Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39 2

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

Final (78/7/5); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

Optional Questions from Nsk92:

7. Say you see an article where the deletion prod has expired but you personally disagree with the reason for deletion given by the user who added the prod. What do you do?

A:

8. Supposed there is an ongoing AfD for an article and during this AfD one of the participants tagged the article for speedy A7. Suppose also that during the AfD itself, but not in the article's text, someone presented verifiable evidence that the subject of the article may be notable or significant. Would it be appropriate to close the AfD as speedy A7?

A:

9. Have you ever formally invoked WP:IAR and if yes, could you point to a few examples of this?

A:

10. Suppose there is an ongoing AfD where the nominator gave a very poor and even frivolous reason as a deletion rationale, but where some other AfD participants put forward valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Would you do a speedy close of the AfD as having been improperly filed?

A:

11. What would you do if the article is nominated for an AfD but the nominator proposes a merge rather than deletion?

A:

12. Are there any situations you can think of where it would be appropriate to delete an entire BLP article about some person even if the person is notable?

A:

Optional question from GO-PCHS-NJROTC

13 Suppose a user with a fairly decent reputation here wrote legal threats and/or loud insults on your user talk page. What would you do? Would your response be any different if it was a well known sockpuppeteer?

A

Optional Questions from User:Geo Swan:

14. I respect people who can remember we are all, occasionally, fallible. I respect people who can openly acknowledge having made an error. It is not always easy when another party has been nasty. Even in those cases however, I believe it is important to acknowledge our errors. I try my best to own up when I realize I have made a mistake. And I feel entitled to expect administrators to do their best to do the same. Unfortunately, some administrators simply blow off those with questions about their decisions. If you are chosen to be trusted with administrator authority can you commit yourself remember you are fallible; consider challenges in light of the possibility each challenge might be the instance when you made a mistake; and commit yourself to openly acknowledging when you recognize you made an error? Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15. Will you list yourself in the category for administrators open to recall? Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Links for Tanthalas39: Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Does anyone know why the nominee still has not answered questions 6-13 above? Sure, they are optional, but it is still good form and customary to answer RFA questions. The questions have been up for at least two days now... Nsk92 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you have said, they are optional. You asked six questions at once, all of them quite wide-open and likely time consuming. If Tan exercised the choice not to respond to these, for various reasons he may have chosen, that doesn't mean he is acting in bad form. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. It is customary, even if not technically obligatory, to answer RFA questions. I have just looked through almost all the RFA cases closed in May and most people answered all the questions asked, with a few not having answered one question (usually the last on the list, probably asked late into RFA). For exaple, Ebpr123 (whose RFA is being considered now, was asked 19 questions and he answered them all). In the case of the present RFA, question no 6 was asked even earlier than I have posted mine and it has not been answered either. Yes, Tan is not required to answer optional questions, but, as I said, it is customary, and I believe, polite, to answer them. I had left Tan a message at his talk page inquiring about RFA questions and he did not respond to my message there either (even though his contribution record shows that he had been editing more than 10 hours later after my message at his talk page). It is a little impolite in my opinion. If he does not want to answer my RFA questions, he can at least say so, especially since I specifically inquired about it at his talk page. I find this behaviour a bit surprising for an editor who has been praized in this FRA for having a high level of clue. Nsk92 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Although we may disagree on what is customary regarding optional questions, I respect that you brought your concern here to the discussion area. There is a chance Tan missed your inquiry (if he got multiple talk posts while he was off). Maybe ask again, but your concerns aren't unwarranted. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

For what it’s worth, I happen to agree with the general sentiment of Tan’s statements in some of the diffs in the oppose section. The world, and particularly The United States, is full of people who seem to take some pleasure from being offended. What would have been brushed-off 30 years ago is now grounds for a civil rights lawsuit and proscriptive legislation. As a member of the “lighten up!” crowd, I feel that way too much is being made of the candidate’s comments. 2¢ —Travis^talk 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nom support Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]
4. Support Did so the first time, and nothing has changed!--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
6. Support Per more experience MBisanz ^talk 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
14. Support. Seen this user around. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
16. Strong Support (ec) Would be an asset as an administrator. Please give him the tools. Enigma ^message 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. naerii - talk 20:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. Seems like a sensible editor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support per this.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

    Yep, just as I suspected. --barneca (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21. Support Like last time. GlassCobra 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support No evidence to suggest that he would abuse the tools. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
24. Good luck Tan. You were one of the good ones. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Strong support. dorftrottel (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support per nom. Vishnava _talk 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Two Thumbs Up Well, everyone else is saying Support and I want to be different. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
30. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support without question —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Weak Support. After sifting through his contribs, I must support. My reason for the weak support is that 307 of his last 500 contribs were automated (either Twinkle, Popups, or Friendly) and I'm not a big fan of automated edits, although I am warming up to the idea. Useight (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 04:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - can't think of any reason not to and I trust both nominators' judgment. xenocidic (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - roughly ten percent of the things I say are Chuck Klosterman references, and Tan is the only editor who's ever noticed. But seriously, very good answers to questions, good philosophies & attitude, and a good track record. --JayHenry (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - anyone who uses my userpage design (well Phaedriel's actually) can't be all bad, but seriously, a net positive as long as you're careful with PRODs and AfD debates..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Weak support per User talk:Tanthalas39/AC#Assignment 3 in which the candidate acknowledges one of the problematic AfDs I linked to below as one that he "could have handled...better". I still disagree with him in some AfDs, but he appears to be responding to feedback proactively and I greatly appreciate his response to the oppose section below, i.e. he responded both civily and respectfully and is being open-minded. So, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. Deserving and ready. I see no red flags besides a few admitted mistakes here and there. No one is perfect all the time. — _Maggot^Syn 07:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support -- Thought this user already was one. I think I had a good experience with this user a while back. I will add the diffs if I find it. If not, I was just generally impressed by the user! Good luck! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support I have seen Tan do some good work with the more....awkward....members of our project and use the patience of a saint. This gives me faith in how he would use the tools, when needed and not before. Narson (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - He's ready for it this time. Has lingered in all the right areas as well as doing some constructive article work. Lradrama 11:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Yes! →Christian.И 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. ¡Sí! - Candidate is ready for the mop. —Travis^talk 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. I'm not changing my vote from last time, I still feel the same. It's time. Jmanigold (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support - trustworthy editor. Also, the answers to Q4 & 5 seem fine - under normal circumstances general incivility isn't blockable, while more severe personal attacks can result in a block. PhilKnight (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support This candidate is reasonably proficient in the running man dance. Keepscases (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support, looks good as far as I can see. Arkyan 16:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support, per Balloonman's link. I have a lot of respect for Tan, and he deserves the mop. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Strongest Possible Support in the Universe Support Now it happens?!(the Rfa):)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 23:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - no problems here, and anyone who uses the word "circumspect" properly is worthy of respect. --Rodhullandemu 01:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Valtoras (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. PRO - Agathoclea (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support just like last time. And he's even better now. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - I think Tan has shown growth and development since the last RfA. And I think that Tan's responses to the "civility" questions and my observation of Tan's responses in other fora show an understanding of the complexity of the concept. The candidate, I think, has shown good collaborative and communication skills which will serve us well. Risker (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. This is my attempt to balance those who have opposed over the candidate's answers to questions 4 and 5, and their notion that incivility even can be simply identified. Per Geogre's Neutral, and per common sense, and to support a candidate who has given the question of civility and WP:CIVIL actual thought, as opposed to automatically disgorging the desired, and impossibly simplified, answer. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
56. Support; everything looks good here. Including the answers to questions 4 and 5. Antandrus (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Don't think the editor will abuse the tools and his clarification of his stance on civility.— Ѕandahl 21:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Like last time. Also, I've seen the user since the last RFA and they've improved and always seemed good. Spencer^T♦C 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support agree with support comment by Risker above. —Apis (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. Intelligent and reasoned answers, worthwhile edit history, and I like the comments about civility; I look forward to working with this individual. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support done some checking over the last few days, and liked what I saw. Will be a good admin. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support No concerns. I spent some time looking at the civility issues raised and see more of a debate on the meaning of civility rather than uncivil behavior. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Rettetast (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support, although I would like to see an answer to my question above, if at all possible. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Including the debate on WP:CIVIL, I see no reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Why not? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I also support Tanthalas39's comments in the diffs linked in the first oppose. — Athaenara ✉ 04:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Athaenara - again ;-) (support #33) Tan | 39 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoops, I forgot I'd already supported! *doh* — Athaenara ✉ 06:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

67. Support. Seems to be capable of having admin tools. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. I encountered this editor just a while ago [here]. I found him extremely conscientious and more importantly open to my point of view. He meets my requirement of 6 months or more tenure, and proved in my discussion with him and in the questions above that he meets my second requirement of a working and obvious knowledge of policy and guidelines. I'll keep an eye on this page to see the answers to his remaining questions, but at this point he definitely gets the Ferdia seal of approval. Good luck good sir. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. Tan39 will not abuse the tools and will not make rash decisions in areas that he is unfamiliar with. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support I trust Tan and think he'd make an excellent admin. Eahiv (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support per nom. Looking great! Tiggerjay (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support : The oppose reasons doesnt pull me into the other side. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support like last time. (I still don't think he is Archtransit) Good editor, doesn't spend too much time chatting... and appears to have the temperament and judgement to act as an effective administrator. Experienced with content, anti-vandalism, deletion and protection—what more could we want? EJF (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, if that blue link wasn't so true, I'd probably be offended by that...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No offence Keeper, not really your fault; you're just the host/moderator :p EJF (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

74. Support. Shapiros10 WuzHere  21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. Having reviewed the questions and answers, the users contribution history, and taking into account the previous arguments, I find nothing substantive that would warrant opposition at this time. JeanLatore (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Looks good! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. To me, the civility issue in no way outweighs the positive contributions of this user. NauticaShades 15:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support - Solid contributions, likely to be a net positive to the wiki. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   I think I owe it to Tan to present this sleuthing and decent job of enforcing WP:Civil on his part here: 6. Toddst1 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, per questions 4 and 5. I'm not comfortable at all with the idea of admins that think that civility is no big deal and that editors should learn to 'deal with it' if they are the victim of it. Please don't take this oppose as a criticism of your record of contributions, or of your own civility, which as far as I can see are excellent. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
3. Oppose pretty much for the same reason as Lankiveil, and Toddst's diffs. Adminship is no big deal, but civility is.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose: You are my first oppose, and it is based on the reasons Toddst1 listed. I looked at the diffs he posted and I cannot support a candidate who doesn't take civilty seriously. Nor can I support an editor who thinks one policy is more important than another. Policy is policy and wether you become an admin or not thats something your going to need to learn fast.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™ |l»  05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose, I agree with the other opposers concerning the candidate's answers to questions 4 and 5. I regard WP:CIVIL as one of our most important policies; every admin should be ready and able to identify uncivilness and enforce the policy. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 14:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose per question 5, Toddst's diffs and Lankiveil. Civility is a real big deal.— Ѕandahl 20:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC) changing to support per candidate clarification of stance on civilty.[reply]

   I'm pretty sure Tanthalas agrees. I wouldn't nominate him otherwise. I'm abit baffled by this, as I've found Tan to be one of the most civil users here. Toddst1's diffs merely show an editor saying "can't we get along and not take offense to everything?" (very rough paraphrasing admittedly.). I won't harp on this, you are of course entitled to your opinion. Thanks for your participation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I am sure he is quite civil and didn't mean to imply otherwise. This diff in particular from ANI [1] tells me that he may be too quick to dismiss incivility and an administrator needs to be able to identify it and deal with it quite often. — Ѕandahl 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, it seems I should address this, as people seem to be jumping to conclusions regarding either my civility or my willingness to enforce it. As people have said, and a thorough examination of my contributions should show, I maintain civility at all times. If you look at Toddst1's diffs, these are not me being uncivil - these are me saying that other accusations of incivility are unfounded. Editors come into AN/I screaming "personal attack!" and citing WP:CIVIL, when in reality they are forum-shopping to try to get their way. Research of the actual situations of the diffs Toddst1 provided should show this clearly. I think my answers to 4 and 5 were also misread or misinterpreted (and possibly poorly written on my part). I do not condone incivility. Acceptable behavior is spelled out in WP:CIVIL - I didn't think Toddst1 needed me to rehash what constitutes uncivil behavior. As an administrator, when I encounter clear-cut incivility, I will act to warn the perpetrator and ensure it stops. I mentioned this in Q5, but I think that my expounding on cases of false incivility accusations sort of drowned out what these opposers wanted to see - that I would use these tools to enforce WP:CIVIL. And I will. Tan | 39 20:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Good luck finding those "clearcut" cases of incivility.  :-) Undefinable, by definition. (I'll also note that I'm very glad this discussion has remained "civil" :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   But how do you answer the real question, whether or not you trust Tanthalas39 with the tools? If he's not going to abuse the tools, by intent or accident, then I see no reason to oppose. I don't see any of the diffs above as indication that he might abuse the tools. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Let's not blow this out of proportion, guys. Like I said in the collapsed discussion below, these folks have the right to oppose. I said my piece, they can make their mind up as they will. Tan | 39 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Strong oppose - I hate to do a per vote, but per Toddst1.  Asenine  07:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
7. oppose -- I don't know the candidate, at all. But the candidate's unwillingness to answer questions during the {{rfa}} suggests an unwillingness to hold him or herself accountable to the rest of us if entrusted with administrator authority. Geo Swan (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Just an FYI, it doesn't look like he's been online since you put up your questions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree. Oppose him if you wish Geo, but for him, his contribs, his...whatever. Oppose him because you don't like words that rhyme with Tan for all I care, but not answering optional questions? (and Yes, I strongly believe they are optional)...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Aaanndd there we have it. No offense to the user who opposed, but here is more hard-line evidence that such questions are, in actuality, not all that optional. Another matter though, so I echo Keeper and Gwynand. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neutral for the moment as I have to go out. Not thrilled about this - given there's alot of hits on google. I'll keep looking later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Not really switched as neutral is a non-vote.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keeper, did you deliberately link COI? Old Jabo is the name of a song, not the name of a person. Surely you're not suggesting that a personification of the song wrote the article? Or that a user name that is a reference to a song indicates that said user is the singer! Should we block User:Yllosubmarine from editing about the Beatles on the assumption that she's very likely Paul McCartney? --JayHenry (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the choice of name the user adopted was possibly not a prudent one. I have never encountered the other editors who indicated the PROD was a good idea, apart from Black Kite and I have a fair idea on the divergence between his and my ideas on deletion/notability etc. and took that into account. I am not saying the article is automatically notable, just that there is enough evidence to cast doubt that PRODding was hasty. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah. Sorry JayHenry, I did link COI there. Probably a bit presumptuous, and inaccurate I agree. I see your point completely, I think I was thinking "single purpose", not COI. Stepping away from it, my apologies, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, is all continuing in nice, open, mature discourse so all good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral: I cannot support, since I don't know the candidate, and I don't like very fast nominations, no matter how clued in a person may be. However, are you folks really opposing because someone recognizes what all of us old timers know to be true, that "Civil" is impossible for any single person to define, that it cannot be and should not be enforced unilaterally, that we cannot weigh the contents of an edit for their intentions? I've just written a very long winded essay on civility. It's not quite ready for prime time, but it should be enough to illustrate why, if it's hard to know exactly what to do with civility, it's blindingly obvious that what a person does not do is go around looking for bad words. Geogre (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   To answer your question directly, Tan has come down consistently on the side of "that is not a violation of WP:Civil" when he has commented on civility with zero exceptions. I'm concerned more that Tan is dismissing the diffs as "forum-shopping to try to get their way" rather than commenting on his judgement. That shows a lack of responsibility. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I do recommend my essay, then. In fact, isolating comments and trying to weigh them is a bad idea. Civility is an abstraction, and only a wide community can determine it or create it. I generally reject people coming with examples, too, because, while I don't support the teenaged, wedgie-giving, crudity of SomethingAwful or the like, I also recognize that impolite speech is sometimes necessary and sometimes actually salutary. Geogre (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral Definitely inclined towards support, but I would like to see the remaining optional questions answered before committing. (And yes, I am aware that the questions are optional, before anyone jumps on me.) Horologium (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral I was all ready to support, but my review of the edit count showed a lot of activity in the last few months but very little in the previous year. I would have liked to question the candidate about that, but my reviewing also found a place where the candidate said they were not inclined to answer the further optional questions than those they had. Since I will not get an answer I shall not ask, and thus I cannot support - although AGF means I will not oppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, LessHeard, in my commentary that you read, I state that I would answer questions that are specifically geared to concerns about my editing. It sounds like your query would be very much concerned about my time on here. If you are at all so inclined, feel free to ask away! Tan | 39 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral, but regretfully. Yes, it's important for an admin to not be sensitive to impoliteness towards him--but also that he be sensitive towards peoples' impoliteness to others. In dealing with any admin situation, there will always be situation where other people have done this. they almost always don't need to be blocked, but they do need to be warned, (in my opinion usually informally). While of course any editor can and usually should do this, it's a fact of life here that many people do pay more attention when it comes from an administrator, and any admin should be willing to actively help enforce proper standards. An admin is a sort of referee, one of whose jobs is to quietly defuse conflicts by the implied us of authority. Tan says he expects to be involved in dispute mediation, In that sort of context, apparently "false" accusations of civility are often indicators that both parties, not just one, need to be warned about it. In the 5th item cited in this section, he condoned a user page "new message" manner that redirected to "Fuck", saying one didn't have to look at that userpage. But someone coming there would not know this. I have no objection to the use of "fuck" in a userpage in many contexts, but this is really stretching it. However, I'm not going to actually oppose the nomination over this, because I hope Tan has enough sense to learn from the various comments here.. DGG (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral Registering concerns with admin-mill candidates for the record. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:24, 10 June 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.