Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tangotango

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

Tangotango

[edit]

Final (109/0/0) ended 10:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tangotango (talk · contribs) – It is with great pleasure that I nominate Tangotango for adminship. Many of you probably know him as the creator of the very useful and popular RFA Analysis tool. Tangotango, who first joined the project in March 2005 (active since Feb 06) is an amazing Wikipedian who has contributed to multiple areas of Wikipedia. A highly effective RC Patroller, he has made umpteen reports to Administrator intervention against vandalism and also actively participates in the Articles for Deletion discussions. He has helped innumerable newbies get acquainted with Wikipedia at the New contributors' help page, Help Desk and the #wikipedia-bootcamp. His IRC bot (Tangobot3) regularly provides updates from the Help Desk and the New contributors' help page to the Bootcamp. He is also active in mainspace, making several contributions to Japan-related articles. He is the founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains in Japan and has helped improve Wikipedia's coverage in this area. His interactions have always been found to be very civil and courteous. I sincerely feel that Tangotango will be an amazing administrator given his dedication to the project, obvious technical expertise and high level of civility. Thanks -- Srikeit (Talk | Email) 10:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept and thank Srikeit for nominating me. - Tangotango 10:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Nominator Support Alright lets get this underway! --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 10:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Why not? :-) Jude (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aye. NSLE 11:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. {{RfA-cliche1}} Kimchi.sg 11:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mmm... tango Support, of course. — FireFox 11:15, 19 June '06
  6. Support --Ioannes Pragensis 11:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, no question. dewet|✉ 11:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support without delay =) doktorb | words 11:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, Tangotango will surely be a good administrator! Jacek Kendysz 11:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Competence, common sense and usefulness. No further criteria, m'lud. robchurch | talk 11:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Merovingian {T C @} 11:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Very good contributor. Afonso Silva 12:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - With pleasure. --Bhadani 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Yep. DarthVader 12:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. But where are the Help: and Help talk: namespace edits!? And what about the MediaWiki talk: space edits!? Disgraceful. You need to improve this, or you'll be beaten with a fish. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 12:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Answered my question, good user.--SomeStranger(t) 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, gladly. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I like the more original answer to question 1 - sounds like a good use of the admin tools. (NB: Despite the similarity in names, I have no connection to this candidate.) --Tango 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --W.marsh 13:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. CLEARED for adminship Helpful to the newbies, among other users; won't abuse the admin tools. --Pilot|guy 13:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support, Tangotango is a friendly, great and helpful editor. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 14:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - With unalloyedpleasure. --sumal
  23. Strong support I was apparently the 3rd person to bug 'em to try for admin! :-) I've had very good confrontations with this user.--Andeh 15:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Helpful user. Especially with the answer to question 4. -- 9cds(talk) 15:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support Will be a great addition. Yanksox (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. SushiGeek 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support on Wheels - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. SupportHighway Rainbow Sneakers 15:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Good all-round user, meets all my criteria. --Wisden17 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Wikiw00t! Iolakana|(talk) 16:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Civil, newbie-friendly, great wiki philosophy in general, good answers to questions, dedicated editor. --Fang Aili talk 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - excellent user. --Xyrael T 16:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Textbook candidate. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - per Tawkercat! Meow! -- Tawker 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, good user. --Tone 17:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, per nomination; good deal! --Mhking 17:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, great answers. Roy A.A. 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. White Rabbit Support (Because I'm late! I meant to vote on this one much, much earlier!) ~Kylu (u|t) 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support the promising candidate having a positive outlook and friendly nature. Still, I would have preferred the candidate restricting the answer to Q1 below to only admin-related works. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. How is this person not yet an admin?!?! Agent 86 18:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per nom! —Khoikhoi 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support for his contribution to Wikipedia and apparent will to continue! Also familar with Wikipedia process. --WinHunter (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support — The King of Kings 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Well, if things continue going this way you just might win. On a serious note, this user is completly deserving of the admin. tools, and I trust him with whatever he does. Thetruthbelow 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Everything looks good to me.--MONGO 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong oppose per above. Less candidates like this, please. --Rory096 21:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above? What do you mean. There are no other oppose votes. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that's what happens when people move your vote without permission. --Rory096 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this is what happens when you make mistakes and continue to make mistakes. First you voted "strong oppose" but put it in the support section. Yet, in your edit summary, you wrote "strong oppose" but incremented the support counter ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tangotango&diff=59513048&oldid=59511062 here). Then, you move your vote back to the support section, yet don't fix your "strong oppose" vote. Pepsidrinka 02:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh God... This is not real opposition. This was intentional. Good enough? --Rory096 03:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is okay, but why are you shouting ? Tintin (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To make sure it's clear and everybody understands. Apparently putting it in the support section, incrementing the support count and moving it BACK to the support section when it was moved wasn't enough. --Rory096 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support good user and many excellent contribs. Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 22:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --Ixfd64 22:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support abakharev 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Pepsidrinka supports. 23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support of course, per the Editor Review.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I-could-swear-you-were-already-an-admin-support. No, realy. I swear you were. --james(lets talk) 01:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per a good answer to question #1. Λυδαcιτγ 02:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. I see no reason to oppose. Productive Wikipedian... would probably be a good admin. Nephron  T|C 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Everything checks out here; no reason to oppose. What does Celestianpower's comment mean? Grandmasterka 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Hell no! Ok, Yes ;) :D --Nearly Headless Nick 07:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Very helpful, can't see why he shouldn't be admin. MichaelBillington 07:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Support Support Support Support Support Support I would be in euphoria if I supported anymore. Sorry Tango. Raichu 15:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support great editor, unlikely to abuse admin powers--TBCTaLk?!? 18:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, no explanation necessary. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, It's about high time that you tango with the mop.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, without reservations. Sango123 20:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Total support Computerjoe's talk 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support--Jusjih 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Good editor and I think will make a good admin. Jordy 12:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 13:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - because he's not too stuck-up to help newbies like me with little things. Ste4k 14:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Silly season Support Good editor. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong support. Definitely. -- Steel 17:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support. Very friendly, and came when I called for help. He is a helpful contributor, and Adminship is what he deserves. Booksworm Talk to me! 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Nevermind2 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Looks good. Freddie Message? 00:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Of course, yet another fine candidate. -- Banes 06:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support blue520 06:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong support - obviously. —Celestianpower háblame 07:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Joe I 08:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Japanese trains are surely better than the Czech ones. :) - Darwinek 09:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Passes My RFA criteria Anonymous__Anonymous 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Sorry, I thought I had already voted on this. --Guinnog 18:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support a professional user. Administrators must be well-rounded, reliable, and professional contributors, because you'll have new users looking up to you (and trust me, that's more important than custodial duties, since you have a chance to set the right example). I would like to see more edits, but that's no big deal whatsoever. — Deckiller 19:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support for all the great reasons above. ---J.S (t|c) 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support to avoid help out with pile-on. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support will make a great admin Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. I dunno, this may be too many Rfa cliché #1 votes in one day... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Good editor, deserves the new tools. DVD+ R/W 00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support As per above. *~Daniel~* 01:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support per nom, and a quick review of edits showed me this user is mostly helpful and contibutive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HResearcher (talk • contribs) 05:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support; had interaction with this user; always polite and helpful. Lectonar 11:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support A great editor; precise, informative and willing. Great to have a conversation with, and easy to approach. --Ali K 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support I just read through his answers and discovered that not only did I learn a lot about him as an editor/potential admin, I learned a lot about wikipedia from them too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juneappal (talk • contribs)
  93. Support --Jay(Reply) 03:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support --Runcorn 09:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support per all of the above. — Vildricianus 12:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. troppuS andreW emertxE per Tawker Werdna (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Tangotango will soon be making a bang-o when he dances the tango with a mango and his friends Jango and Sango when he joins the admin gang-o. He will be a defender, just like former NHL goaltender Darren Pang-o and to all vandals he will bear a fang-o. Yup, if I were a vandal I'd soon be saying "Dang-o, that Tangotango just crushed my vandalism with a thud and a clang-o." Teppupkcos 02:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User indef-blocked (name is "sockpuppet" backwards). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Yup Yup. pschemp | talk 02:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support, and besides the excellent answers to questions below, thanks for the vandal fighting. Sandy 02:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100 Support. Do a good job! -- Samir धर्म 09:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. 'Held off until 100, but missed it :('Will (message me!) 09:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support, very good, well-reasoned and reasonable answers to the questions below. --Stephan Schulz 10:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Insert clichéd message of mind-bendingly huge support here haz (user talk) 13:29, 25 June 2006
  104. Support, friendly, responded to my {{helpme}}, great editor. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support No problems, good editor, will use the tools well. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Strong support - almost missed this due to my wikibreak!!! Promptly helped me as a newcomer (when I was one, I mean) -- Lost 18:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. Thunderbrand 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Good answer to question 3. Seems to have creative responses to controversial issues. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Unnecessary last-minute homosexual pile-on support. ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

You know when you've been tango'd. —Celestianpower háblame 22:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
? --Nearly Headless Nick 07:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly meant as a joke. NSLE 07:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a joke. :P --Nearly Headless Nick 07:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've obviously not watched the adverts :) (3rd paragraph down). —Celestianpower háblame 08:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin abuse! I call for a desysop immidiately!!!11!!one!!1! --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 12:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments
Tangotango's edit count Interiot's tool 2
Namespace # of Edits
(main) 2794
Talk 263
User 320
User talk 2213
Image 25
Image talk 1
Template 79
Template talk 14
Category 24
Category Talk 5
Wikipedia 664
Wikipedia talk 88
Portal 10
Total 6500
Distinct pages edited 4140
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: One of the major activities I undertake at Wikipedia is helping new users learn the ropes, and the admin tools would help me be more productive in this realm. Many newcomers are caught unawares when their articles are deleted without even a {{nothanks-sd}} or {{vanity}}. However, at present, even if they seek help, I am unable to tell them what was wrong; hence the newcomer learns nothing from the experience. With the admin tools, I would be able to help them improve their future contributions. I would also be equipped with the right tools to speedily fix their mistakenly-created redirects and articles.
Fighting vandalism is also one of my commitments at Wikipedia. Besides having the convenience of the rollback buttons, I will closely monitor Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism so that Wikipedia can be protected from persistent vandals who continue oblivious to our pleas to stop.
I will also continue contributing to the Articles for deletion, Redirects for deletion, Images and media for deletion, and Templates for deletion processes, this time with the additional task of closing discussions whose participants have come to a consensus. I would also like to help out by deleting articles that meet Criteria for Speedy Deletion (especially attack pages, as they can be harmful to both their subjects and Wikipedia itself), at Requested moves and the 3RR Noticeboard, and will be open to any other chores as the community requests.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: First and foremost, I am proud of Trains in Japan, and my contributions to articles in its scope and to the project itself. (One of my most recent articles in this area is Yoshioka-Kaitei Station, which appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know section). I constantly strive to make my article edits Featured Article quality, and I hope that I can improve as many articles to this standard as I can.
I am, of course, satisfied with my indirect contributions to Wikipedia in the form of my various bots and tools as described by Srikeit. I would like to improve my RfA Analysis tool so that it can better find duplicate "votes", and will be looking for other opportunities in which my expertise with PHP and other languages can come to life.
I also derive a lot of personal satisfaction and enjoyment helping newcomers. New editors are an important asset, and it is not always the case that our most knowledgeable editors – who can improve article content with their expertise – are technically apt or instantly familiar with our policies.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have not been involved in any major conflicts. However, I have been party to a number of etymology-related disputes, such as at Islamophobia, Shooto, Gaijin, and most recently, Kawaii. I believe that in all these cases I have maintained my civility and have reasoned with my fellow editors in a respectable manner.
New page patrol (which I also do frequently) and fighting vandalism brings with them their fair share of trouble, ranging from users who do not understand our policies, to plainly malicious vandals. This has further reinforced in me the need to welcome newcomers appropriately and ensure that they are made aware of our guidelines and basic principles in a polite manner.

Optional Question from SomeStranger(t)

4. In the answer to question one you say that without admin tools you are "unable to tell them[(the new users)] what was wrong." Can you explain why you need admin tools to explain why articles are deleted? Thanks.
A: There are situations, especially on the Bootcamp IRC channel, when newcomers seek our help, asking why a particular article of theirs was deleted. Oftentimes these articles were in violation of our Notability, Verifiability and Vanity guidelines, and had been deleted by an administrator. However, it is difficult to ascertain this from the descriptions given by the user, and even more difficult to pass judgement over what should be done, without seeing the actual article. The admin toolset would allow me to actually take a look at the deleted page, and thus explain to the user what was wrong and how he or she can improve their contributions in future. I believe this will make me a better helper, and will encourage more newcomers to become regular contributors. - Tangotango 12:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Yanksox

5. Have there been any editors past and present that have influenced you? If so, what did you learn that could assist you as an admin? Yanksox (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I have been influenced by so many Wikipedians it would be difficult to mention all of them. Commander_Keane has perhaps been the most prolific, with his stable, reasoned attitude towards everything. Even while dealing with the most difficult of users, he manages to keep his cool, carefully explaining Wikipedia policy and procedure. What’s more, he is always helpful and friendly in the various avenues of help that I frequent. He has taught me the importance of being civil and steady in my actions, and I believe this will help me as an administrator.
On the technical side, Bookofjude has been the source of endless inspiration. His almost continuous creation of various tools for Wikipedia and its sister projects has given me the urge to continue devising my own. Furthermore, his calm yet firm attitude towards vandalism reversions is one that convinces many, including myself, that reverting vandalism is a serious endeavour that helps maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. - Tangotango 15:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Mark Gallagher Isn't this "optional question" thing fun? We all get to add our names to this list. Whee! Ahem. On to the question ...

F0. You mention you'd like to close AfDs. Do you have a general philosophy on xfDs? What would you do if an AfD appeared to show consensus to delete, but for the evidence presented by an expert? What would you do in general if a poor argument for deletion had numerical support? Would would you do if an AfD debate was not closed within the 5 days (as often happens), and in the time between the 5 days expiring and you getting around to closing it, somebody had produced evidence that the article should be kept? What is your opinion of this AfD close?
A: My general philosophy on xfDs is very simple – to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia, to comply with all relevant policies and guidelines, and to err on the side of keeping (unless the article is detrimental to Wikipedia in that it is an inflammatory biography, etc.) If an expert presented the sole argument to keep an article, my first reaction would be to ensure the verifiability of the expert’s arguments. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we assume someone is an expert because of their knowledge of reliable, published sources (per No original research). If the expert’s arguments were found to have veracity, I would relist the AfD so that other editors, and maybe other experts, can review the deletion debate and provide their own insight. (I do not mean, of course, that I would simply ignore an expert’s argument solely because they did not provide a source; instead, I would ask them to provide a reliable reference backing up their rationale.)
If I know that a numerical consensus is based on a "poor" argument, it is logical to assume that I know where its fallacy lies; therefore, I would provide my own input in the debate (citing references and appropriate policy/guideline pages), and leave the actual closure up to a different, impartial admin. On the other hand, if an AfD remains open for over 5 days, and someone had come up with evidence to support its keep during the extra time, I would of course relist it so that a proper consensus, bearing in mind the new arguments, can be reached.
The AfD you cite is an interesting case where one editor’s argument took precedence over all the other delete "votes". However, IdahoEv’s logic does appear to be a little weak, considering that the only verifiable evidence comes in the form of their linking to Duelists' Convocation International. It is unfortunate that this debate was not given a longer time for other editors to make up their minds, and for the other participants of the debate to change their minds if necessary; the argument that IdahoEv presented would have had the potential to be expanded with verifiable sources that could, in turn, have helped improve the article. It would also have toned down the appearance of one admin favouring one editor’s assertions over the numerical majority’s, which can sometimes cause disruption and confusion. - Tangotango 13:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions from Nobleeagle (Talk) Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?

A: In my opinion, the most frustrating restriction is the "collateral damage" that occurs when IP addresses are blocked. (Bug 550) This leads to the unintentional block of multiple users, sometimes even preventing users from entire countries (Singapore, for example) from editing Wikipedia. Not only does this limit the free-editing aspect of the encyclopedia, it also means that we are unable to properly deal with vandals who strike from shared IPs for fear of blocking innocent users. This often results in damage to content and presents a bad image of Wikipedia to the general public.

Q: Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important?

A: It goes without saying that main namespace edits are the most important, content-wise; we are here to build an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia without content is useless. However, for me personally, I value my user talk edits just as much. As noted in the nomination statement and my answers to the other questions, I spend a lot of time helping users. I feel the need to do this because an online encyclopedia without editing users is just as useless as the hypothetical content-less encyclopedia I mentioned above. If we are able to welcome new users and help them with their editing, the content in the main namespace will grow exponentially; this will be to the benefit of both our community and viewing users.

Q: Lastly, do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.

A: Yes, I like to take a holistic approach to "voting" in RfAs. First, I have found that looking through the user talk pages of RfA candidates can tell a lot, especially with regards to civility and courtesy. Looking through users’ contributions, of course, is also another very useful method. I do not have any hard-set numerical criteria for voting – if that could decide all admin candidates, an automated script could do the same job just as well; rather, as responsible members of the Wikipedia community, I feel that we need to take into account candidates as a whole, and whether they would make good admins. - Tangotango 17:01, 22 June 2006 (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.