Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39 2

Tanthalas39

Voice your opinion (talk page) (30/1/1); Scheduled to end 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) - Well folks, here we are with Tan again. As I said in my first nomination, this editor astounds me in his high level of clue, his dedication to the improvement of the encyclopedia, his civility, and the breadth and depth of his contributions in his time here. Back in February, I was randomly paired with Tan as an "admin coach", and was hesitant partly because of my own newness as as admin, and partly because I'd never run across this particular user before being paired with him. It was within days of "coaching" that I realized that I had nothing to offer Tan, he was "already there". At my own insistence, not Tan's, we went live with RfA#1 in March, and frankly ran into a wall of good faith opposition, (including strong opposition by Balloonman - see co-nom #2!) stating that Tanthalas simply needed more time under his belt. I was devastated as his coach, I still believe he was ready for adminship in March. However, Tan proved his merits by taking the whole thing in stride, going right back to editing and improving Wikipedia in his superb way, both in articles and in talk. Tan is active in the deletion arena, he's active in the military history WikiProject, and if you've been living and breathing inside Wikipedia, you've likely seen him around. In fact, I'm willing to bet some of you thought he was an admin already, because he already has the level-headedness, composure, and skill of one! I'm thrilled to have the chance at nominating Tan again for adminship now that the arbitrary "3 months" have passed whilst Tan gained more experience. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-Nom by Balloonman I was one of the leading voices behind Tan's first failed attempt. At the time, I didn't believe that he was ready. I still don't believe that people with only 4 months of active experience should be admins, but during my subsequent coaching Tan challenged that belief. Tan is a phenomenal editor with a solid track record. He's done everything that's been asked of him and has shown a level of responsibility that we need in admins. While he does use Twinkle, he doesn't do so blindly. Interspersed in his automated edits are quality content edits or personalized comments to users. He also has a knack for constructively dealing with criticism. I think it's time to give this guy the mop. At one point Keeper and I considered noming Tan after only two months, but Tan responded in a very mature manner indicating that the previous RfA suggested waiting three months and that there was no rush to get the buttons---not the response one would expect from a power hungry coachee. Balloonman (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Tan | 39 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since my previous RfA, I have had some changes in attitude here. While I don't think that I would have made a bad administrator before, I am certainly more circumspect now and am more aware of the subtle aspects of Wikipedia. I am also less "chatty" on here than I was before - I feel some people, while perhaps not even realizing it, use Wiki as a social networking site. Content is first and foremost for me, and I have been much less active in RfAs and drama-laden AN/I discussions than I previously was. My deletionist/inclusionist tendencies have also evolved. While I have never put myself firmly in either camp, I think I now err more on the side of caution. If I can save an article by referencing, cleaning, tagging, or establishing notability, I will. Especially satisfying is turning around an AfD with new evidence or arguments (here, here). I don't have a perfect track record, as evidenced here. I'm still learning - and hopefully always will be.

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to take part in any areas in which I feel experienced and comfortable. Right now this includes article deletion, RPP, AIV, dispute mediation, and the occasional AN/ANI thread where I feel I can help out. This particular question has always been odd to me, and I think I figured out why. When I read it, I have an image of someone sitting down at their keyboard, cracking a few knuckles, and jauntily embarking on admin-related activities. I plan to continue doing the same content building-interspersed-with-Wikignoming edits that I currently do, and as I feel completely comfortable with the admin tools, slowly working them into my edits. I assiduously avoid WikiDrama, and although I haven't been 100% successful in doing so, I believe it's the only way to stay sane on this project.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contribution is Landing at Kip's Bay (here's the difference) and a few other articles from the Revolutionary War Task Force. I have contributed significant content to articles from the Arizona Wikiproject also - Homolovi Ruins State Park, Oracle State Park, etc. Other contributions are on disambiguation projects, vandalism reversion, copyediting, and discussions on article deletion.

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: Although I try my best to avoid drama, sometimes it smacks you in the face. This discussion was a hard one for me, as I just couldn't understand the motives behind the belligerent (make sure to expand the archive). I had clashes with this particular user at several other pages, and occasionally thought about escalating the issue to RfC or something similar. However, I decided to just turn my energies elsewhere for awhile until the storm cleared, which worked well. While "taking a user to RfC" or other mediation forum might be a theoretical answer to a problem, they are usually predictably dramatic and even occasionally backfire. In this specific case, prudence ended up being the better part of valor, and I am back editing at the Revolutionary War Task Force with no problems. This isn't to say I will back down from every obstacle - I have no qualms about putting in my two cents or sticking up for what I think is right. However, my father taught me to pick and choose my battles, and being a history buff, I'd say it's an important lesson to learn. I "won" the Battle of Harlem Heights argument - it took a month of fortitude and patience, but it paid off. In the future, I expect I will deal with problems such as this in the same manner - always maintaining civility, assuming good faith wherever humanly possible, and knowing when to walk away.

Optional question(s) from Toddst1

4. What do you feel the role of an administrator is with respect to WP:Civil and how do you determine what is uncivil and what is not? -- Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

An interesting question. While I'm sure the short answer is that the role of a Wikipedia administrator is to "uphold WP:CIVIL", the longer answer is that I don't plan to put myself in situations where I am constantly required to do so. While I am careful to be very civil myself, other editors' incivility rarely bothers me - I have a thicker skin than some, I guess. That being said, if I were involved with, or pointed out to, a situation where an editor's incivility was disrupting Wikipedia to a point where it "crossed the line" (see below), I would act to warn the disrupter, and keep a watchful eye on the situation.

The second part of your question regarding what constitutes incivility is more nebulous. It's pretty cut-and-dry in WP:CIVIL regarding what is civil and what is not. However, one has to look at the motivation behind any alleged incivility - or accusation thereof. There are plenty of editors who come to AN/I with long, lively accusations of incivility, when the motivation behind it is merely that they do not like the POV/content-building/attitude/userpage of the accused. Every case has to be looked at and judged in its own context, and actions taken appropriately. I'm sorry this answer seems vague, but if you wish for more insight into this, perhaps giving a more specific scenario would be in order. Thank you for your question. Tan | 39 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

5. (folllowup from 4.) I've come across your edits on a number of occasions where you have tended to dismiss editors' acts where others have felt they were uncivil. As such, there's nothing wrong with this, and it attests to your statement above where you state you have thicker thin than some. However, as an administrator, you will have to understand that others may be deeply offended by actions that, were you in their shoes, you might have dismissed. Can you give an example of where you were involved in (or commenting on) a situation where the question of civility was raised and you took action identifying behavior and/or its consequences as uncivil rather than dismissing? -- Toddst1 (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying, if I am correct, is that as an administrator I cannot assume that other editors will have the "thicker skin" that I possess, and that I will have to deal with some "deeply offended" editors - offended that I do not take action, I presume. Well, as a non-administrator, I shied away from responding to ANI complaints - particularly claims of incivility, especially since a lot of the time I feel the "offended" editor would be much better served by learning to deal with borderline cases of incivility. Saying I "dismiss" these events paints a picture of me brushing off the pleadings of another, when that's really not the case - I've been dismissive of people being uncivil to me. It's one thing to warn an editor about vandalism, WP:V violations, etc - and another thing to bring incivility to ANI, which rarely goes well. Or rarely goes anywhere, for that matter. Sensitivity to incivility is not a good quality to have.

However, you are correct that I will have a responsibility as administrator to uphold the WP:CIVIL policy. While I don't edit in arenas where there is much tension and strife, I'm sure I will encounter it occasionally. I am unable to give an example of the situation you requested, but I can comment that if I were to decide that an editor was indeed being uncivil and the situation warranted intervention, I would give the warnings as I would any other violation - commencing with a friendly reminder, and escalating as appropriate. Tan | 39 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from InDeBiz1

6. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

General comments

• See Tanthalas39's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39
• Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39 2

• Links for Tanthalas39: Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tanthalas39 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Nom support Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Aye. Won't abuse the tools, reservations from last AfD RfA were only really over experience. Black Kite 18:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

   Last AfD or RfA? Pedro :  Chat  19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

   We can safely say RfA. :) Enigma ^message 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

   Oops. Admins for deletion? Eek. Black Kite 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'm with you there. Enigma ^message 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Support Seems sensible and knowledgeable enough. I've been impressed by his contributions to recent RFAs. Epbr123 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Did so the first time, and nothing has changed!--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support I trust this candidate not to abuse the tools. The delay since the first RfA (see nom statements) is also an encouraging sign of maturity and patience. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Per more experience MBisanz ^talk 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Candidate is trustworthy, honest, reliable, competent, principled, and above all, approachable. An excellent administrator candidate then. Rudget (Help?) 19:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

   That sounds vaguely familiar; if he's "a friend to animals" too, I'm in. Shocked to discover that after all this time (and it has been a very LOOOOOONG time) I still remembered the American version by heart. --barneca (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

   I can almost swear that it was Tanthalas39 I just saw petting a dog outside the hardware store a few minutes ago.--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 21:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

8. Strong support - I have been waiting for this. And seeing as I would have nominated him if given the chance I know he will do a great job as a admin, now give 'em the mop. Tiptoety ^talk 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Absolutely. The candidate has worked hard on the experience issues form his last RfA, and every comment and edit he makes is thoughtful and unrushed. No hesitation is supporting round 2. A pleasure to support. Good Luck. Pedro :  Chat  19:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support wholeheartedly. I've had nothing but good experiences with this editor, he appears to be a real asset to the project that could benefit from the tools. ~ mazca ^talk 19:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Support I don't usually (or ever) support this early on, but in this case, I know the candidate through seeing his interactions with Keeper and he impresses me with his civility and intelligence. Judgement looks good all around, I've done a deep review of his contribs and haven't found anything alarming. I can comfortably support. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Support I've had interactions with Tan in various locations but the one that strikes me most is this one. While I wasn't new to Wikipedia I was new to that type of article and his willingness to help is typical of his contributions to Wikipedia. Good quality to have in an admin. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Strong Support - From personal encounters with the candidate. Tan has proven himself to me countless times via his contributions and comments. Will make a fine administrator. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. Seen this user around. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. Lately there has been a string of highly qualified candidates at RFA and this one is no different. Looking over the contributions and communication I see no cause for concern, and there were no real issues at the last RFA other then a lack of policy experience which seems to have been addressed. MrPrada (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Strong Support (ec) Would be an asset as an administrator. Please give him the tools. Enigma ^message 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
17. naerii - talk 20:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Support. Seems like a sensible editor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Support per this.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
20. I’ll go through and look through a sampling of his recent contributions before this closes, but in my limited experience with this user, I’ve been quite impressed with his demeanor and clue level, and am quite sure I’ll confirm this initial support. --barneca (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Like last time. GlassCobra 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Support No evidence to suggest that he would abuse the tools. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
23. I should be opposing; this user clearly has absolutely no clue where to address MOS concerns. :) But seriously, I've had positive interactions with this user; he's very hard working; a prolific vandal-fighter; and a sensible editor who will not abuse the tools. It is an unequivocal support. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
24. Good luck Tan. You were one of the good ones. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
25. Strong support. dorftrottel (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
26. Support per nom. Vishnava _talk 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
27. Two Thumbs Up Well, everyone else is saying Support and I want to be different. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    Just because I'm in a nit-picking kind of mood, not everyone said Support! :) Enigma ^message 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

28. Yep I've had a look at his contribs, and I must say I'm impressed. The answers to the questions don't concern me. I think he could certainly benefit from having the mop. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. Nothing to indicate that the user would be less valuable or a problem with the tools. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: I very seldom oppose an RfA, but in this case, I must per answer to question 5. I cannot support a candidate that cannot identify uncivil behavior on Wikipedia. I've asked for examples of behavior that differ from what I have observed and the candidate states he/she is unable to provide any. I must conclude that my personal observations of this editor are consistent with behavior. Uncivil behavior is not hard to find on wikipedia and frankly, I think it should not be ignored. To be fair to the candidate, I am posting diffs of my observed dismissals, so it isn't just heresay:1 2 3 4 5 Toddst1 (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASIOC and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spelljammer crystal spheres, i.e. too exclusionary of understanding of our inclusion criteria and a bit confrontational in the crystal spheres one (which closed as keep). The reasoned argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nowlin Middle School makes it a weak oppose, rather than regular oppose. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. neutral for the moment as I have to go out. Not thrilled about this - given there's alot of http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Old+Jabo%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a hits on google]. I'll keep looking later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   Wow, really? An editor with the same name as the article creates it. No less than four editors in good standing "endorse" the prod with "Prod2" templates. A disruptive user removes the prod (see ANI). And your faulting Tanthalas for this? You've done nothing here but bolster my support. I encourage you Casliber, as your an excellent editor and very thorough in your work and dedication to Wikipedia, to reconsider your neutral. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   Google hits for a song does not make for a good test for notability, unless you're actually looking at the links themselves. The number itself is almost meaningless. The song has to chart, win an award, or be covered by reliable sources. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)