Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tanner-Christopher 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

FINAL (64/3/4); closed 16:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tanner-Christopher (talk · contribs) - Hello, this is my second time applying for an Administrator position as my first failed due to "no clear consensus" last year. As I extensively edit in my expertise (Food and Culture) on Wikipedia, I still feel that the Admin. tools would be an asset for me to continue improving Wikipedia. Some of this information will be a repeat fom my prior self-nom.

I first started out with Wikipedia editing articles for the WikiProject Wine in February of 2007 as I was taking a graduate class in wine history and found some of the articles to be missing relevant data. Shortly after, I found the WikiProject Food and Drink which is the parent project of the wine project, and I decided my efforts were better spent concentrated there. In the time I have been with the project I have completely updated the project page for visual appeal and ease of use. I have moderated discussion on the project's talk page as well as worked with the project's upkeep. I have assessed and tagged many of the articles for the project and when I found I was overworked by doing that and working on articles and other items for the project I sought out new members to assist me in the task of tagging and the projects members keep growing. I also created the monthly newsletter that goes out to our members which is exactly twelve months old as of this month (June). Since I became a member and spread the presence of the project through Wikipedia, our membership has gone from sixteen members to thirty-nine when I last applied for Admin. and it is now up to eighty-four. Although I am sure I am not the sole reason for this expansion, i would like to think I have played a part in it. I also update the Food Portal, which had been abandoned some months before hand and I also revamped the Wine Portal and brought it to "featured" status.

My articles contributions are all in the realm of food and wine, but mostly food. My largest contributions so far have been on the French cuisine (Brought to GA), Italian cuisine (Brought to GA), Korean cuisine, Food, Charcuterie, Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies (An article I created and brought to GA) amongst many others. I try to be diligent in reverting edits identified as vandalism and I attempt to warn and submit vandals when deemed necessary. I am a strong supporter of Wikipedia and feel that if I was given the abilities of an administrator on Wikipedia, I would be able to better serve the members of Wikipedia by being a definitive person that they can goto for assistantship with their personal work here. I thank you for your consideration and look forward to answering your questions.

As a final note, looking at my edit history from the last three months you will note that I had very few edits compared to other months. I was working dillegently on my thesis while teaching two classes in a culinary school. Early in the semester one of the instructors went out on leave due to illness and I filled in for four of his classes, so I was teaching six classes, writing my thesis and also traveling to either compete in American Culinary Federation competitions or judging them myself, writing for the local newspaper, and doing a monthly tv segment for a local TV channel so Wikipedia and my personal food blog took a back seat for a few months. Chef Tanner (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: As I have worked through the process of articles for deletion, I would assist in appropriately closing these articles. I have also familiarized myself with the process for intervention against vandalism and would help to appropriately block or comment on vandals reported. I would also utilize the tools for page protection.

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

A: As stated in my self description, I have numerous contributions in a number of cuisine articles with some being brought up to GA status and others working toward that process. Just to show I do not stick to just food and culture, I also created the article History of commercial tobacco in the United States, although I have not brought it up to GA status, it is a gosh darn good article in my opinion. I have also maintained a level of "featured" status on the Food Portal, and brought the Wine Portal up to "featured" status. I additionally have revamped the WikiProject Food and Drink along with a number of its subsidiary projects.

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 have had a number of stressful conflicts on the Korean cuisine article over the last approximate year. For the most part, I dealt with it with a level head and came back with the best conflict resolutions I could, using my sound background in academic research. At times my "opinion" were met with harsh criticism from one or two editors, but in time they ironed themselves out due to the fact that I believe I understand Wikipedia and its desire to have well documented sources from secondary resources without using a personal POV or controversial edits for the sake of creating controversy. Sometimes I just step away from the computer and do something else so that I don't get too stressed out, while other times require more drastic measures when edit warring occurs a third party needs to be brought in through Request for Comment, or requests for page protection when editors can not stop warring and need time to cool down. Then level headed proposals can be given for consideration, and in time the articles can be worked together with a decent amount of civility to get the article to a better laevel like it is now at Korean cuisine. That was rather lengthy, but I wanted to detail the depth of how far I worked to get this conflict resolved.

Question from Rudget

Q: - One of the main reasons your last RfA wasn't successful, was because that the participators felt that you didn't have sufficient experience to become an administrator. How and why do you think you've now overcome that obstacle? Rudget (logs) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: - Well it has been nine months since I put in the last nomination, issues were that I did not have sufficient experience with intervention against vandalism as I only had eight reports, I have familiarized myself more with the policies have reported forty vandals (not so many the last few months as I have been writing my thesis and teaching full-time). Another issue was that I did not have sufficient experience with articles for deletion but I have chimed in on the majority of those we have come up under the majority of food and drink deletion proposals in the last nine months. I have also familiarized myself with a number of policies through a number of issues that have risen in edit issues as noted in the comments about Korean cuisine which is not limited to that article, the same can be said with the history of working on Chef as well as some other articles, always in what I feel is a clear headed manner. I have also continued to work toward improving the WikiProjects I work with along with numerous articles which either I have created in that time or brought up to a higher standard.Chef Tanner (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases

Q: What are your thoughts on competitive eating?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: If you are referring to the article, I think it needs quite a bit of work including citations, changing of the list format to a narrative along with some other issues. If you are wondering how I feel about the competitions themselves, heck if someone wants to shove that much food into their gullet, all the more power to them. I do however find it a sign of the American diet of mass consumption for quantity over quality, but sometimes there is some quality in there I suppose. The competitions I judge are of a more fine-dining cuisine standard.--Chef Tanner (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from User:Filll

6. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?

A. To be honest, we can add as many policies as we want to Wikipedia but people will still be uncivil when they want to. That is part of the internet environment where anonymity has given some people the feeling that they can be rude to people as they will never meet them. I the Peaceful Polling Pledge is a great idea, but those who sign it were probably not going to be rude in the process anyways. I'll be honest, other than warning people for being uncivil there aren't too many things I can think of unless they are being truly rude and then they should be blocked in the normal manner from editing as they are disrupting Wikipedia as they would be doing in any other part of the project.--Chef Tanner (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, this is a pretty rational response, all things considered. I would like to think there is more that could be done, but maybe you are correct. Maybe nothing more can be done.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A.

Questions from User:Ncmvocalist

Still on neutral so 4 questions for you to answer. This vague incomplete thing might give some insight on how I look through it and decide. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. What is your opinion regarding a policy requiring all edits by banned users to be reverted?

A. I think that such a policy would be harmful because the user may have at one point made numerous great contributions but then became upset over some interaction with other users on an article and decided to vandalize said article or undergo a series of edit wars. Hopefully the user's earlier edits would've been seen by other users and would've been reverted earlier if they were vandalizing or against Wikipedia policies, but a review of that users prior edits would probably be the best action and then action taken not just a blanketed reversal.--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. If you were asked to review a block (according to the log, blocked for "personal attacks"), but in the editor's limited number of contributions, there are no personal attacks, but a large amount of edit-warring, how would you respond? What actions (if any) would you take? Assume the blocking admin is away on holiday.

A. I would look at the nature of the edit warring and see what the nature of the edits were. Edit warring can have personal attacks inside of them based upon cultural issues such as issues with cultural food taboos like dog meat and vegetarianism. I would also take into consideration that the blocking admin. accidentally tagged the block which I have seen in the past and if there was obvious evidence of edit warring I would leave the block in tact believing that the admin. made a simple human error and comment on the user's request to be un-blocked my reasoning and wait for the admin. to return. If it is an extended block and the admin. is away for an indefinite time I would probably have to analyze whether the block is too excessive for edit warring and take action accordingly, meaning limiting the block to a shorter period rather than a potentially lengthier block.--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. Given that blocks can be (and often are) undone, would you say that it doesn't matter too much if a mistake is made (in making a block)? Discuss.

A. I think it would be important to note to the blocking admin. that an error may of occurred in the block, but I alos feel that the block should be discussed with the blocking admin. not just removed. I don't think any sort of reprimand is in order unless there is an obvious case of bias toward the editor that the admin. blocked. Just because a person becomes an admin. doesn't mean they do not have the capability to use those abilities to damage the integrity of the project, and if the admin. if attacking the user then the admin. should have his status reviewed.--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11. What effect does incivility among contributors have on Wikipedia achieving its purpose (and what is that purpose)? Is incivility treated more seriously than other policy violations? Why do you think so?

A. Incivility is damaging to the process of improving Wikipedia as it may keep editors that would otherwise have made great contributions to an article from doing so. Not everyone has as thick of a skin as some of us may who can make a decent argument against what is essentially an "internet bully" based upon one of my earlier statements in Q6. "anonymity has given some people the feeling that they can be rude to people as they will never meet people." I have encountered a decent amount of incivility myself which kept me from editing articles early in my editing fun here on Wikipedia as I didn't want the stress, but in time dealt with the issues in my own way, sometimes with the aid of an admin. and other times on my own utilizing tools like Request for Comment and Request for Page Protection to keep edit warring from continuing on articles in which I desired to improve. I believe there are multiple tools at our disposal which we can use to fight incivility, not only blocking or banning of users. I find all violations of Wikipedia policies to be degradations to the project, incivility has levels of severity however, so to say that it is the worst of all of all offenses can be a bit of an overstatement in certain cases.

I view personal attacks, especially when they are obviously cultural in nature to be much more harsh, which to me are also an excess of incivility so in that case i would say that is one of the worst offenses. General incivility where a user consistently argues incoherently against a users edits on a page is more of a nuisance and can be dealt with in other ways by editors using the tools I mentioned earlier (Request for Comment, Page Protection, Arbitration, etc.)--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question(s) from Flaming

12. What is your opinion on this years' April Fools' pranks: were the perpetrators using bad judgment by "abusing" their admin powers, or were the blockers using bad judgment by implementing unwarned, almost uncalled for (as the "pranks" were relatively harmless) blocks?

I think perhaps it may of been bad judgment more than abuse. I certainly would not of made the choice to do such a prank as it would seen unproductive to Wikipedia as no one else knew their reasoning. If some sort of April Fool's jokes were to be undertaken by administrators, it should be done with a consensus by all administrators so that everyone knows that they aren't vandalizing and everyone would be on the same page. However, I still find it somewhat problematic, I find putting up FA of the different George Washington instead of the American president and perhaps some slightly misleading DYK facts would be more inline with what a public encyclopedia would do as this is still (hopefully) a learning place for most who visit the site.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13. If given the chance, would you take part in any "pranks" or "jokes" that involved your administrative powers on Wikipedia, even if they were small?

No, I have better things to do with my time.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question(s) from Caspian blue

14. You said earlier that per WP:NOR, any original research should not be allowed within Wikipedia since it can introduce factual errors to readers, so that Wikipedia could lose its credibility. Unfortunately many food related articles contain factual errors stemmed from such practices or are not referenced at all. My question is how do you manage such people who habitually produce original research regardless of advices and warnings if you become a sysop?

This is hard in many cases because it would mean deleting a large amount of articles from Wikipedia. This is why we have "fact tags" which will point out that either an individual statement is questionable without a citation or we can tag an entire article with a banner stating that the article sounds like original research such as the banner I placed last November on Jewish cuisine. However, grossly egregious statements should be dealt with more expeditiously, I would suggest contacting the editor who made the statement and ask that they source their statement, and if they are unable to do so the statement should be removed. i will add that I am greatly in favor of promoting sound academic texts whenever possible over the use of websites, especially personal websites, and blogs which are often written with a POV by people who may or may not have a bias. Nothing beats the quality of a using a well-written, well sourced academic text which I always lean upon when possible as evidenced in Italian cuisine, French cuisine, Korean cuisine, and Japanese cuisine.Chef Tanner (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15. Aside for your food related articles and portals, your wiki space activities are mainly within WP:AFD and WP:AIV and You expressed your concern on the original research. Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard is a relatively new noticeboard to resolve such matters. So are you willing to help people there?

I have not been there yet and would certainly like to assist there, I would especially like to help others decide what a proper secondary resource is. Many people believe that just because it is written in a book or on a website it is true. it is important to read and understand the authors sources and not just take them on face value.23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Chef Tanner (talk)

16. You've done good jobs to resolve a series of disputes at the article of Korean cuisine, especially dog meat section. I think there would be similar disputes in other food articles. How would you meditate such issues with what standard in the future?

I will admit that one was a challenge at times, but as I read someone on Wikipedia once, the best way to deal with issues is to step away from the screen and take a breath and come back clear headed, now obviously I can't tell people to do that, but when things get too rough there are tools available to use to promote that such as the temporary protection I requested on Korean cuisine which gave everyone a few days to walk away and work on something else and as you probably noticed the edit warring ceased as people found better things to do and then it gave us the ability to give sound suggestions as to how to fix the issues without arguing, which was to use sound secondary sources written by academics who understand the issue.

An issue that may arise occasionally is that not all articles have secondary sources available which was a case for Korean cuisine up until last month when Professor Pettid of the State University of new York at Binghamton wrote his text on the subject, so sometimes it is best to discuss with people to wait on writing about a subject until a proper source arises. We are working on writing a public encyclopedia, hopefully not a simple database that will go into some pulp-culture television show 20 years from now, as such we all need to work together in a non-combative way, however, some just find it necessary to be combative for the sake of being combative and that is why there is a blocking and banning process which is the final solution to your question, which when happens is regrettable but sometimes necessary. I apologize for diverging there for a bit in spots, but I felt there were some important comments to add.

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

• Links for Tanner-Christopher: Tanner-Christopher (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/Tanner-Christopher before commenting.

• Regarding Filll's question (#6), is it really fair to have people judge the candidate on his/her views of your personal sub-page proposal?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be inappropriate. But I think asking candidates how they would cut down the rancor associated with RfAs, RfBs etc is quite reasonable. For example, my draft proposal might very well be flawed, and explaining how and why it is flawed would produce valuable information on which to judge the reasoning ability of a candidate. After all, a successful candidate will be called on to make these kinds of judgements all the time. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds reasonable. Sorry.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are a graduate student? Sounds interesting... tell me about your thesis. Bwrs (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be specific on my thesis as I plan to have it published but it has to do with studying the foodways of during the American Revolution in the New York colony. I'm hoping to get it published in the journal Food, Culture, and Society which I am currently reviewing another article for.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support.Per you very impresive improvement since your last RFA.Gears Of War 14:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. 01010011011101010111000001110000011011110111001001110100 Naerii 14:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rudget (logs) 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I believe the user in question is fairly trustworthy. After a review of his contributions, I haven't found anything to strongly suggest he would abuse the tools. A fine example of a "one-topic" specialist editor. I am not 100% satisfied with the tagging for Image:TimRyan.jpg (it should really be tagged with {{Non-free promotional}}), and please remember to include full rationales for future fair-use image uploads, but this error is not enough to make me oppose since it is at least tagged as a copyrighted image. Please remain cautious. Please use the tools sparingly. I don't want thank-you-spam though. Mahalo. Oh, a side note, in case you care... it is my opinion that you look much nicer with the shaved head. ;-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
6. Possibly the best way to come back from a failed first RfA. Well done and good luck. weburiedoursecretsinthepark 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - trustworthy editor who has addressed the concerns from his previous request. PhilKnight (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - Nice improvements. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Good editor. Good response to my question--I meant competitive eating in general, but the critique of the Wikipedia article seems valid. Keepscases (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Best, --Eric (mailbox) 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - Based on his work on the WPFood project, I believe Chris to be dedicated to improving WP by ensuring articles are truly well researched and of the highest quality. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Good luck. Malinaccier (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Weak Support Opposer Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles makes a strong point, but for now Support. America69 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support — self-noms demonstrate the boldness demanded of an admin. –xenocidic (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. I see no trust issues here, and I am pleased to support. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 18:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support A vote of support gets with a free meal, yes? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support I looked through a fair few of your contributions and can't see any obvious problems. Though you don't have much experience at AfD I still trust you to make appropriate, consensus based closes. RMHED (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support the user has a clue, a very good one :) -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - Good user, I don't care if it's a self-nomination. macy^talk 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - Some nice work done by this editor, will not abuse tools, I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of bravery and admirable self confidence. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 22:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - all of the concerns from the last RfA seem to have been more than adequately addressed. I see no reason not to trust this user. Shereth 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - trustworthy editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Trustworthy and deserving user. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 05:19:55
24. Support - I get a strong feeling that I can really trust this user. Excellent article work too, and extensive Wiki-project participation. Lradrama 10:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Seems trustworthy, activity isnt that important to me. MBisanz ^talk 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Shortly after his last nomination was closed, I offered to nominate Tanner-Christopher should he decide to run again. He would have been very welcome to take me up on my offer. I believe he has the right mix of experience and temperament to make a fine administrator. WjBscribe 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support: He's definitely given us food for thought. --Bedford ^Pray 19:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. First, it's important to have expert admins in all fields to help sort out issues that arise from that family of articles. A chef is as much a specialist in his field as literature scholars in theirs. Second, no evidence that this is anything but a smart and kind editor and a good collaborator. --JayHenry (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Encountered this fellow on the Hors d'oeuvre talk page. Great editor; does the hard stuff (i.e., research) and remains civil. The project needs more foodie admins (and level-headed, helpful content experts, in general).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Impressive edits and per Q6. I like your respectful disagree. You're neither sucking up nor combative.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Brings a unique perspective to the project and understands the rules at the same time <3 Juppiter (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support -- Our culinary articles definitely need work to them! Just the man for the job! = ) --Cameron* 09:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - looks good to me. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. ...as a fellow "diligent" editor, support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - It seems that the extra time has served him well. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Strong support - completely convinced, per the Q&A I was assessing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support to help even out Asenine's "OR reply" oppose. May reconsider if Asenine decides to strike his oppose and if any serious concerns come to light. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support: I view self-noms as indicative of someone eager to help improve the encyclopedia.  RGTraynor  20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Bwrs (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support per WJBscribe. Not the nomination offer part, but the other thing.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 01:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Excellent answers to all the questions, wonderful article-space work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support good 'pedia builder. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support I was on the fence last time around, I have a good feeling about it now. Keegan^talk 06:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - To balance a prima facie rubber-stamped oppose.  Channel ®   21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Strong Support A trustworthy and committed encyclopedist. Sterling behavior and contributions. VanTucky 04:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Strong candidate and subject expert, sensible answers to questions and lack of drama. Meets my criteria. Good luck. Orderinchaos 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong Support I'm impressed by his sincere and trustworthy answers as a future administrator as well as his outstanding contributions to Wikipedia.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support as the reasons I gave durign the first RFA have simply been enhanced with time. Good to see that you came back to RFA!--chaser - t 16:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support, per perusal of contribs, and my previous reasoning with regards to adminship being not that big a deal. S. Dean Jameson 20:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support, agree with Gears of War (talk · contribs), great improvement, some wonderful quality contributions. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support — BillC ^talk 00:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support: good editor; sensible candidate. Jonathunder (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Great work at WP:F&D. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Contributions are good no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support, no problems. Wizardman 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support It seems per question 4, you have gained much more experience since your previous RFA. tabor-^{drop me a line} 03:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - Merzbow (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Sure, if you're crazy enough to want the bit. I actually would have nominated the good chef myself had I known he was interested in adminship. From a chocolate lover, Sarah 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support I thought I already voted but I guess not. So there. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - looks good.   jj137 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Clearly has addressed the issues from last RfA. My interactions have all been positive and I trust him with the tools. Level headed and good member. — Becksguy (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I appreciate your opinion, but honestly it is just to help out the project as we don't have many active admin. in the WikiProject Food and Drink to help out with some of the issues I had stated above. I really don't look at Wikipedia as a place for me to get power. I have a highly successful career as a chef instructor, published author, culinary judge, as a small business owner, and I'm about to finish my masters degree. I don't really need to seek "power" here on Wikipedia to supplement my life. Wikipedia is here to help others learn about subjects in an easy to access format and having administrator tools will help this content stay consistently accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanner-Christopher (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   No point arguing, he's entrenched in his opinion. –xenocidic (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't know if this affects your opinion Kurt, but Tanner-Christopher has had a standing offer of a nomination from me since last November. WjBscribe 19:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The fact that he chose not to take advantage of that makes it even worse. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I simply forgot, it was nine months ago.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Um… how? –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. - Kmweber"

   So Kurt, the power hunger comment is truly from your own sweet experiences with your self-nom for your RFA in 2005 and 2008 board election?

   Your all the same opposing rationale at any RFA is just like a bot-generated comment. That is not creative.[1][2][3][4][5]

   I see you only cast "oppose" at any RFA, and "keep" at any AFD. Anyone thinks that this behavior unproductive? At least, I do. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The community disagrees with you. His RfA was, wait for, it over two years ago. Board elections are only self-nomination; there is no procedure there by which one may be nominated. Sorry, no dice. —Giggy 09:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I do not understand your mispresenting Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber as 'the community disagree with "me". I could only find that the RFC was filed for his problematic conducts by several people as of November 2007 (you missed it to say unlike the other cases) and many people expressed concerns about his behaviors at RFA. Thus, you should clarify "the community" as "some of people" in the community "at that time". No matter how time past, the fact does not change; "Kurt Weber self-nominated for his RFA and board election.", which cases are all contraction to his opposing comments to any RFA.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps you misread some of my comments. The outcome of the RfC was that Kurt's votes were/are considered valid and not disruptive. That is a consensus of the community. The board elections are self-nom-only—there is no way Kurt could run for board without self nominating. Attacking him for doing so is ridiculous. Attacking him for something he did over two years ago is equally ridiculous. I'm a strong believer in leaving him alone. —Giggy 12:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps you misread and refuse to understand what I'm saying. I don't misread the RFC on him and I've acknowledged his votes always to have taken as "valid". However, regardless of the validity, many people have considered his behavior disruptive at the provided links above. The community is not a consequentialism-centered place unlike your implausible assertion, but always values "process" high by people. Besides, you seem to not understand Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change properly. The consensus on November 2007 is not the same of these days. (well, I could find so many complaints on his "power hunger" at his talk page and RFA talk pages though). Over two years, he has been producing the same opposing comment at RFA after his self-nom, so this issue has been ongoing unlike your thinking. He is allowed to accuse (speak) self-nominators of power hunger, so I have a right to speak "the truth" regarding his self-nomination. As for 2008 board of election, I see it is a clear case of contradiction. So stop making yourself ridiculous for now. You're attacking me that is also an irony to your saying.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per [6] (the yearly volumes of Britannica and almanacs cover notable news stories) and [7] (verifiable information that does not advance a thesis is not original research). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I totally agree with you on the latter entry, but I was going along with Wikipedia policy not my own personal feelings. Honestly someone like yourself and myself who have done graduate work are clearly capable of doing original research, the policy is meant to keep those who do not understand the process as-well-as keeps plagiarism down a bit. As for the earlier issue, again I was going with what seemed like Wikipedia policy, if the policies were to change which I think I would like to be in on with the discussion, I would certainly change my votes. I just felt I should clarify my votes there.--Chef Tanner (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Your reply here is making me change my view from neutral to oppose. Original Research has no place in Wikipedia. Hopefully I am reading your reply incorrectly, but "like yourself and myself who have done graduate work are clearly capable of doing original research" has nothing to do with Wikipedia. So I am questioning your understanding of WP:ORDbiel ^(Talk) 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You misunderstood my statement, I meant that he and I personal have the "ability" outside of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not the place to use original research. I was attempting to compliment him on his graduate degree.--Chef Tanner (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for the clarification, I suggest you be a bit more careful in your choice of words, remembering that is is a RfA and not a user's talk page. As written, it clearly raised a major issue. Thank you for clearing that up. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   No, it doesn't. You just didn't comprehend it. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for the polite clarification; I do, however, respectfully disagree with that interpretation of policy, but it does not mean that you have not done other work that I think has benefitted our project. How potential admins are likely to close AfDs is just a very important thing to me, because an AfD that results in delete can undo maybe even years of work by numerous editors and so it is something I think needs to be considered very carefully, i.e. when we absolutely think there is no chance whatsoever that the article under discussion can be improved further. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong oppose - Your reply about original research has me very, very worried. I notice that you have clarified, but I see no way that your original response could have meant that. If you can convince me otherwise, I will definitely change to support.  Asenine  17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   If you look at all of my work and comments I have made on talk pages for articles, I have always used secondary sources and kept people from using primary sources. Please check French cuisine, Italian cuisine, Korean cuisine, Food, Chef, History of commercial tobacco in the United States, Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies for evidence of my use of secondary sources. A perfect example is Jewish cuisine where I have commented on the information coming directly from the Bible instead of secondary sources, I have made similar comments on other articles as well. The word "capable" used in this context means personal skill, not the action of doing.--Chef Tanner (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Asenine, I, for one, find his clarification completely plausible, because of the word "capable". Imagine if I said: as an artist I am clearly capable of designing a new logo for Wikipedia. Would you interpret my statement to mean that I believe I am allowed to change the Wikipedia logo? It's pretty clear to me that the Chef understands the difference between his real world capabilities, and what is and is not permitted on Wikipedia. Even if his wording was unclear in this one particular instance, it's clear from his lengthy editing record that he understands. --JayHenry (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand, Jay, but my concern is mainly that when he said "the policy is meant to keep those who do not understand the process as-well-as keeps plagiarism down a bit" sounds like he thinks the OR rule does not apply to him, or certain other areas.  Asenine  21:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   I think you are reading into the statement, again by reading each and every contribution I have ever made to Wikipedia, you'll see that it is all made from properly sourced secondary, not primary resources (which would be original research which I do for my graduate degree and for my work which was what I was trying to state is what I do outside of Wikipedia not on Wikipedia), secondary sources meaning that it is not original research which negates the argument which you seem to be making that I feel I am above the system. For a finite example of how I have attempted to enforce non-original research you can see this comment on Jewish cuisine along with the plethora of articles I just listed above which if you read through their entire history, I removed all of the original research and replaced it with sound academic secondary sources. About the only thing I could say was actually negative about the statement was that I might of been acting arrogant about my intelligence.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose. Concern: the candidate's intention (here) to use the admin tools specifically for WikiProject Food and Drink, which includes contentious subject areas in which he has been deeply involved. — Athaenara ✉ 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The intention was meant that people from within the project would be able to contact me that already know me for help with issues such as page protection and others as I know the issues with greater clarity in the subject of Food and Drink rather than someone from outside of my expertise and the projects and its subsidiaries. My interaction has never been to subvert another users proper edits, rather to promote civility and proper publishing of well documented and non-pov encyclopedia articles. If you look at the "contentious" areas such as issues with the Korean cuisine or Chef articles, I have always used consensus to garner the trust of other editors, all be it with stating my specifics of knowledge with hopes to convince people, always in the end the decisions have been made with the best interest of Wikipedia and by following all the WP:guidelines and WP:Policies prescribed to the best of my ability.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral - current edit history seems to show a lack of envolvement. 3 months of very few edits followed by one month of activity. I would think that an administrator would be a bit more consistant in his activity. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment - please read his explanation above, as he was busy finishing his graduate thesis as well as being busy with a heavy teaching load. He has just recently returned. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Reply - Definately explains the time off, but I would personally expect more than a one month return, just my point of view, and also why I posted as neutral rather than as opposed. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I maybe changing from Netural to Opposed based on the most recent reply regarding Original Research which appears to be saying this he belives it is acceptable if the editor is qualified to do so. Waiting for his reply prior to actually changing my position. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Reply cleared the air. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Reply to Dbiel - his explanation should be enough to say why his return only lasted one month of general activity. Wikipedia participation is dictated by real-life events you know, and sometimes they restrict our access on Wikipedia. There is no rule that admins have got to be active for a certain amount of time each month, so to say I expect more than one month return is a bit unfair. At least he is doing better than many current admins in terms of how active he is; take ElinorD and Phaedriel as just two examples. Lradrama 10:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Reply - As stated, it is just my POV, and I will agree that it is stricter that what appears to be the accepted standard, which is why this remains as a neutral vote instead of an opposed vote. Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Unconvinced - might need to add my own questions in the absence of anymore Q&A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Switched to support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral. I don't think that "List of movies that take place in one day or less" is original research. Each entry on the list is verifiable with a reliable source. Rather the list is listcruft (all points except 4, 9 and possibly 6). Axl (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. Switched from oppose (see above). — Athaenara ✉ 22:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral. While there is no reason to think you will abuse the tools, new administrators should avoid administering in subject areas they edit, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Given that you are a specialty editor, you won't have much need for the tools. I encourage you to spread your wings and spend at least 20% of your time and, at least initially, over 50% of your administrative time on topics unrelated to your personal interests. Also: You wrote "... if I was given the abilities of an administrator on Wikipedia, I would be able to better serve the members of Wikipedia by being a definitive person that they can goto for assistantship with their personal work here." You do not need administrative tools to become a leader in the editorial realm. Your work so far with the newsletter and elsewhere has already established you as a leader among editors. Being an administrator is more like being a janitor than being a team captain. They require different skills. Are you really sure you want to be a janitor? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.