion about this at the Village Pump. What's your take on this and what will you do about it as an admin, please?

A: I think that it would be accurate to describe Wikipedia as generally prone to causing addiction, although I don't think that's true for everyone who regularly edits. (Then again, the same caveat could be given for regular users of heroin.) I've addressed the broader concept of mental illness on Wikipedia in User:Tamzin/Guidance for editors with mental illnesses, and I encourage anyone with a mental illness, including addiction, to take a look.

Already in my work I always try to consider the role that mental illness may play in editors' behavior on-wiki. There's a tendency to dismiss that consideration, but I find that at once unrealistic, cold-hearted, and counterproductive. I wanted to get to this in A4, but had already said a fair bit: I think many admins take an approach to blocks of "CAT:UNBLOCK will know its own". One thing I learned from being blocked early on in my editing career is that it's a deeply unpleasant experience if you're invested in this project. And at the time of my block in 2012—16 years old and having just quit high school—there was definitely a layer of addiction that made the block sting much more. And as much as we might wish people not wind up addicted to Wikipedia, the reality is that they do, and it's important to understand that when making decisions about user conduct. It doesn't mean we should let them get away with violating policy, but in terms of how one approaches warnings and blocks, one should understand that for some people a block takes away not just their hobby but their world, and pick one's tone accordingly.

Optional question from Sdrqaz

18. Given your answers to Q1 and Q14, do you intend to work on arbitration enforcement for American politics 2 in an administrative capacity?

A: Keeping in mind that my A14 was in the context of a comment about whom I'd vote for at RfA, not whom I think is fit to edit, I expressed two political views there and in the linked comment: That I am a leftist, and that I am strongly opposed to Donald Trump. The former is not, in my view, disqualifying of any sort of AE action. The community has ruled in the past that admins known to have strong political views may act at AE on political topics as long as they are not involved with respect to the matter at hand. Indeed, one of our best AE admins is a proud Marxist-Leninist. Furthermore, one at one's own peril extrapolates or interpolates any specific political views on my part simply from knowing my general political orientation and my opinions on one politician. Either way, when it comes to administrative matters I pick no favorites. I think over the years I think I've had more angry POV-pushers accuse me of being far-right than far-left.

So, I would not broadly recuse from American politics. But to avoid any appearance of impropriety I would recuse from topics within American politics that I've expressed opinions about on-wiki, which as far as I can recall is a class of one: my opposition to Mr. Trump. Thus I would not take administrative action in disputes that substantially pertain to Donald Trump or users who advertise their support for him, outside of super-blatant disruption like someone spamming an anti- or pro-Trump catchphrase across a bunch of talk pages (which isn't an AE-worthy matter anyways).

With all that said, at AE I'd intend to focus more on topic areas further afield from my own interests. The ARBIPA topic area is constantly in need of attention, something that's becaome quite clear to me in my time working at SPI. There's enough admins focused on AMPOL for the most part; I have more interest in chipping in on cases that often go neglected. And with AMPOL, IPA, other AE topic areas, or other administrative work, I would always have an open mind to any good-faith criticisms of my actions.

Optional question from Homeostasis07 (copied by Tamzin from a reply to TNT's neutral vote)

19. I'm surprised no-one is raising the shared IP address [with TheresNoTime] as an issue, especially when the two accounts have an extensive interaction history, editing several dozen articles within 10 minutes of one another. I would like to see some genuine elaboration on this point.

A: Sammy and I lived together from early November to early February. We were both already members of the SPI team. Factoring in activity levels of the CU and clerk corps, a relatively small cohort does this work at any point in time, and due to the nature of SPI workflows it's very common for two team members to have a large amount of overlap with short periods between edits; you can verify that by plugging other highly-active clerks and CUs into the Editor Interaction Analyzer. Sammy and I felt it would be unfeasible to completely avoid each other at SPI, especially as the majority of our interactions were fairly procedural (Me:

Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me.

Clerk endorsed for sleepers. / Her:

Confirmed.

Blocked without tags. / Me:

Tagged. Closing.)

However, for the duration of our living together, we did work to minimize interactions at SPI and elsewhere on Wikipedia where possible, even though I don't think any policy or guideline required this of us. She would run into my endorses working through that queue. I would run into her completeds working through that queue. Sometimes we'd both turn up to a case because we both had worked on previous filings. But as a rule we did not bring SPI matters directly to each other, letting our interactions there be incidental. That trend can be verified by looking through the SPIs at the link you gave; most are from before November. We were open about sharing an IP, both disclosing this on subpaged linked from our userpages; other team members, including multiple arbitrators, were aware of it and saw no issue with it. If there are specific SPIs where you are concerned about our interactions, I am happy to discuss them.

That addresses the SPI overlap, which is the vast majority of the pages in the EIA. The remaining pages are, I think, largely self-explanatory. If there are specific pages you'd like me to discuss, though, again, please let me know.

Optional question from Itcouldbepossible

20. You already have my support. But, I want to know about your views on the WP:NONAZIS essay? Do you agree with it? Yes or no? Why?

A: I don't disagree with that essay, but think it rather misses the point—a view I've expressed in the past on its talkpage. We are a global project, and while Western far-right extremism is something we certainly struggle with, we also struggle with a lot of supremacist attitudes between different ethnic groups or social groups in other countries. Furthermore, I think the reliance on NONAZIS by some admins is strange when we already have a guideline on-point: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If someone is saying "Jews did 9/11" or "Serbians are the master race" or "I hate Dalits", that is per se disruptive editing. Hate is disruptive. If I'm going to take administrative action against a bigot, I would rather it be under a straightforward, well-established guidline than an essay that immediately lends itself to the retort, "Oh, so are you saying you wouldn't have blocked a Stalinist?" Let's not get caught up in the semantics of which kind of oppressive ideas are worse than others. Let's just block those who are disrupting the building of our encyclopedia.

Since Vami's RfA has already come up, I'll reiterate my position there that such views can be rehabilitated, and if I were to block someone for promoting hate and they were to return months or years later and say "Y'know, I was a real idiot back then. I've done a lot of soul-searching, talked to some Jews/non-Serbs/Dalits, and realized how myopic my worldview was. I apologize to anyone in the community I hurt. I'd like to return to editing", then I'd be inclined to unblock, possibly with an unblock-condition TBAN from the topic area in question.

Optional question from CactiStaccingCrane

21. Even though like above I have support you, I really want to know about your path towards pushing Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013) and (2018) towards GA. One, what challenges have you faced while tuning them, and two, what experience would you consider to be the most valuable while using admin tools? I would love to hear your story :)

A: Small correction: I haven't been pushing either toward GA, but they're up for DYK currently. I'd like to get Fane Lozman itself to GA at some point, though; and who knows, maybe one or both of the cases too.

I first became interested in Lozman's cases in 2017, when the were featured quite a bit on a podcast called First Mondays. It's just a fascinating series of events with a colorful cast of characters. That coincided with what I call my "second wiki-life", and I started working on User:Tamzin/Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (referring to the 2018 case) in June of 2018, before letting it go stale when other things drew my attention away from Wikimedia for a while (see SN54129's support + Special:Diff/1084656730). I resolved in January to finally write not just that but also the article on the 2013 case, and was excited to rediscover the draft I'd written (which, while it had sourcing and style issues, was fuller-featured than the existing start-class article on the '18 case). The biggest challenges that faced me... One was a personal one: focus. It's hard for me to stay focused on a task for a long period of time, and that's a big part of why my content work historically has often had more to do with fixing up a section of an existing article than writing a new one from scratch. But it was a rewarding experience to force myself to focus long enough to write the two articles, and extra exciting when I realized I could still merge in a lot of that 2018 draft. The other biggest challenge... This sounds funny, but: The fact that both cases have the same caption! And, not just that, a whole bunch of lower-court caseve has the same caption. The Snyder source quoted in both numbers Lozman I through Lozman V, and that's actually an undercount (I comes after the Florida Sunshine Law suit that set the whole thing into motion, for instance). So it was legitimately a challenge combing through court cases and news articles to figure out which damn Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach they were talking about half of the time!

In terms of how this will affect my outlook as an admin. Well, Iridescent got a bit at this in their support (see also my reply (permalink)), but I think that it's important to understand the attitude content creators have toward their articles, in order to adjudicate any content or mixed conduct/content dispute. It's very easy to say "WP:OWN! WP:OWN! WP:OWN!" when you're not the one writing the articles, but from the Lozman articles, the journalist list, and the shorter but zealously-sourced List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine, I have come to understand much better the emotional bond the writers have with their articles. Part of what I get at in A17 is the importance of admins understanding the psychologies that motivate the users they interact with, and the psychology of someone who's just poured their time and energy and heart into an article is perhaps the most importat one to understand. Factoring in research time I've probably cumulatively spent several full days working on the journalists list, so that in particular, even more than the Lozman articles, evokes that in me. I think I nonetheless do a good job taking on board criticism of the articles I've written, but I can definitely empathize much better with those who react poorly to criticism or bold slash-and-burn edits.

Optional question from Mhawk10

22. On your disclosures and commitments page, you mention that you know a substantial number of individuals that have Wikipedia pages. To what extent have your interactions with notable people shaped your editing philosophy as it pertains to how Wikipedia should treat biographies of living persons?

Optional question from ProcrastinatingReader

23. Do you plan to do any discretionary sanctions enforcement, or any other kind of conduct enforcement in DS-authorised topic areas? (excluding sockpuppetry)

Optional question from Paradise Chronicle: 23.A follow up question to Q17 where Wikipedia is described to be addictive in relation that you are presented as an SPI specialist and have voiced a tolerant view regarding WP:IAR. How would you approach a situation in which an SPI is launched against an constructive editor to the project?

Discussion

Links for Tamzin: Tamzin (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Tamzin can be found here.

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

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes CSD log PROD log
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights

Support

Has my trust, support without question. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Prodipto Deloar (Talk • Contribute) 02:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
👍 It's finally happening — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100%, without any hesitation. SQL ^{Query Me!} 03:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! As co-nom. --BDD (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've seen their work and am happy to see and support this nomination. Funcrunch (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Per their noms and their outstanding answer to Q4. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With a lesser candidate I'd likely be moving to either strike my support or move to outright oppose so instead I'll just be a weak support should that come to mean something (which my guess is it won't). I believe in NONAZIs for the same reason I believe in a NOMRND. But I am not willing to say that anyone who voted for one of the two foremost political parties in a functioning democracy/republic cannot hold administrative rights on English Wikipedia. In fairness Tamzin didn't quite say this - January 6 seems to have been an important piece in forming her views on this matter and no one has (yet) voted for Trump since then. But it's close enough to saying that in Q14 for me to be mighty uncomfortable because I believe the best knowledge isn't forged in an echo chamber of any kind and have always appreciated that the messiness of our consensus process recognizes that. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: So glad this one is finally happening. No hesitation from me. Bsoyka (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support without hesitation. I'm happy to see this, but it's four years overdue! -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support Have had nothing but good interactions. Should make an excellent admin. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hands down. Nardog (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support Long solid history of editing and interactions with others. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 04:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support Thoughtful, experienced and competent. Would make a good admin. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support has a need, not a jerk. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Editing to Weakest support23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)) I found this by chance shortly before the transclusion, was ready to jump in! Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC) I jumped in after I found the page by chance the morning before transclusion. I don't know about our interaction, but as a lurker by habit, I have seen you a bunch, Tamzin, and believe you want the best for Wikipedia. Someone below pointed out I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter - and my instinct was to Oppose. And if this were just an RfA for someone I hadn't seen I'dve. But I believe you've done good, and more importantly, I believe in WP:1Q. I am an American who did not vote for Trump (either time), but I cannot stress how much I hate this statement. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support. Trusted user, need for the tools. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 05:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support completely. Tamzin would make a great admin. ––FormalDude talk 05:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Wow – if what I said here hadn't been true before seeing her answers to the optional questions so far, it definitely would be true now! No-brainer times two. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per their excellent work and very thoughtful answer to Q4. firefly ( t · c ) 06:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, precious. We met by Maks Levin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Support Why not? --Victor Trevor (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support without reservation. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no problems. Deb (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely clueful editor with great technical and social competence, will make a fine admin. —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah! Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs! 09:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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_creep^Talk 10:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Use for tools, has my trust, fits what I expect from a candidate. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trump comment is deeply troubling if part of a pattern but I don't see enough evidence of Tamzin's political affiliation affecting their SPI clerking or dispute behaviour to break my trust yet. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity my comment above indicates a weak support. Not that it changes anything in the bigger picture. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support From contribution history, seems a net positive. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
So I absolutely get the concern that the more recent opposes have raised. I am part of the minority of the mop corps who don't back NONAZIS as de facto policy. But I do think it unlikely that I'd ever (!)vote for one in an RfA, even if otherwise qualified. So there certainly is a difference between how an admin should act towards editors as part of their duties and how we should treat candidates. Tamzin's current answers don't make me concerned about the former. But the latter is a reasonable grounds to oppose - editors can draw different thresholds and "nazis" and even those who are "still Trump supporters" are definitely sets that by no means completely overlap. The end result of this is to make me a weak ~~oppose~~ support Nosebagbear (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Moved back from the oppose section, after a legitimate move from @Primefac: caused by a major typo on my end Nosebagbear (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Support Why not --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support can be trusted with the tool.--- FitIndia ^{Talk (A/CU) on Commons} 11:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thought they should have been an admin about 5-6 years ago. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming support in the light of recent answers to questions, particularly Q14 and Q16. Admitting fault and building bridges is an important component on adminship, and Tamzin is right to point out the problems with SPI "cops" trying to get sockpuppet "robbers". (But I would say that, wouldn't I)? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely unreservedly. stwalkerster (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ZettaComposer (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. - Astrophobe (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - based on their SPI work I am happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 11:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support Answered my question intelligently and either way, I believe she will make a great admin.Volten001 ^☎ 12:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- lomrjyo ^🇺🇦 12:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support Will make an excellent admin. Lennart97 (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definitely a right fit. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per NOBIGDEAL; will be (and from what I can tell, was) a great admin. House Blaster^talk 13:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well intentioned and has a brain. Ceoil (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Solid editor with an excellent record. No red ~~or yellow flag~~s that I could find. The sole oppose is (as usual) singularly unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC) ADDENDUM Moving back to support following their answer to my question 14. That said, their continued strong prejudice against those who don't share their political beliefs, is problematic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Moving to nuetral pending response to my question 14. I may well end up back here in short order.~~ -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Confirming my support now that there has been a spate of opposes. Basically, per (a) agreeing with the underlying philosophy, but also (b) per the answer to Q14, and per Ad Orientem's addendum above. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I feel comfortable that they wouldn't abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No qualms about Tamzin's suitability for the toolbox. Schazjmd (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome to the mop corps. Katie^talk 14:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Kpddg ^(talk) 14:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Styyx^Talk? 14:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Terasail ^[✉️] 14:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An enthusiastic support from me. I honestly thought she was an admin already. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I also thought she was one already . –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Positive interactions with this editor at WP:SPI. FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What an excellent candidate. I wish her well on her chosen path. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support would be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chlod (say hi!) 15:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support should've been one years ago. Legoktm (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, from my interactions with her they are definitely deserving of admin perms (even though it's not a big deal). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vacant0 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Not overly concerned with the philosphically-based oppose rationales, though I think it would be better to be less out-spoken about one's politics. I've been accused of being a MAGAT and a left-wing commie snowflake on wiki. So, I guess I'm doing a fair job of keeping my politics off-Wiki. I think it best to avoid such political statements lest others question my neutrality. (as is hapening here.) But I think she can set her politics aside when using the tools. She is smart enough to do that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to be in this column. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going to add in a comment here instead of responding under anyone in the O or N sections: given that at present a significant part of "right-of-center" American politics involves denying reality (a primary election in my former home state is between two candidates who essentially only differ on the election legitimacy issue), I have no issue with using a candidate's political views as a factor when deciding on RfA support. I do not read Tamzin's comments (particiarly in Q14, as opposed to the initial comment) as being nearly as hard-and-fast/extreme as some of the most recent opposes do. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good head on her shoulders. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Deeply thoughtful person. Glad she's here, glad she's running for admin. -- asilvering (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support About time! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 17:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No question. Incredible cantidate. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Struck, changed to weak oppose.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Candidate seems to be able to do administrator work, See WP:SIGNT and WP:SIGIMAGE.‍ 17:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support seen them around a lot, they would make an excellent admin. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support No issues as far as I'm concerned. Will wield the mop for good, rather than evil IMO. Aloha27 talk
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]
Support. I am late to the part! I would've supported sooner had I known!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support Looks like a good choice. Happy (Slap me) 18:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly qualified. ceranthor 18:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Support - all around solid contributor from what Ive seen, fair and even-keeled. nableezy - 18:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support I honestly can't imagine how a candidate could be more qualified. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience with her, I believe Tamzin will be a good admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trusted, competent. Overdue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - At Rfd, I have had only positive interactions with her. Havradim leaf a message 19:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming support per A14 and Barkeep49, Ixtal, Nosebagbear, Ad Orientem, Floquenbeam, and Deepfriedokra. To oppose the candidate based upon the same or similar type of rationale proffered by the candidate seems to me to be an incongruous or hypocritical affair. Havradim leaf a message 22:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Absolutely! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Support Good to have an another admin. Severestorm 28 20:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support without hesitation, have seen her around SPI, will definitely be a net positive. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Support Good answers to questions, exhibits competence, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Lkb335 (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support I like what I've seen of the candidate. Happy to pile on. Miniapolis 23:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Done more than enough to be trusted with the tools. --Find bruce (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Support - Trusted user. I see no reason to not support. Rin (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No worries, great candidate. Equineducklings (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Oh my gosh finally. What a superb candidate. Thank you for standing. 🤍 Folly Mox (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good candidate and good argument for adminship. Thingofme (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support. I have seen nothing but positive things from Tamzin, seems like a great candidate. --TylerBurden (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah why not? :D Justi yaya 01:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 01:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks like a great candidate, no concerns. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seen her around a lot, I'm confident she'd be a great addition. Yeeno (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is great need for people like Tamzin to be given the mop. – Anon423 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
Support. Very competent. Hemantha (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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. Schwede 66 05:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Support qualified candidate. --Assyrtiko (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support Leijurv (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support qualified candidate, all the best for you Mila vecto (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mer mensch iz gut. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tolly 4 bolly 10:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very qualified --DB1729 (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Support I have no reason to believe that the nominee would misuse the tools. --Jayron 32 14:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as clear evidence of previous good work in relevant admin-related areas. Bibeyjj (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hús ö nd 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no concerns. Giant Snowman 20:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought she already was an admin (and a good one at that!). JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: No concerns. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support . Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Trusted User. Eveready to help the newbies. Would like to see her as an administrator. Dove's talk (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work at WP:SPI. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. In addition to other good qualities already enumerated, this user doesn't mind humor (as seen in their participation in April Fools'), but they are also capable enough to know when to take things seriously. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support...Comr Melody Idoghor (talk)
per noms DanCherek (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having seen Tamzin around RMT, they're worth it. Why shouldn't I support? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 23:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very happy to support Tanzin on this, I think they'll be fantastic! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support wholeheartedly. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Complete and utter support Blessed be her ascension ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will be an excellent admin. GreenComputer (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:200 - Beccaynr (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I look forward to working with you when you become an admin. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support. How did I not come across this earlier? I've had too many positive experiences, including resolving my WP:FLOUNCE violation last month. Also, they possess some serious Toki Pona skills. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good work at SPI, I expect any expansion to other areas of admin work will be handle well too. CMD (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, absolutely fit for the role; additionally, every interaction I've had with them has been 100%. I am really happy to see this RfA come up. :) Perryprog (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, would be happier with more content creation but editor has been around for ten (10) years without any other reasons to oppose so pretty safe bet they will be a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a clue, and is kind both towards me and others. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - quality aren't-they-an-admin-already editor, working in some challenging areas with great results. Will be a fine admin. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my interactions with Tamzin. — Wug·a·po·des 03:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think Tamzin is probably the best editor doing administrative work who is not yet an administrator. I see no reason to believe that she is unfit for the mop. The opposes don't convince me. Good luck. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't plan on changing my !vote. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope that the humility and soundness you have shown in answering those questions and in editing (particularly these last few years) translates into another excellent admin. Thanks for standing! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Net positive, good answers. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support has a clue, seems to be a net positive. Opposes are unconvincing. We don't need every admin to be a prolific content creator, we just need to be able to trust them to not hinder content creation by others. Doing necessary work at SPI is just the kind of support role that indirectly helps good faith content creators. Just like a museum, we do not need our janitors, security guards or tour guides to also be artists. Regards So Why 08:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought Tamzin was an admin already! --Jack Phoenix _(Contact) 08:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A win for SPI and other areas. MarioGom (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Qualified candidate to undertake mopping. :P _signed,511KeV ^(talk) 10:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - contrary to the assertion in oppose number 3 below, the candidate doesn't have "absolutely zero content creation experience"... she has in fact pointed us in the direction of some pages she's written in question 2 above. As such, with no skeletons found in the cupboard, lots of experience and the aforementioned content pedigree, I see no reason not to support. Good luck, and welcome to the corps! — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - She will be a great admin. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No reason not to support. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 13:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No obvious red lights and so WP:NOBIGDEAL. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tamzin's lack of substantial experience writing articles isn't ideal (for those questioning which this matters, I can recommend User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content), but her technical proficiency, experience in a range of behind-the-scenes processes, and obvious trustworthiness more than make up for it. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for volunteering. Vexations (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reservations. Every interaction has been a pleasure. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Approved for 12 years + Good user. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck sakes, I'm really not paying attention, far too many days late in expressing my support. Nick (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no qualms throwing my support in Tamzin's direction. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely, yes. Operator873 ^connect 21:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks like a really good candidate who will be a welcome addition to the team. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. XOR'easter (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Addendum after reading the opposes: First, I don't think that getting stamps of approval like GA/FA is a good way to gauge how active an editor has been at "content creation". I myself have put a lot of work into articles that I've never bothered to nominate for GA, because the topic area seemed too niche and I doubted that I could find a reviewer both knowledgeable and enthusiastic enough to complete a review. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to collect trophies. Second, it's a plain fact of life that some political ideologies are simply incompatible with building an encyclopedia, because they are fundamentally anti-journalism and anti-education. Such an ideology could be found on the left, the right, or even in the political center (the home of pathological both-sides-ism that is completely at odds with what we mean by neutrality). Wikipedia is a fantastic opportunity for people of different persuasions to come together and create something good, but to make it work, we have to recognize some harsh truths. In Tamzin's statements and clarifications, I see a mature recognition of our unhappy reality. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support and thanks for all the work already at SPI. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shows excellent judgement and conduct. Llwyld (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No concerns per above -- Tawker (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - User can be trusted with the tools. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my trust in the nominators, the nomination statements, several reasons stated above in particular HJ Mitchell's. Good answer to Q14. Remains civil and calm in the face of shenanigans, yet shows firmness as necessary. example. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trustworthy and sensible. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per so much of the above. Seren_Dept 03:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Step hen 04:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per help with SPI clerking. Mathsci (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support almost instantly due to her work in multiple avenues, such as redirects and admin noticeboards. Even though I would usually take more consideration if they don't have enough good content written, User:Tamzin#My_philosophy_of_Wikipedia is enough for me to convince that she will put her admin tool to good use for safeguarding articles' quality. Cheers to you, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support all places I have seen Tamzin on wikipedia, she has been a positive contributor. I have especially seen her work at RfD and while I do not always (but often) agree with every close she has made; there's always good rationale for it and none that I would ever feel worthwhile reopening. From my interactions at RfD especially, adminship is more than logical. TartarTorte 13:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Established good editor, hard worker for the community, no red flags, instant adminship. — The Anome (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this 1000%. On more than one occasion I have had the good fortune of running into Tamzin or asking them for assistance. I had no idea they weren't an admin though they never expressed that they were. Tamzin is all over the encyclopedia and their presence is felt already. They are helpful, insightful and impactful. In every interaction Tamzin has been civil and kind yet firm and consistent which are earmarks of a good admin. I feel they would make an outstanding addition to the admin corps and fully support them in every way. --ARose Wolf 15:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen Tamzin's contributions a number of times and it's always been positive. Reviewing more, both in Tamzin's edit history and in the sections here, only confirms it. Skynxnex (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't going to participate in this RFA (or any future RFAs), but I feel the strong need to counteract the recent opposes. KICK BUTT TAMZIN!!! Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Falls into the "I thought they already were an admin" category for me. Thy are a long time productive editor. The mop and bucket will be in good hands. MarnetteD|Talk 22:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support good content creation Jno.skinner (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose them not having the tools per the wise people above. But seriously, this RfA is going to pass and at this point I'm just piling on. My support isn't done blindly though. I worked with Tamzin supporting the response to the botnet vandalism attack earlier this year and they proved their capability. I trust them, and them not having the tools is a big deal. They are exactly the kind of user who should have the admin bit. Lets wrap this up Seddon ^talk 23:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! You almost blew our cover! /j -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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]
Oppose Willbb234 15:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose Toad40 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Toad40—I can understand if you do not want to explain your oppose, but if you do, then why did you oppose? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If three or more people oppose, then I oppose as well. That's my rule of thumb for when I vote. Toad40 (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Toad40—Noted, thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand correctly, we're not allowed to make fun of this rationale? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam—I mean, I cannot stop you, but others have their own rationales. While I think the rationale is somewhat unreasonable, you have to respect others' feelings. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can make fun of it, it just won't have any positive effect, since it's obviously silly. The RFA is going to pass, and no one is going to be swayed by the impeccable reasoning of "three people said a thing therefore I must also say it." It's not a borderline case where explaining a different point of view on a set of facts could convince people one way or another. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it's silly to you, but it's just the way I vote. Toad40 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's just the way I vote - under which account? AFACT you've only participated in two other RfAs. a neutral that adds nothing -- not even a vote that counts and this silliness. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still new to voting in RFAs, you don't have to bite my head off. (Also I don't know what you mean by "under which account?", I vote under this account.) Toad40 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anybody who believes that half of the population of the United States can't be a Wikipedia administrator, shouldn't be a Wikipedia administrator. Tamzin wrote, "I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter." (I'm not an American or a Trump supporter myself). Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly was this written? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Up at Q.14, [2] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it's much less than half. In the 2020 United States presidential election, 74,216,154 people voted for Donald Trump. The 2020 United States census recorded a population of 331,449,281, meaning that about 22.36% of the United States population voted for Donald Trump. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldnt be a factor at all?!?!?!?! Political Views should NOT even be mentioned in an RfA under any circumstance. Tamzin already corrected the statement in question 14 and this seems to be grasping for straws. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin wrote above: "I think that avowed, continuing support for Donald Trump constitutes support for an oppressive regime, and thus should be disqualifying for the same reasons discussed in Point 1." Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An admin who supports an oppressive regime does not uphold the collaborative and free values of Wikipedia. I see no issue with the candidate's assessment. casualdejekyll 16:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the major point is being overlooked here. Real World Politics should not be a factor in an RFA at all to constitute a Neutral Point of View. As per their comment, personal opinion is allowed on wikipedia because wikipedia is not censored. This is a personal view with reason behind it and really should not be a factor here. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are two parts to this. The support-for-oppressive-regime-means-one-is-not-suitable-for-adminship part, and the Trump-is-an-oppressive-regime part. The first part is definitely relevant. The second, not so much. casualdejekyll 16:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People have the right to believe what they want. If Tamzin thinks that pro-right wikipedians shouldnt be administrators, thats her call. This is an opinion, not an enforcement. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because 20% of the United States (adult) population don't vote. Thingofme (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turnout in the 2020 United States presidential election was estimated to be 66.2%, so it's a much higher percentage than 20%. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the kind of comment that could sink an RfA, yeah. casualdejekyll 16:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you assume half the population of the United States voted for U.S. President Donald Trump at the U.S. 2016 Presidential election? SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 16:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More people voted against him then for, and large amounts of people voted for absolutely nobody. Couldn't have even been close to half casualdejekyll 18:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Realized I haven't actually stated what I think on this... My criteria, as expressed above, is that a candidate 1. Knows what they don't know, i.e.. knows when to ask before jumping in, and when to not do anything because they don't know enough. - 2. Knows what a mainspace is, I.E. doesn't treat Wikipedia as a game, has written something (not even a GA, just something!) and 3. Won't destroy everything. (That one's self explanatory.) I felt that Tamzin met all these criteria.
Note that political affiliation is not in there. Being a Trump supporter is not in there, and saying that Trump supporters can't be admins is ALSO not in there.
So this situation does not affect my Support. casualdejekyll 18:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will say though I am a Trump supporter and Tamzin was never rude or mean to me. With the few encounter I’ve had with her, she seemed nice to me. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 23:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, unequivocal oppose I normally don't vote in RfAs. But, I can't let this one slide, even if it is a massive landslide in favor of this candidate. In Q14 above, Tamzin attempts to clarify what they intended with this comment on another RfA. Instead of smoothing the waters, this is in effect a double down support for this statement. In particular, in their response to Q14 Tamzin says that "[a right-of-center admin candidate] is something that would make me tend against supporting". Further, they go on to state that "Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character". This lock-step belief that a person can't be trusted if they have political views opposing the candidate's isn't just troubling, it's disgusting in the extreme. That we would embolden a member of this community with such despicable views is horrifying. An administrator must be able to be dispassionate in their assessments. This candidate clearly can not be so. And no, I am not a member of nor align with any particular party. You could swap in "a left-of-center admin candidate" above and it's just as appalling. This sort of extremism is to say the least dangerous to have among the admin community. Tamzin, you're going to become an admin barring some massive outpouring of opposition in the last half of this RfA. I implore you to rethink your approach to being a member of this community. As an admin, you could cause massive damage with your heavily polemic views. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so and I'm suprised. There is no correlation between what a person thinks, a persons views and how effective they would be an admin. They're is no research and there is nothing from corporate world that would suggest such a thing. Every candidate has baggage, but not in any single instance does that reflect how capable they are as an individual. Using a recently history as a metric, there is many examples of this. That is not say, us, as a beacon of light and fredom we are, would enable us support people like that. That is not what is happening here. It is the mere whisper of things to come in America, an expression of worry, that is sliding of America into authoritarianism that worries folk, and that is what it is. That doesn't reflect on years of excellent service. scope_creep^Talk 19:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep bias (especially as strong a bias as Tamzin's answer indicates) can definitely affect one's actions. Many admin actions are not checked by others as there is implicit trust that actions are taken by competent editors in good faith (the system works). However, we thankfully have a very long track record in Tamzin's contribution history and a willingness to recuse themselves from the Trump topic area so I don't see a reason to worry in this case. They are highly competent, eager to collaborate, and highly transparent. However, There is no correlation between what a person thinks, a persons views and how effective they would be an admin would be a leap of logic in my opinion if one generalizes it as you have. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So they would recuse themselves from American political topics but not politics elsewhere, yet have a serious problem with people who have right of center political views, and does feel it appropriate to judge a person based upon their differing political views? What will they do with French political topics, such as Marine Le Pen? There are many other examples outside the U.S. They've not stated they would recuse from political issues as an administrator. I stand by my oppose. As a worldwide encyclopedia, we are going to have people of all sorts of different views, including the candidates. That's perfectly fine. What is not fine is discriminating against people who disagree with you. It is that very disagreement that makes Wikipedia strong. The openness of thought is critical to our success. Personally, I would prefer the candidate have some self awareness and withdraw. The sort of polemic attitude expressed is wholly incompatible with adminship. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oppose due to I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards, said here. Wikipedia editors come from a wide range of backgrounds and cultures, and administrators should respect that. Right-of-center editors have just as much of a right to contribute to the project of creating a free encyclopedia as do left-of-center editors. Endwise (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Endwise Besides Tamzin's political views, is there anything that you think disqualifies them from being an admin? SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 17:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all opposed to her political views. I'm opposed to her views on who can and cannot contribute to this encyclopedia, and think they would be problematic to hold for someone with administrator privileges. Endwise (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you have completely misunderstood her statement. It was not who could edit to this encyclopedia. it was who SHOULD in HER OPINION be an Admin on wikipedia. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose changed from support, per some of the above oppose rationales. I'm not thrilled at some of the recent political revelations above. WP:NONAZIS being an unofficial credo of the admin corps is one thing. But actively discriminating against political viewpoints in the course of administrative duties is highly problematic, especially considering the intention to be active in areas such as SPI, AIV, and ANI, all of which have a tendency to become particularly politically charged. Of course, she has since endeavored to correct this line of thinking in the course of this RFA, but as they say - "nearer the heart, nearer the mouth." --WaltCip-(talk) 16:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the concern here, and I fully agree that actively discriminating against political viewpoints in the course of administrative duties would be highly problematic. But I think what's needed here is to take things a bit more literal. Tamzin said a right-of-center admin candidate [...] is something that would make me tend against supporting. But voting for or against an admin candidate is not an administrative duty. I think that a lot of current admins, as well as a lot of other editors here (including me), would tend to be less quick in supporting an admin candidate with whom they have serious political differences than one with whose political views they fully agree. Not as a matter of principle, but as a matter of the inescapable correlations between one's political preferences and the kind of attitudes one hopes for in an admin. Tamzin is perhaps just a little more straightforward about this than most others, as she is about most things. Is there really a reason to believe that, unlike most other valuable editors whose preferences in admins tend to correlate with their political preferences, she would also let her political views interfere with her good judgment in conduct issues or evaluation of consensus? I personally don't think so. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They did say I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards (although I wouldn't vote against someone solely on that basis).[3] I'm not certain if I'm going to strike my support at this point, but there's no reason to lighten the language that was used. Above she also said above I would recuse from topics within American politics that I've expressed opinions about on-wiki, which as far as I can recall is a class of one: my opposition to Mr. Trump Seeing as she's clearly expressed opinions of those with right-of-center views, I would certainly be more comfortable with full recusal from political topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose — Regrettably per Hammersoft. I admire your contributions to Wikipedia and I believe that you have the potential to become a fine administrator. I expect your RfA to pass but I hope that you will reflect upon why is it that your approach of evaluating people who do not share your political opinions is being criticized. Reading that you would "tend against supporting" an adminship candidate simply because they were politically "right-of-center" was appalling. It would have been just as abject had you said the same about a "left-of-center" adminship candidate. My opposition is not based on how you evaluate hypothetical adminship candidates; I take objection to you conflating political opinions in your evaluations of an editor's performance and track record on the site. You have expressed a clear bias — and we all have our biases — but it is disconcerting how strongly you would let them influence your decision-making. My concern is that you might extend that same approach when dealing with heated or contentious situations in your capacity as an administrator, and that you may not be able to exercise discretion that comes with being an administrator dispassionately and impartially. To clarify — I am with you on your comments in "Point 1", and I do believe that harboring extreme political opinions should be a clear enough reason to outright oppose a hypothetical adminship candidate, regardless of their performance and track record on this site. My issue with your original comment and answer to question–14 is about you (strongly or lightly) allowing your political opinions cloud your perception of an editor when their political opinions fall slightly or moderately on the opposite side of the spectrum. — The Most Comfortable Chair 19:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that this is a "weak" oppose since most of it is derived from hypotheticals. — The Most Comfortable Chair 20:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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 ~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]
~~Yes, let's all WP:BADGER this~~ OK, seriously, let's not badger this neutral. People have opinions… /srs /s — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, I'm gonna guess its jest just based on the link in Shushugah's reply. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 03:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised no-one is raising the shared IP address as an issue, especially when the two accounts have an extensive interaction history, editing several dozen articles within 10 minutes of one another. I would like to see some genuine elaboration on this point. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Homeostasis07: I hope you don't mind, but I've copied your comment up to the question session as Q19, so I could answer it there. I was going to respond here but it was a lot of text to put in the middle of a thread in the neutrals, and this is really a question even if it doesn't have a question mark. If you or anyone else objects, feel free to move my answer down here and remove the question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Neutral pending response to question 14. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back to support following a satisfactory answer to my question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
neutral, leaning oppose Tamzin's comment from other RfA reads in full: I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards (although I wouldn't vote against someone solely on that basis). This doesnt lead me to oppose. But I strongly believe that we should keep our personal beliefs/practises/political ideologies off the wikipedia. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to advertise/publicise our ideologies, religion etcetera. In simple words, one should edit whatever articles they want to edit, but one should not publish anything about them which may be controversial. Even if one discloses it somewhere, or the word gets out, then one shouldn't be actively commenting/arguing, or be in disputes about/because of it. Also per Hammersoft. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:44, 28 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--IAm Chaos 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. [4]), with endorsements available. SN54129 10:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the general oppose consensus has been due to Q14 and Political Reasoning. This seems to be a ridiculous reason to oppose in my opinion. Personal political opinion is..well, personal and should not be a factor in an RFA. Their statement was who Tamzin would vote for in RfA's, not who will earn the mop. Tamzin is allowed to have personal opinions and preferences, it does not mean they are not neutral. Not once did Tamzin state that right-ists should not be allowed to contribute on Wikipedia. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To restate what I said earlier in response to one of the opposes -
My criteria, as expressed above, is that a candidate 1. Knows what they don't know, i.e.. knows when to ask before jumping in, and when to not do anything because they don't know enough. - 2. Knows what a mainspace is, I.E. doesn't treat Wikipedia as a game, has written something (not even a GA, just something!) and 3. Won't destroy everything. (That one's self explanatory.) I felt that Tamzin met all these criteria.
Note that political affiliation is not in there. Being a Trump supporter is not in there, and saying that Trump supporters can't be admins is ALSO not in there.
So this situation does not affect my Support. casualdejekyll 18:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to bring political views into Wikipedia especially those of Trump supporters. Tamzin's opinions should not affect whether you support the candidate or not. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 18:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SoyokoAnis: I entirely agree that editor's political opinions should not determine their eligibility for user privileges. That is why giving special powers to someone who vows to treat people differently for their political opinions makes me uncomfortable. Endwise (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They did not say they were gonna treat others differently, just does not believe those who support Donald Trump should not have administrator privilege's. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 18:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that voting against admin candidates whose politics who disagree with would be treating them differently. Endwise (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and yet, thats what we're doing now. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. The issue is that she said she wouldn't support someone because of their politics, not her politics.

If it were what we were doing now, why would you be complaining? That is what she said she would do as well, so it must be acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PerryPerryD you might have a different view on this issue to Endwise but you should try and not respond to every comment they make about this. We can all disagree on how much we trust Tamzin after their comment. RfA votes are a matter of trust, and if it has altered Endwise's judgement but not yours that's perfectly fine. We don't need to convince each other nor is this a game one wins. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin's opinions should not affect whether you support the candidate or not. – and you could say that is your opinion and should not affect whether you support the candidate or not... starting to remind one of the paradox of tolerance. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 18:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all who feel that the candidate is being judged entirely based on their political opinions. Honestly, no one is perfect and this candidate is no different. If someone could point out something she did based on their work, that could be a strong case (like the first oppose). But now people couldn't find anything... and now they are just trying to look for flaws relying on something she said. Anyway... these are just my opinions - feel free to disagree. But my support for her remains firm. Volten001 ^☎ 20:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks. Just woke up. Thoughts and question answers to kome. In the meantime, @PerryPerryD and SoyokoAnis: Obviously I wouldn't try to censor anyone in my own RfA, but since I gather both of your participation here is in an attempt to defend my candidacy: Could you please ease up? And by ease up I mean like... Find something else to do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]