Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39

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

Final (49/23/5); Closed as consensus not reached by WjBscribe at 01:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) - Very recently, I joined the coaching project as an admin willing to coach other editors. I couldn't have been more fortunate with the editor that I ended up being paired with. Please, allow me to introduce to you, User:Tanthalas39, AKA Dan. At the onset of the coaching, I told Dan that I was looking at a June or July RfA. Then a May RfA. As we proceeded through the coaching process, the date kept moving earlier and earlier based on the clue that this editor has. Based on Dan's contributions and his willingness to delve into unfamiliar areas with grace and thoughtfulness, I'm completely convinced that there is no need for further coaching. He's ready, right now (and was probably ready before signing up for coaching). Tanthalas is more than qualified to be an admin based on our coaching page. To talk about his contributions a bit: he has made several reports to AIV, he has begat several articles (I'm sure he'll include them in the answer to Question 2). His contribs to deletion discussions are sound and policy based. More recently, he has added his thoughts in RfAs and ANI. Looking at his contribs, I can't find any evidence of incivility nor lack of knowledge. He is one of the most well-rounded non-admin editors that I've had the good fortune to come across. Seriously, I've clicked on virtually every single contrib of Dan's and I can't find a single reason not to allow him to continue to build this crazy little encyclopedia with the admin tools. I'm convinced he will be a net positive to our community and will only help us, not hinder, by giving him extra buttons. I'm pleased to present to you, esteemed community, Tanthalas39 - Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 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: I intend to use the administrator tools in the article deletion arena (AfD, PROD, CSD) and occasionally in page protection. As I often have bits and pieces of time during the day to vandal fight, I would be able to put the tools to use there to block chronic vandals. I watchlist WP:AN and WP:ANI, and although I don't feel I would step into each and every problem that comes up, if it is one that I am comfortable and experienced with, I will. Otherwise, there's typically other administrators with different areas of expertise that can cover. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Article writing is definitely what I like most about my Wikipedia time, although I find myself doing other things more often because of the time demands of quality article expansion. I belong to four Wikiprojects, and am most active in the WP:AZ project - I have made significant contributions to Homolovi Ruins State Park, Oracle State Park, Bonytail chub, and Tarantula hawk, among others. I also significantly expanded Landing at Kip's Bay to contribute to the American Revolutionary War Task Force, a project I have plans to contribute more to soon. Also, Tahquitz. As one could observe, I especially enjoy stub expansion. My editing style tends to be rather compressed - I use "show preview" extensively, so my mainspace edits are fewer and larger. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: Of course I have been in "conflicts", although I don't think I have ever been stressed over it. There are several ways of dealing with conflicts, depending on the context and nature of the problem. Talk page discussions are obviously always best, compared to a short, snarky edit summary comment. Sometimes a civil yet firm hand is required, other times if you just wait a few hours and let things cool off, things work out much better than escalation. I have not been in any sort of content argument yet, as I tend to edit more history or fact oriented articles with little to no POV. However, I do participate in 3O, and if I had an issue I couldn't work out on an article talk page, that would be the first place I would go. I always keep in mind that Wikipedia is never complete, and it won't kill me for information in an article to not adhere to my desires while a conflict is being worked out elsewhere. It really seems that most heated arguments start with people that need instant gratification on their POV of where the article should go. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Yngvarr:

4. What action would you take for an AFD which has delete comments which vastly outnumber those for keep, yet no policies or guidelines are cited for either case?

First of all, thank you for some extra questions, Yngvarr. This is pretty straightforward for me as a non-admin, in that I always strive to not let prior opinion have undue weight in my own decision (a viewpoint I hope some editors practice in this RfA!). See my AfD edit here as a good example of my "reversing" a trend vote. As an administrator, I would first of all make sure I had ample time to address the issue - without more context, it sounds like some looking-into is called for. Did anyone mention anything, some clues to notability or applicable policy that I can look up? If not, then without clear-cut policy, I would really like to see more input. Perhaps a relisting with a note asking users to cite relevant Wikipedia policies. I do consider myself as leaning towards the deletionist side of things, but always under the umbrella context of Wikipedia policy. Borderline cases are one thing; this one seems to be a case of no one taking the AfD seriously. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. While reviewing AIV, you've noticed that a reported user (not IP) has several final warnings, but each occurring several days apart, and the editor has ceased their current behavior. What would you do?

I've seen a lot of situations like this. There's no way I would block this user at the moment; anonymous editing of Wikipedia is a fundamental piece of the "editable by everyone" doctrine and unduly punishing this user for the past transgressions of others is inappropriate. The question above is a tad unclear - was there very recent vandalism that caused the report? Then an appropriate warning is probably due. Did someone report the user for something that happened days ago ("ceased their current behavior")? Then my action would be to do nothing. Most of these "problem IPs" are from schools or community access points, and I am always loath to restrict a potentially helpful student or citizen because of the past vandal issues. Unless the vandalism is problematic at this moment - no block is warranted. I just answered that question while thinking that the user in question WAS an IP. Is reading questions properly a prerequisite for adminship? I left my answer there in case anyone was curious to how I would answer it for an anonymous user. In the interest of getting answers up on the board, I am going to post the rest of these now, standby for an answer to this one. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, more context might be necessary - if they have ceased their current behavior, why is there an issue? What exactly were they "final warned" for? Has someone reported them for further vandalism / policy transgressions / etc? If they truly have 'ceased their current behavior', I would probably just keep a close eye on the user for a day or two. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my example, the contribs for this editor show no productive contributions, and vandalizes until a final warning is issued, then ceases to edit for several days, and comes back later to vandalize until racking up another final warning. Yngvarr (c) 16:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. With that context, it seems clear that this falls under the "vandal-only account" category, and a block is warranted under this, with a watchlist to see if the user wants to contest the block. I've seen different timelines from different administrators, with some going directly to an indefinite block for especially egregious vandalism, to a one-week just to staunch the current problem. I think at first I would err on the side of caution and block for a week or two, but it seems one would soon enough get a good sense of what constitutes a "vandal account" and take appropriate action. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. An edit war erupts between a registered user and an IP editor. Both parties are heated and borderline civil. What steps would you take when neither party is willing to concede?

While it is tempting to give more consideration to the registered user, I would really have to treat both cases with equal weight. Registering as a user is not required to participate in the Wikipedia project. I would first step in as an "official" 3O, not using administrator status but hoping that a third opinion itself will sway things one way or the other. I participate in 3O myself from time to time, and understand how valuable it can be. If that doesn't work, well, is the dispute about policy? Perhaps a policy talk page discussion, which would certainly draw other experienced users, might be appropriate; there might be a noticeboard that works well, too. All other things exhausted, I would turn the editors to the Mediation Cabal. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Nice but well meant Questions from Pedro :  Chat  16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Under what circumstance would you apply WP:IAR to a Speedy Deletion?

A. Definitely not nice, as you said, but a fair question and it gives me the opportunity to relay some thoughts on Wikipedia policy. Occasionally, some users like to cite Wikipedia policy and interpret it literally. While this is usually a fair practice, sometimes it skews things to obeying "the letter of the law" and not the spirit. Like I mentioned in the AfD I posted in Question 4, I prefer to look into the article and determine if notability is possible. Not to quote the WP:IAR interpretation page, but does the addition improve Wikipedia? Is it possible for the article subject to be notable and encyclopedic? With cleanup and expansion, does the article have a chance to meet Wikipedia policy?

Sitting here pondering this question, it occurs to me that a lot of WP:CSD is short and probably purposefully ambiguous anyways, so you can almost re-create that acronym to "Interpret All Rules". For example, a {{db-context}} tag is added to a short page about a potentially notable subject. Does the speedy tag meet the applicable criterion, "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article."? Possibly, maybe probably. However, if I can see where the creator of the article is going with it, and I feel that good faith is applicable, then I might remove the speedy tag and add a note to the article talk page and user talk page that the article is lacking X, Y and Z and it needs to be added ASAP. For more insight into my speedy deletion thought process, see Assignment #4 on my coaching page. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. What are your personal standards for granting rollback to an editor?

A. Good question. I was granted rollback rights back in January. The editor would have to show that they are there to build up Wikipedia, not to bring down other users. There is a fundamental difference there that exists, I think. Most vandal-fighters fall into the first category; a small minority simply like to show ownership of articles and/or are power-hungry. I think a five- or ten-minute glance through the editor's contributions would show this rather definitively - are warnings (and associated levels) given responsibly? Is there any hint of malice, sarcasm, or other uncivil behavior? Does the editor show sufficient experience? I don't think I'm an edit-counter; I prefer to look directly through contributions themselves to get a feel for content and texture. In a more subjective frame, does the editor enjoy giving warnings and reverting edits that they feel aren't contributive? If I feel the editor is motivated by clean articles and not by trout-slapping other editors, I would grant rollback rights. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. A brand new account creates a particularly nasty attack page, filled with homophobic abuse, that you speedily delete. The account then vandalises your user page with more homophobic abuse. These are the accounts only edits. Do you block? If so for how long?

A. Yes, I would block, and indefinitely. This is pretty clear-cut to me, and certainly not out of any state of offense or retaliation. The account is plain and simply a vandal-only account with no apparent redeeming qualities. The user can always contest the block in the unlikely scenario they feel the block was unjustified. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Balloonman regarding this question, I would defer to other administrators if there was personal malice or COI or some other shred of reason for the vandalism - does this user personally know me? Could I possibly be blocking them for non-policy reasons? However, I really don't think in this case that I would need to get other administrators involved, although I could be wrong, I suppose. If that's the case, I still don't think that shows a lack of policy knowledge on my part, and I really don't think that any other administrator would view what I did as out of line or inappropriate. As I said, the user can always contest the block if he/she feels that I did it in a retaliatory sense. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from EJF Being neither inclusionist nor deletionist, I will not oppose due to your answers. However, they may strengthen my support. EJF (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

10. Do you believe notability should become policy?

A. Thanks for your interest in my RfD, EJF. No, I do not believe notability should become policy. There's just no real way to make it work; notability is inherently too foggy of an area to paint lines on - and to be honest, I think it works fine the way it is, now. The discourse created by guidelines, rather than rules, keeps a balance to Wikipedia that I hold as crucial. The balance of inclusionists and deletionists discipline and channel the direction of Wikipedia articles. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11. Similar to Q4 In an AfD, those that support keeping an article claim that it meets verifiability despite only primary sources. Those supporting deletion claim the article fails the notability guideline, as it does not have any significant secondary sources. The "deletes" outnumber the "keeps" by 3:1. What would you do?

A. Some of these questions are hard, as almost every individual issue on Wikipedia has its own nuances and I find it almost impossible to give categorical answers. However, in the spirit of the RfA, I'll give it a shot.

Off the top of my head, I would probably close this as a delete, while weighing the robustness of the deletion votes. From WP:V, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". I am a huge advocate of the "verifiability, not truth" doctrine, and if there are no third-party sources that can be found and cited, I'm afraid the article should be deleted. I'm not even certain that the notability arguments are applicable - if it fails WP:V, then notability is moot. However, that all being said, I'm the sort of person that would aggressively go look for a significant third-party citation. If I found one, I would participate in and post my finding in the discussion itself, rather than trying to use it to arbitrate. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases

12. How good are you at the running man dance?

A. Good enough to prove I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from user:Jay*Jay

Background: I have read this RfA as it currently stands, and there are two things that concern me that don't seem to have been covered. I am asking these questions to provide Tanthalas39 with the opportunity to address them before I decide whether to offer support, or to oppose, this nomination. I recognise that these are difficult, and possibly confronting questions, and assure you I mean no offence. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13. In an answer further down this page, you stated that "I did my first edit as Tanthalas39 over two years ago". It is the as Tanthalas39 that concerns me. Would you please clarify whether you have edited under any other user name? Noting that there are certain circumstances when alternate accounts are permitted, and that abandoning an account for a fresh start is also permitted, are you able to guarantee that you have not violated WP:SOCK?

Thank you for your interest, Jay. No, I have no other usernames at all. I suppose I could have stated that a bit better. I also suppose I might have had an anonymous edit or two prior to creating this account, but I do not recall any. Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've ALL had anonymous edits or two... particularly when we thought we were logged in, but had timed out or weren't logged in.Balloonman (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14. My other concern relates to this contribution to the recent WP:AN discussion that resulted in a topic ban being imposed. In that contribution, you wrote that It really does seem like a group of editors interested in one area, and who do not agree with Whig's style, are ganging up to ban him. While I obviously don't know the entire situation and there is likely some merit to the whole case, I really hope that a "mob mentality" doesn't coalesce and go overboard on the sanctions. Looking at the posts made at the time of your comment, they include:

Jehochman (an admin): The diffs above, and linked RFCs, show that Whig continues their longstanding pattern of disruptive editing, in spite of mentorship attempts and second chances

east.718 (an admin, and Whig's former mentor): I'm more inclinded towards a full, indefinite ban. Whig is already under a community-imposed topic ban that lasts until April 15, but it seems to have no effect. ... The only reason that Whig got his indefinite block overturned was because he agreed to the above restrictions, but that's failed. It's obvious that Whig contributes to a poisonous atmosphere in an already troubled area; it's time to kick him out of the boat.

Raymond Arrit (an admin and scientist): I endorse the intent to do something about Whig. However a limited topic ban will have no long-term effect. He was under sanctions before which fizzled out with Whig eventually returning to this type of behavior. Past experience suggests that we will have the same conversation every three months or so (maybe one of the devs can write a script to automate the process).

The post specifically refers to having read the diffs provided, but much other evidence was mentioned, including links to two recent RfC's and the mentorship agreements. I would like you to comment on your action here, and particularly to consider (a) whether you believe you sufficiently informed yourself about the wider picture to justify the post you made; and (b) whether comments about "ganging up" were appropriate in light of the contributions noted above. Feel free to address any aspect of the situation you deem appropriate, but FYI it is your judgment in making the contribution that concerns me.

Of course. While I feel the point I was making in this contribution was valid, in retrospect I might have waded into waters over my head and I tried to back out of it with as little notice as possible. I did research the problem, and I did look at the diffs provided. I was not supporting this user in any way (I said so twice), I was merely trying to keep things on a policy-based decision platform. You mention Jehochman and Raymond Arrit, but not the eighteen other users that were involved in the discussion. I also notice you omit my last phrase in the quote you provided, which was "There should be no "punishment" involved, merely an upholding of Wikipedia policy.". Furthermore, I never once said that there wasn't a valid policy-based reasons for sanctions. I just didn't want things to go overboard, as they sometimes do.

I realize that this part of Wikipedia is sensitive and subject to hot opinions, vandalism, etc. I wasn't in any way trying to comment on content. I am sorry if you took offense or somehow didn't like my comments (which I felt were civil, non-inflammatory, and merely a reminder). Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 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)

---

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

• Comment from nominator. I hope I'm not stepping out of line here, and forgive me with a thwack, Tanthalas, if I am. This RfA is here because I pushed it to be here, not Tanthalas. Dan is far from being "power hungry". In the course of our admin coaching (which I hope has been read by supporters and opposers), it became obvious early on that Dan had, as balloonman calls them, the "soft skills" necessary to be an admin. The opposes that are turning up here for "lack of time here" are my fault, not Dan's as I prodded him to do this now instead of May/June as originally planned at the onset of coaching. When someone "gets it", they "get it". Why prolong the inevitable with busywork? He gets it. Additionally, I'll add some perspective as to why I, IMHO, found Dan ready now based on both my own experience at RfA and my prior nom. 1/ I joined in earnest in Aug 07, by January I had no FA or GA experience, I had about 3K edits, mostly copyediting and disambiguation cleanup. Not a single AIV report (still don't). No RFPP experience. Some mild vandy-patrol/userwarning. I went through coaching (JodyB) and I sailed through RfAin Jan 08 (with 2 good noms). In Feb, I nommed Alex.muller, who had about 3500 edits, and 2.5 months experience at the time. No admin coaching, but excellent contribs. I just asked him on his talk, he accepted, he passed with minimal drama. Based on this and several high quality self noms with comparable experience and dedication as Tanthalas, I did not foresee this type of opposition. I see him to be a high quality editor, a primarily content type contributor, (and as correctly pointed out below, edits in "large chunks", see Landing at Kip's Bay which skews the numbers. He has loads of WP:CLUE, a solid desire to build an encyclopedia, and I feel really responsible that he is getting treated this way. Why haven't more questions been asked of him above? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expected some experience oppositions, as I discussed with Balloonman on his page. Also, I don't want to get defensive; if people think I'm not ready, then okay, I can still work on Wikipedia in the meantime. However, I don't think some people are researching this enough. Where are the myriad of questions that "borderline" candidates get? Why is no one commenting on the robust coaching page? I want to respect the communities opinion, and I will. But pseudo-accusations of sockpuppetry? I can't even comment on this. Claims of not being versed in Wiki policy? Give me a chance to show you! Ask me a question or five! Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keeper,

It seems as if the bar is ever being pushed lower due to the oft cited refrain of "adminship is no big deal." Candidates who are passing today would never have stood a chance a year ago because the bar is being lowered. Where do we draw the line? Is 2.5 months enough time? What about a month of solid edits? A week? A day? Why even bother having a review to begin with?

As for asking questions, if the candidate hasn't shown he is qualified with his work history and background, then questions are not going to change a thing. The questions are useful in tilting the balance or querying qualified candidates. If somebody lacks the requisite the experience/background, why bother? Because the nominator or candidate begs for questions?

Again, I personally like Tan, and in a few months I would be happy to support him (assuming he doesn't mess up) but right now, I cannot. Balloonman (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The answer to question 9 is an example of why I would be reluctant to grant somebody with limited experience the tools. Once the admin becomes the target of the attack, the admin should defer to other admins to step in. Yes, a block is probably justified, but in order to avoid the appearance of inpropreity, the admin should take the case to ANI and let somebody else make that determination.Balloonman (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks balloonman for your thoughts. I think we'll have to agree to disagree about "qualifications" for adminship, and I have no expectation that anyone would change their opinion, you included. You've made a good faith case based on your own criteria for adminship, and I have absolutely no problem with that or you. My observations of recent RfA activity tell me exactly the opposite, however. "Qualifications" for adminship are most certainly raising, not lowering. Questions never used to be asked. The first admins were appointed. The first bureaucrats self nommed, got 15 "supports", no questions, and then were promoted. To be honest, I'm not a fan of WP:DEAL either. I agree that is a dated appeal that is no longer applicable even though the god-king uttered it. It is a big deal in many people's eyes (if it weren't, we wouldn't have RfA. At the same time, the "critera for adminship" have skyrocketed, out of proportion to the "magnitude of the tools", IMO. It wasn't that long ago that 3mo/3K was sufficient, (I know of at least 3 that passed within the last month at that level), but now they are being speedy closed as WP:SNOW?. All I've appealed to, for Tan's sake, is a fair shake at what is considered a "normal RfA process", rife with questions and thoughtful support/opposition based on contribs, edit history, the Q & A, etc. At the time of posting my first "discussion" here, he hadn't been asked a single clarifying/policy/attitude/scenario question, but had already seen several opposes as if he was a self-nom n00b. I'll admit, it upset me to see that because I pushed him here after a robust (and admittedly quick) admin coaching session. I wasn't expecting to be here already, and in hindsight I wouldn't be. Not because Dan isn't qualified, but because I never expected this style of oppostion for a good editor. I was surprised by his clue. I saw your "decline coaching" post on his talkpage directly above my "accept coaching" post, and I sighed, thinking I'd gotten myself over my head with a long term commitment. But we hit it off, and I knew within days that he didn't need coaching. Hope that helps explain my rationale for being here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, re Q9, that's exactly what I would do as an admin if someone made homophobic or otherwise racist comments on any page. I could care less if it were my own talkpage. That, IMO, would not be controversial. He answered correctly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The candidates answer to Q9 is spot on IMHO. The first time something of a similar nature happened to me I blocked indef. and then reported it to WP:ANI for transparency. There was unilateral support that this was in effect "collatoral damage" - i.e. one of the pages that was vandalised happened to be my user page, but it made no difference at all to the block. FWIW I actually thought the candidate might skirt this one, suggesting a short term block. No - he's answered honestly and decisevely, and well within acceptable interpretation of guidelines. That's good. Pedro :  Chat  19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Enthusiastic support, as nominator. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, could do with more time here, as you only have four months here doing a lot of editing, but you are doing a lot, and have done well here, and I agree a lot with what Keeper has said. Good luck mate! ~ Dreamy ^§ 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Will do fine with the mop. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Can be trusted with the tools. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. The only thing that made me nervous is the number of unanswered posts on the user's talk page, however despite this, I still think that Tanthalas39 can be trusted to make good use of the tools. I think this user will make good use of the tools. According to my RfA criteria v1.0, Tanthalas39 gets a score of 92.8% 94.3%. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 04:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Candidate response: I rarely, if ever, let a comment to my talk page go unanswered. I usually answer directly on the original poster's talk page. I got used to this while experimenting with the "talkback" tags. It was an unwieldy system at best, so perhaps I should go back to just answering on my own page. However, point is - I don't simply let comments or questions go ignored. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Nod... I hate talk pages like his *grin* he does answer on the user's page which makes following conversations hard... but if that's how he likes to do it, there is no rule saying you have to respond on your own page.Balloonman (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, that takes care of that, if the questions are answered, that satisfies me, it doesn't concern me whether it is on your talk page or the other user's. Thanks for letting me know. I am ammending my support comment because of this new information. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 05:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I am ammending my criteria score because of new information. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 06:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Support Stats look good and I trust Keeper's judgement. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. AGF. I'm not overly concerned by the opposition arguments; 4 months is fine, and in response to Mr. Arritt, we wouldn't have spotted Archtransit no matter when we sysopped him, or whatever is being argued there. We shouldn't disadvantage other candidates because someone skillful got through. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Looks OK and I don't think he is Archtransit. EJF (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm happy with the answers to questions. Hopefully, the RfA can still be a success. EJF (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. I hope he is Archtransit. lulz Tnayin (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. I definitely trust this user with the tools. S/He will make a great administrator. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Weak support Really like the users work and fulfills all my requirements but some´thing is bugging me. I will def. add it if I put my finger on it! --Camaeron (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support A good candidate who, as noted, contributes in a thoughtful and considered manner. I would encourage the candidate to tread lightly in their first days as an admin, as lack of experience is a (minor) concern. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Get the sense nominee won't abuse or misuse the tools. The only way to prevent an Archtransit would be to routinely checkuser everyone in so far as the sock puppetry. Afraid I know no way to gauge the likelihood of going rogue within a month, but that's rare. Dlohcierekim 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong Support Again, I am going to bring up No Big Deal here. We tend to throw this around some, but it seems that its made a big deal during RFA's. This user is a prime example. He is strong in policy's and understands what Admin's are here for, and the power of the tools. He may not have a ton of experience, but look at Keeper's comments above and see that he actually pushed for this RFA to come. He may not have been here for 4 or 5 years, but he grasps the concepts and know's what he is doing. Good luck Tanthalas. I wish you the best. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - Looks like a very solid candidate. He's experienced enough for me. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support (from weak oppose) Okay, I'm buying this. Sure, there's some experience issues. Yes, we haven't got categorical evidence from contribution history with respect to the "finer arts of adminship" When someone finds out what they are, can they let me know as well. But the candidate seems ready. Why? Well 1) Look at the calm way he's dealt with this RfA for one - nobacklash, no snarky edit summaries - just a willingness to be transparent and honest. 2) The optional Q's - nothing here that's wildly outside of norms and expectations, and some insightful comments there as well - reasoned and collected thoughts. 3) It just feels right - about the worst reason there may be to support but after further extensive, and I promise very extensive, review and deep consideration I just can't see how this is going to be anything but a .... net positive to Wikipedia. Yes, mistakes may happen but the benefit will outway any possible "harm". Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. I'm persuaded that Tanthalas39 would make a good administrator. Like Pedro, I've found the way he's handled himself during this RfA to be quite persuasive. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support per Pedro. Spencer^T♦C 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Weak support - WP:AGF, While i generally oppose because of lack of experience, I don't feel that that will be an issue when it comes to Tanthalas39's judgments along with the fact that I trust keeper to nominate users who will be a asset to the project. Best of luck, Tiptoety ^talk 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. I support this candidate for several reasons. His obvious desire to further the good of Wikipedia , His sound knowledge of Wiki Policy (and in such a short time especially supports my first point), and lastly ability to take the barrage of criticism with grace and professionalism. Jmanigold (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. taken on board that edits can be substantial though low in numbers, from what I have seen can be thoughtful in AfD. net positiveCasliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Weak Support Also, I strongly disagree with Raymond Arritt's vote to oppose simply because of the Archtransit debacle. I personally will be assuming good faith on this one. GlassCobra 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification: My comment wasn't "simply because of the Archtransit debacle." In retrospect I should not have referred to Archtransit, because people have latched onto that while failing to grasp my larger point: we need to be careful handing out the admin bit, and that requires observing the candidate's track record longer than just 3-4 months. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24. Weak Support - I casted my oppose early in the process before any actual questions were asked, and regretfully I might add. After thoroughly reading the answers to each question, I was shockingly impressed by the user's level headedness and sound knowledge of policy. This coupled with the user's activity in WP:AIV and WP:AFD has made me re-evaluate. It left a good taste in my mouth. My balance criteria is going to take an ephemeral wikibreak on this one. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Weak support Seems trustworthy. I'm not worried about tool abuse. нмŵוτнτ 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Strong Support This user clearly has the skills and has strong references. If I was interviewing this user for a job I would hire him before they walked out of my office. "not enough time here" is a poor reason to turn this excellent editor down.Thright (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]
27. Support - Good answers to the questions particularly the follow-ups, time and experience are all relative and this editor has a good grasp of what is necessary. Time in project space is great, but should never be a litmus test.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support, seems fine. Neıl ☎ 09:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Trust nominator. Greman Knight. 09:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Weak Support because of the lack of experience, but I feel they will use the tools properly. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support, no reason to believe that this user will abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
32. Support - good work in admin coaching; better than average answers to questions. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support after reviewing his record: well-written articles, commitment to NPOV, refreshing support of IAR. He wants to help in areas that badly need help and has pledged himself to recall in the unlikely event he abuses his office. Let's allow him the opportunity. Biruitorul (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - strong nom, seems very willing to learn, and no indication that he can not be trusted with the tools. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support: Been around a while, appears to know the rules, doesn't seem to be a troublemaker. No reason to oppose. --Carnildo (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Strong Support I believe that intent, trustworthiness, communication, and quality of edits are the most important thing for a potential sysop to have, of which Tanthalas has shown all. Edit count is just part of the picture, and improving an article in four edits instead of fifteen should in no way be counted against a contributor. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Unlikey to block good-faith contributors with clear demonstration of concensus to do so first. ➪HiDrNick! 16:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support I have no experience with this editor but thought the answers to the questions are very reasonable (and thoughtfully articulated!). Clicking through to comments on a few contentious issues noted here, my impression is that Tanthalas will be an inclusive administrator in the sense that Tanthalas will try to listen to all voices, but will not hesitate to act in obvious cases of bad faith (perhaps becoming the Teddy Roosevelt of admins!).--RegentsPark (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. Great policy knowledge! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 19:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Happy editing! Kimu 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support, per solid answers. Bellwether ^B_C 20:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support I've seen this editor around and I have only positive impressions. I have no reason whatsoever they'll abuse the tools and I believe they have enough commonsense to be circumspect while picking up the finer points of using them. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - looks good, meets my standards, decent answers (although I'll only block for a max of 3 months for homophoic vandalism). Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - Tanthalas39's time as a user may not be very long, but I think his contributions are of very high quality. I think this user would make a great admin. --clpo13_(talk) 06:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support - trustworthy editor and competent vandal fighter. Addhoc (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Looks good to me ~ LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 21:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support As recently as one year ago, someone with Tanthalas39's experience would not have encountered serious opposition by more than 2 or 3 people for being too new. I see his recent contribs reflect sufficient familiarity with the way Wikipedia works to be a competent admin. In addition, I strongly support his answer to Q9, and I am baffled as to why anyone would allow such a vandal to run rampant and not block on sight. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Trust Keeper76 as a nom; opposition appears to be superficial. Dorftrottel (complain) 21:38, March 16, 2008
49. Looks like a good editor to me. Acalamari 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Definitely on the right track that's for sure, but I think there's an experience issue here. The count breakdown for individual articles is sorely lacking, and the project-space is kinda thin. I applaud the work at WP:AIV, but there's more to being an admin than just vandal fighting. I see the user has also taken an interest at WP:AN. Very good, but I would linger there abit longer. Also, I notice a distinct lack of talking, which is disconcerting. Come back in like 3 months at the most and I'll support you. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Changing to weak support. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose I looked at Tanthalas a few weeks ago as a potential admin coachee myself and thought that he was about 3-4 months away from being a viable candidate. When this RfA came up, from a contributor I respect, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and looked at his contributions again with a fresh eye. My opinion remains unchanged, I think Tanthalas will make a good admin, but I don't think now is the time. Tan became an active contributor in December and almost immediately requested coaching. He has about 3 months of active editing (Dec, Jan, Feb.) If you look at the number of edits on articles, he has about 90 edits on the 15 articles he's edited the most. He's only worked on one article for more than 10 edits. His contributions to article talk space is even worse. He's only made 40 edits on the 15 article talk spaces that he's edited the most---none of which is for more than 4 edits. This shows a complete lack of article development experience or consensus building. User talk is the same story---if you ignore his own page (where he has 22 total edits) he hasn't communicated with other users to a great extent. The only Wikipedia category he has an extensive history (with 77 edits) is AIV. Wikipedia talk has a TOTAL of 5 edits. While I personally like him and think he may be a fine admin in the future, I don't believe that day is today.Balloonman (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment. Whilst I of course respect your point of view, I would like to point out that a low number of edits to an article does not neccesarily indicate small changes or a lack of editing skill. With Landing at Kip's Bay as an example, Tanthalas39 massively expanded and improved this article in the space of only 4 edits. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 04:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per Wisdom89. Given that we've had some adminships blow up in our face lately (the worst case being User:Archtransit) it's prudent to observe candidates a little longer than four months. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Per Balloonman. I don't see anything that says that candidate will abuse the tools but there just isn't enough time spent in discussion to show composure under heated debate or a desire for article building. Just needs to spend more time collaborating and come back with a bit more experience. I agree with Wisdom, discuss things a bit more, participate in article building and come back in a couple months. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   is this not throwing the baby out with the bath water?Thright (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]

   If not succeeding was permanent, yes it would be. Since adminship is permanent, I'll err on the side of caution, AOR or not. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose I get a feeling of ambition here, which is not necessarily bad, but looking at this [1], I would gather that the candidate is more interested in being an admin rather than building an encyclopedia. I know my opinion is altruistic (is that the right word here?), but I feel more comfortable with candidates who don't outline a roadmap to adminship. While I'm sure the candidate will be trustworthy, I'd rather see more trenchwork. Yngvarr (c) 10:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Moved to neutral. Yngvarr (c) 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - After looking this candidate over, I cannot support at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Weak Oppose Pluses : Great work so far, great nomination, clearly trustable, solid C:CSD and WP:AIV stuff. Downside : Weak article work, experience as demonstrated by "length of tenure", lack of project space input and the "building up edits to be an admin" comment on your user page. (I note you removed that about three and a half weeks ago). Bluntly, whilst I trust Keeper's opinion I also trust Balloonmans! I really wish you'd perhaps waited a while and participated more in the project side. However, should this RfA not pass I hope you will take positive feedback from the editors here, continue to do what you're doing, and work on those other areas for the future. Very Best.Pedro :  Chat  13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose - low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment - I've added some "nominator thoughts" about this RfA to the general discussion section above the support section. I'm hoping it will address some of the good faith concerns brought here. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose Some more experience needed. Cxz111 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I also object to my opposition being called clueless. Cxz111 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   For the record, Tanthalas did not call your oppose clueless. I did. Oppose me for it, not him. And I apologize for my frustrated language. I also, in the exact same sentence, called your oppose good faith. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose you are not for my liking, lack of experience. Try again in a few months time. AndreNatas (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose at this time. Will support in future. Skinwalker (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Skinwalker. I certainly understand your concerns that the candidate would have a better case with some more time/tenure under their belt. However, given that you state you will support in the future, I would ask why we should wait a few months/weeks when we could have him helping Wikipedia out right now instead. What are you hoping to see from future contribtions that you do not see at present? Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Experience/familiarity with the process. A longer time period gives us a better chance to observe how he interacts with others and to see how he handles adversity. It gives us a better basis to evaluate whether or not we wish to trust him with more tools. Using your logic, why wait three months... why not grant adminship to person with 1 month of experience? Or a week? It's for the same reasons why companies ask for experienced personel and will expect people to hold a position for a while before promoting them, eventhough they can see the person has potential to move up. Tan has potential, but I don't think granting him the rewards now is the proper course of action. Let him get experience where he needs it. 2-3 more months really isn't that long---especially for somebody who wants to make a long term commitment to the project.Balloonman (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Curious and perhaps revealing to describe it as a "reward". A reward for what exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   In all honesty, I explicitly used the term because of the phrase, "adminship is not a reward.Balloonman (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose Too little experience to enable judging of policy knowledge and also temperament. The diff provided by Yngvarr, also raises concerns about how the candidate views adminship. TigerShark (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Candidate comment: I anticipated some opposition based on that issue (here is the issue, for those who missed Yngvarr's comment). I am not hiding it - and although I regret that page in the context of passing an RfA, I can't really apologize for it because I know why I did it. I didn't mean for that page itself to be a self-promoting tool; I naively used it because I thought it would show organization and a sense of proactiveness. If I could have the tools of adminship without the title, that would be fine. Never in my life have I came across something (Wikipedia) and been so sure that this is important - THIS is going to be the future of online information dissemination (if it is not already!) and I want to be very active in making it as creditable and accurate as I can. Am I power hungry? Not at all. Am I proud to be part of Wikipedia? Bet your ass. But, in a sense, you are right - 4800 edits later, I really wish I had kept my good-faith ambitions to myself. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   4800 edits later? It was still there until a couple of week before this RFA started [2]. The issue is more about how you view adminship (as a formal role), and the fact that you seem to have been aiming for adminship almost as soon as you had a few edits under your belt, rather than any issue of self-promotion. Do you mind me asking why you removed the comment shortly before this RFA? TigerShark (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I meant 4800 edits later in the sense of the present - I didn't mean from that page. I apologize if that was misleading. I spent a lot of time reading Wikipedia policy and articles before I became a very active editor - if you look at my past, I did my first edit as Tanthalas39 over two years ago. I changed the page mostly at the request of my coach Keeper76 (see my coaching page), but I was starting to remove a little before that as I became aware that people would interpret it as power-hunger. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   {Edit conflicted} It is probably in response to my [comment] to him on his talk page last month (or perhaps his coach pointed it out to him?)Balloonman (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I did point it out to him as well. Not because I thought it was a big deal (I saw it as proactive, transparent, and well-intentioned.), but because I knew there would be superficial "power hunger" opposes potentially based on it. Que sera sera (sic). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose per Balloonman and Raymond arritt. However, I think Tanthalas39 is a very good editor and I will support his next RfA. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose. Insufficient experience, as yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose. Balloonman raises some good points. However, in light of Keeper76's comments about the timing of the nomination, the quality of some of the edits, and the work in admin coaching, I could live with the relative inexperience. Certainly there is a potentially good admin here. The issue that moves me to oppose relates to question 14. Tanthalas39 admints that he "might have waded into waters over [his] head", and chose to back away - I can accept that, especially as he did look into the situation before commenting (not thoroughly enough, as it turns out, but that too could be excused due to inexperience). Unfortunately, in reflecting on it, Tanthalas39 evidently still does not see the problem: it isn't whether or not he was supporting Whig, or commenting on content, or whether I "didn't like" his comments. Characterising a discussion with contributions from three admins, two of whom do not edit in the disputed area, and one of whom was Whig's former mentor as seeming like "a group of editors interested in one area, and who do not agree with Whig's style, are ganging up to ban him" demonstrates neither good judgment nor an assumption of good faith. My advice to Tanthalas39 and Keeper76 is as follows: if this RfA fails, I suggest Tanthalas39 could spend time contributing to some of the more complex issues that come up at AN and ANI. After each has settled down, reflect on those contributions in light of the resolution adopted - were they consistent with the path ultimately adopted - and reflect on whether those contributions could have been better. It is inevitable that admins make mistakes. This isn't a big problem if they learn from those mistakes, which requires good judgment and reflection; ultimately, my doubts in this area prevent me from supporting this RfA. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I respect this decision on your opposition, while I don't agree with it. I still feel that perhaps I haven't been able to express my motivations in correct terms; I was in no way condemning any specific editors, admins, or users. I also don't feel that I made my comments in that discussion in a manner intended to immerse myself in it - I was trying to mildly keep people on a policy basis. You're right, everyone could have been acting completely responsibly. I was intending my comments to keep the discussion from even appearing like a mob mentality. I did research the conversation enough to make my comments, which were not on whether Whig was right or wrong (I think we're in agreement on that point), but were on that discussion itself. There were a couple users on that page that agreed with my observation. While I regret that you think these comments are indicative of poor qualities on my part, or at least qualities that would keep me from being an asset to the Wikipedia admin community, I really can't see anything I did wrong. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You exercised poor judgment (and possibly didn't assume good faith) in characterising a group of editors as a "mob" and as involved when there uninvolved editors and admins editing - including the former mentor who was calling for an indef ban after previous restrictions hadn't worked. You commented on the diffs (albeit recognising there may be more to the story), but didn't appear to consider the RfC's or the preceding editing restrictions, yet many comments referred to ongoing conduct problems. Trying to keep the discussion connected to policy is fine - I applaud your aim. I also understand that this RfA is probably causing you a lot of pain, and I am sorry to be contributing to that. Combining your comparatively recent active involvement with a questionable judgment call in the last week made me doubtful. I asked a question and gave you a chance to convince me, and regretfully concluded that you aren't yet able to sit back and objectively assess your action. I understand that the middle of an RfA is a difficult time to have to do that, and I hope (in the event this RfA fails) that you will be able to see that I am trying to be constructive. As I stated above, you are potentially a good admin - and I hope I can support in the future if that becomes necessary. I would have endorsed Balloonman's comment below, but if there is a next time it won't be "experience" per se that I will look for. Whist I think you do lack experience, I accept Keeper's explanation and would be willing to disregard the early nomination as outside your control. My advice, for what it's worth (and should it be necessary for a second RfA), is to spend time in the interim diversifying your experience, and spending time refelcting after taking actions to help you to more objectively self-assess. Please don't take this as a criticism of your personal qualities. I think your intentions are good and your skills in some areas are excellent - your admin coaching page is impressive - but you will make mistakes. Everyone does - the important thing is to learn from them, and that is something even experienced admins stuff up occasionally (just look at Georgewilliamherbert and his block on Mackan earlier today). Keep working away, and I'm sure you will make admin sometime soon. :) Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't speak for Jay, but I want to make it perfectly clear, in no uncertain terms, that I do see you as an asset to the community and to wikipedia as a whole. I do not want you (or anybody else) to think that I am opposing your nom because of anything personal---if that statement undermines my opposition some, so be it, but I don't want you walking away thinking that our opposes are an inditement of you personally. I do believe that you have a hell of a lot of potential as an admin and will be more than happy to support you in 2-3 months when you run again (if this one fails). I just want to see a little more experience on your behalf.Balloonman (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe you can't speak for Jay, but you can speak for me. I agree wholeheartedly with what you just wrote. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the sentiments. I'm not taking any of this personally, and while I had to slightly defend my past actions to Jay, I don't feel like I've been defensive. I'm certainly not offended by anything being said here. If this RfA fails (I'm still polling around 70%, remember!), it's not as if I can't continue to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia in the meantime. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose. T39 needs more experience and greater diversity in experience. Get more involved in discussions so we can learn what you'll be like as an admin. Wryspy (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose Per Balloonman, perhaps next time. --Charitwo ^talk 01:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Extremely strong oppose User has not been around for long enough, I am not happy to have any system operators who have not been here for at least three years. I also feel there should be a minimum number of edits before a user can even *try* to have an RFA, like 10 000 edits. I will not support right now. No."Moosester (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor has been blocked for vandalism.Balloonman (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing bureaucrat, please note that Balloonman had indef blocked Moosester as a vandalism-only account at the time the above comment was made. Since then, block has been reduced to 12 h, in part as appropriate edits had been made, so vandalism only is unfair. User is new so basis for opposition may be uniformed and not worth serious consideration, but discounting as a vadalism-only account would not be justified. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose, insufficient article-space experience. Tahquitz is now a bit more than a stub, but I'd like admins to have a bit more idea about writing the encyclopedia than that. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose insufficient experience in wikipedia space also. Comments in AFD's generally miss the point and gives to much benefit of the doubt for things to eventually establish notibility etc. Has even pointed out sources to apparently show nobitility, but not added it to the articles as the sources not seem notable. Needs more experience.--Dacium (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you provide some examples of your observations?Balloonman (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to believe that giving the benefit of the doubt on notability at AfD, and pointing out sources where appropriate, is a positive trait, and so a strange reason to oppose. But each to their own. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17. Lukewarm Oppose - Adding another deletionist to the ranks of admins would exacerbate the (unintentional) systemic bias toward deletion already existing. If this editor had more content creation in their history, it could counterbalance the impression given in their answers above, but, lacking that, I have to sincerely disagree with their approach to this project. I've seen more than one encyclopedic topic terminated with extreme prejudice because the article wasn't up to scratch. Encyclopedias are written by adding and editing content; deletion should be a last resort, not a first strike weapon. On the other hand, I'm quite impressed by the editor's willingness to look for sources rather than remove content, where possible. It's an approach I'd like to see more widespread. --SSBohio 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, oppose number 16 says he is too slow to delete (inclusionist?) and gives too much "benefit of the doubt" Oppose number 17 says he is too quick to delete, (deletionist?) and with prejudice even!. Which is it? Did either actually look at his AfD experience and CSD experience? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Remember to AGF... 17 said he was a deletionist, but praised him for his efforts to find sources. Thus, I see nothing inherently contradictory in their positions. They are not mutually exclusive.Balloonman (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose per Balloonman (also endorsing Balloonman's other comments elsewhere on this page; opposition not personal, etc.) Carom (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Too soon, I think, without prejudice towards another request a few months down the line. Relata refero (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose Tanthalas39 is quick to attack other users and jump to conclusions about their edits. After reviewing Tanthalas39's contributions, I see a pattern of this behavior. Many of Tanthalas39's edits appear to be geared toward gaining adminship status instead of the best interests of the Wikipedia community. Tanthalas39 appears to have a high level of enthusiasm and shows great promise to be a good administrator eventually. In the meantime, I think Tanthalas39 needs to be given a bit more time before becoming an administrator. Xbones1000 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While I am voting to oppose Tan, it should be noted that this user has made 8 edits, 5 of which are attacks on Tan here and elsewhere.Balloonman (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is apparently angry at me for a reversion I didn't make but warned him about - I would chalk this opposition up to a spite vote, although the user has every right to cast their vote. See my talk page for details. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21. Oppose Wiki doesn't need any more career admins with little experience of serious article building. Too many already. Not that experienced in the trainee career admin stuff either, so definite no. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. Not enough edits to wikispace. Basketball110 _{Go Longhorns!} 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose Just not quite ready yet. Jmlk17 00:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were really true that "admin is no big deal", in the sense that it didn't have to be prised from the cold, dead hands of a recalcitrant administrator, then I would be inclined to support this nomination, in spite of the candidate being relatively inexperienced as measured by edit count. So I have a question and a comment:

• What would have to happen/be required for you to resign as an administrator?

Thank you for your interest in my RfA, Malleus. I would unhesitatingly resign as an administrator if there was a consensus that I was using the tools improperly, abusing my power, or otherwise not furthering the interests of the Wikipedia project. I am not interested in personal gain or status - I have been proactive in my adminship training simply because I feel that I can help the project. Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am slightly worried that you would block an editor as per your answer to Q9. I really would prefer administrators not to do anything that might possibly be interpreted as being personally motivated. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a personal opinion of yours, and I can't really change my answer to court your support vote. Of course a block like that "might possibly be" seen as personally motivated, but I think a vast majority of editors (and virtually all administrators) would view what I did as simply a duty in the course of a day - if a brand new account makes homophobic, blatantly egregious vandalism to any two pages in a row, I think it is my responsibility to stop it, regardless if it's to my page, your page, or the main page. The question you have to ask yourself is, is it likely that this editor will quickly come to their senses and start editing constructively to Wikipedia, or is it a lot more likely that we'll see more homophobic garbage? Of course there's a modicum of judgment to be made, and without given the exact circumstances of the situation, it's hard to categorically state what I'd do in any situation. This one, however, was more or less cut and dry. Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. I'm going to trust you and support, even though I still think you'd be mistaken to carry out that block yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I respect your opinion. I, of course, would be open to review any arguments, policies, or traditions that might change my answers here, so if you feel strongly about this, feel free to follow up on my talk page (or right here, obviously). Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral My original concerns [3] are still there, but during this process, the candidate has handled himself commendably, which prompts me to move from oppose to neutral Yngvarr (c) 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. <broken record>Requests for Adminship in wikipedia re, at their core, a referendum on a given editor's judgment, and a discussion amongst wikipedians if the community as a whole should extend its trust in the candidate's judgment</broken record>. In my opinion, I have not seen enough activity by this editor in areas that concern me to feel that I have a comfortable enough feeling to extend trust to this editor. At the same token, I have not seen enough from this editor to register an oppose. In this user's 1660+ User talk edits, the vast majority of them are templates. There are too few non-templated warning/informative edits for me to get a good feel as to how this editor would act under the inevitable pressure that janitorial duties bring. The editor does seem to have experience in vandalism prevention and AfD, a plus, but not enough to counteract the lack of edits in article talk space discussing articles and wikipedia space at this point. I am certain more exposure to other areas of the project will round this user out admirably, and I do appreciate his responses here. Good Luck - Avi (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Avi, you poor chap.:) I know they said you should be more visible at RfA.... Relata refero (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Needs more time, but not opposing simply because of this reason. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'm a bit torn on this one. I'm concerned based on what Avraham (Avi)'s brought up, but the concerns raised by opposers (especially the "too new" ones) don't sway me either way. There is nothing to say that Tanthalas will be a bad admin, but little to say that he will be a good one, either. I'm simply stuck on the fence. I will keep an eye on this to see if anything comes up that may change my mind. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral. Not sure - too low edits for my liking but I m happy with the mainspace and such. Not much experience but you still have me to convince. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:27, 17 March 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.