Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tango

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Tango[edit]

Final (58/0/5) Ended 16:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Tango (talk · contribs) – I first came to Wikipedia about 4 years ago, although I've only been particularly active for about 8 months. I was an admin on the Simple English Wikipedia when it was quite new, but was recently desysoped for inactivity (I'd been gone about 2 years). I know my edit count is lower than many of you like, but in my case, I don't think it's representative of my suitability for adminship. Firstly, I've been around for the past 4 years, seeing many changes in policy and watching things, I just wasn't editing much. Secondly, I don't make many mass edits (eg. using AWB). I've been involved at least slightly in most parts of Wikipedia, I've contributed to policy discussions and taken part in various behind the scenes tasks (AfD, RfA, etc.). I think I'm ready to be an admin, and could help Wikipedia more as one. I did try and do an Editor Review a few weeks ago in preparation for this, but I got a total of 1 comment, and that was just saying that I had a POV userbox on the user page (which I removed). Tango 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted (self-nom). --Tango 16:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I will probably work on various things, moving around a lot - that's what I've done so far (I spent a time doing lots in AfD, then a time doing lots of wikifying, etc.). I can see myself closing XfDs and blocking vandals, but I'll end up doing whatever I enjoy, and I can't say what that is until I've given it a go.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Probably my work on WikiProject Stargate. I've got two Stargate Barnstars for it, so I must be doing something right.
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've been in plenty of disagreements and debates, but for the most part they've been constructive and civil. The only real exception is being called "gay" by vandals when I revert them, which doesn't really count. As for dealing with stress in the future, I've learned to tell when I'm about to snap and take a step back before I do. I then spend some time doing something else (or just pacing and muttering angrily), and then once I've calmed down, I either deal with the problem, or make sure someone else does. It's quite hard to get me to that stage, though - I generally just have as little as possible to do with people that annoy me.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: I see IAR as existing to help deal with situations that weren't anticipated when the relevant policies were determined, or if there are no policies on the subject. Both IAR and SNOW allow common sense to prevail over policy when policy doesn't actually make sense in a given situation. The problem with this is that "common sense" is extremely subjective, so they should only be invoked in non-controversial situations.
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: I think in most cases where a punitive block would be considered, there is already enough cause for a preventative block, so the question doesn't come up. One case where a punitive block might be worthwhile is if someone should have been blocked as a preventative measure (eg. to stop them reverting a particular page a 5th time in one day), but it was missed for some reason. Not blocking them could be seen as uneven treatment in the future, so it might cause less trouble to block them for a day to be "fair". The encyclopaedia comes first, and losing one editor for a day is better than losing lots of editors for a few hours in order to deal with someone saying their block was unfair because X wasn't blocked for the same offence.
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: The description of the criterion uses the word "blatant" which to me means that no reasonable person could disagree. If there is any possible reason someone could argue for keeping the article, it should go through the normal process, only if I couldn't think of any reasonable reason (however incorrect), would I delete it. An important consideration is whether the article can be rewritten without starting again from scratch - if it can, it might be better to simply remove the advertising, probably resulting in a stub, and let someone use the previous version as a basis for a new article.


Question from geni (talk · contribs):

7. How well do you think you understand US and international copyright law?
General comments
  • See Tango's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • User's activity level has increased to a steady 9 edits/day for last 1000 edits. I don't think that activity should be a problem here, in spite of having an edit lower than average.Voice-of-All 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was a little concerned when I noticed this comment on Tango's talk page followed by this !vote at the AfD. Since my !vote and arguments went the other way, I'd prefer not to !vote in this RfA and simply leave the matter to discussion by folks who weren't involved in that AfD. Thanks.--Kchase T 11:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you feel you have a conflict of interest, then by all means don't vote here, but I don't really see a reason not to. I'm not sure what you mean by your reference to my talk page - is there a problem with someone pointing out an AfD to people that have contributed to the page in question? I'd appreciate your opinion, whatever it may be - please reconsider. --Tango 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh geez. Yeah, that you had edited the article would make a difference. I regret to say I didn't notice that when I posted my comment. (I was also kind of wondering what kind of community vote-stacks for articles on minor British figures who've been dead for 900 years.) Anyway, best of luck in your RfA, Tango.--Kchase T 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

  1. Support, not one yet? --Terence Ong (C | R) 16:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mike | Talk 16:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I often see you not leaving comments in a discussion, so I have no idea if your supporting this application or not. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Of course. — Deckiller 16:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Open the iris on this user's sysopship. I think his IDC has been well confirmed. You have a go! Yes I'm sad --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 16:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support per nom. Rama's arrow 17:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per nom? This is a self nom... —Doug Bell talk•contrib 05:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Suppport 4 years, good contributions, not an admin? Hello32020 17:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom. Michael 18:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support yes please ST47Talk 19:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kavadi carrier 20:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Tango, you are go for adminship-- danntm T C 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Why not? semper fi — Moe 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I don't think someone should lose their adminship until their account is deleted. Even so, they should be warned say, a week in advance. If he was sysoped once, he can be sysoped again.Ardo 01:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support as an early user and your contributions to policy --Ageo020 (T • C) 01:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. To Ardo, things were different four years ago, plus it was Simple English Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia. Anyway, I support this application due to the experience of the user. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Tango will be a great admin. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support did you kill Tangotango? :P Fredil Shadows of Darkness 02:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I have no doubts that this user would be a great administrator. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support. Definitely keep up the good edits and the work on Stargate! Iridescence talk • contrib 05:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, another very qualified candidate. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 07:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support seems good enough to me! Atlantis Hawk 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support seems like a solid editor with long-term experiance. ---J.S (t|c) 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Looks like a good candidate for the job. -- AuburnPilottalk 23:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  26. Merovingian ※ Talk 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I see very few blemishes. - Patman2648 08:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, after seeing his work on here and at Simple.--Tdxiang 10:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Weak Support Well established user, just a little worried about the level of contributions. By this I mean you aren't as active as most current admins, but I'm sure it won't be a problem. --Majorly (Talk) 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - I've observed his calm, quiet and serene behaviour on simple.wikipedia, I just think that there are many people, including me of course, that can benefit from his presence as an admin. --M/ 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Time to break that common dirge of editcountitis. Tango is a good admin candidate from every angle. Good luck. haz (talk) e 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Conditional Support Very experienced, and wouldn't misuse the tools but make sure you do actually use them. There's no point promoting some-one who won't use the tools. James086 Talk | Contribs 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Good users make good admins. ---J.S (t|c) 05:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, see #24. —freak(talk) 06:13, Nov. 15, 2006 (UTC)
    Yikes, my mistake. Sorry. ---J.S (t|c) 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Looks like he will make a good admin. NauticaShades 10:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per Voice of All's comments --Mhking 15:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Nominee has demonstrated a need for the tools and trustworthiness. Agent 86 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support --Jay(Reply) 20:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, I have no problems with what I've seen of him before. :) - Che Nuevara 21:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per (self-)nom. Alai 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Tango Alpha November Bravo Oscar operation admin is a go. --Daniel Olsen 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Sockpuppet support - Certainly a very strong user, and knows Wikipedia very well. Plus, he has a great name ;) - Tangotango 07:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - I support this wikipedian becoming an administrator. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything Support. Nishkid64 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I believe there is promise in this user as a future admin.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - For nice contribs. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 13:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - I thought I already had supported. Never mind that... good, strong contributor, should make an excellent admin. Cheers, riana_dzasta 17:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Good contributor. Looks like they'd make a good admin. Nephron  T|C 04:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Unlikely to misuse the tools. -- DS1953 talk 14:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Great editor, and reasons for opposition are wholly unconvincing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Three Barnstars, only 22% edits un-summarized, et cetera... looks like this user passed my test. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••CCD••• 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Definitely has the makings of a decent admin. :) Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support has done a variety of jobs on wiki.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 21:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support: As per above. Seems like user will make a good admin. Good luck!  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support -- Tawker 04:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Any guy who is involved with Stargate in anyway is.... well, awesome. And your work with it does rock. And you should be an admin. You deserve the mop. Sharkface217 04:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Khoikhoi 06:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Yes, a sure support. He is around for ages. But, please remain active at least to a reasonable (?) level: Last Tango in Paris :) --Bhadani 12:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose Sorry to blemish your record here, but regarding this from Voice of All's edit analysis:
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.75% (28)
I think an admin ought to be someone that also contributes to the encyclopedia. As to previous admin status, I don't see any issue with losing the admin bit if you are absent for a couple of years...it makes sense to me to have someone rerequest adminship after that period of time. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 05:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to weak neutral. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a valid concern - I was a little surprised when I saw those stats. I looked up the details of how they're calculated, and it seems it's primarily based on edit summaries, so perhaps I just don't use the keywords Voice of All expects. I have made some major contributions, for example I worked on getting Stargate (device) featured until the project gave it up as a lost cause (too many people thought it was fancruft for it to ever get through FAC), I did a fairly major rewrite of Jack O'Neil (not quite finished, thanks for reminding me!), and I've made significant minor edits, for example wikifying and stub sorting. To summarise: I understand your concerns, but I ask that you use more than just Voice of All's statistics to make your decision, as they don't seem to be very accurate. Thanks! --Tango 11:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on here, aren't sysops' main function to maintain Wikipedia as well as edit articles? Atlantis Hawk 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Think it in reverse. Aren't sysops suppose to be a dedicated encyclopedia contributor while maintaining? You got to be specialized on something, so you can help other editors in that field to become more successful in Wikipedia. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Undecided, because of his almost complete lack of participation in process the last four months or so. (Radiant) 13:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. In my defence, I was on holiday most of August and moved into a new house in September and had to get everything sorted before the uni term started. As for the other months - you've got me. I have no explanation for those. --Tango 19:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. No specific reason to oppose, but short/wishy-washy nomination statement and #1 and #2 answers leave me wondering for what specific reason we'd support this editor. -- Renesis (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Suggest indefinite block as sock puppet or impersonator of existing administrator Tangotango. (Just joking, of course, but if he becomes an admin, people are more likely to confuse the two.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One 00:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to block someone, block TangoTango, I had the name first. ;) You can't really be holding back support because of my name, can you? TangoTango did offer to pick a new name when he realised I existed, I turned him down - was I wrong to do so? --Tango 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, block me, not him. I did certainly offer to change names back in April; however, Tango politely declined, saying it was all right for us to have similar names. Personally, Hildanknight, I think it's a bit silly to not support simply because of the name; if you do have other reasons, please voice them. Cheers, Tangotango 07:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak neutral I don't see any problems with this candidate, but not a real need for admin tools and low participation in policy discussions, moderate participation in article space. There isn't enough here to oppose or support, so I've withdrawn my weak oppose and am replacing with this equally weak neutral on the basis that adminship is no big deal. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I'm not sure what you mean by low participation in policy discussions, but the rest I can accept. --Tango 18:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - Don't know this user. --evrik (talk) 22:32, 17 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tango&oldid=1082331639"