User:Tanthalas39/AC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This page will be used for the back and forth discussions, assignments and progress for the admin coaching of Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) by admins Balloonman and Keeper76. Please user their respective talkpages for matters regarding this coaching, as this is to be used by B, K, and T only.

Please note: Everything pre-RfA 1 has been moved to this page's talkpage.

Contents

[edit] Post RFA

[edit] Assignment 7 Lessons learned (from Keeper)

Part 1: Reflecting on the support and oppose sections of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39, and knowing that you are taking the result way better than your nom :-), what are your immediate goals and plans? (I've seen some of what you wrote on my talkpage/balloonman's talkpage, feel free to copy/paste here instead of reinventing something you already wrote)

A.: Well, I have several areas that I will be participating in, as my mood or time constraints change. For easy stuff, I've been working on some disambig projects and I would assume I'll continute to vandal fight while I'm on teleconf meetings. I want to be a little more involved in AN/ANI, choosing appropriate issues and making thoughtful comments/suggestions. I also plan to continue the Revolutionary War Task Force stub expansion project for mainspace contributions, perhaps some more WP:AZ work.
What I don't plan to do is alter my editing style or pursue a bland policy enforcement just to court support votes for a future RfA. I'm not going to start expanding stub edits in 20 edits instead of 4 simply to make it look like I have more edits to one page. When I comment on policy, I'm going to continue to take firm stands on issues on which I have convictions. The Jay*Jay issue was somewhat valid - I shouldn't comment on issues where I won't be able to firmly back up my stance, or ever need to backpedal. Although I still feel my initial intent was "in the right" on that issue, I could have handled it better and I could have refrained from some comments. From some other people's RfAs, I've learned that simply responding to a comment gives weight and credence to that comment, whether or not you are supporting or opposing. Sometimes (often?) it's just better to let things go, if the end result will be positive for Wikipedia anyways. A frivolous ANI complaint carries a lot less weight with no responses, than the same complaint with ten oppositions, comments, debate, etc. I'm not saying I shouldn't give my two cents where it is needed, but entering into a debate is a decision that should be judiciously made. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Part 2. If you haven't already, I'd recommend constructing a message (or using personal messages) to thank those that participated, no matter there position. 2 exceptions: Don't thank me or Balloonman ;-). Also, be sure to check the talkpage headers and userpages of the participants, I know of at least one or two that don't want "thankspam". 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do in the next day or two. Good call. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm gonna call this one done. Thanked most of the supporters with personal messages, have a few left but it's getting too far past the RfA closing date to be applicable anymore. Tan | 39 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a few of the notes you've left on pages I've watchlisted for some reason or another. I very much prefer your "personal note" style over something that could be construed as "thankspam". Very nicely done! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assignment 8 AFD/DRV exercises (from Balloonman)

The following is a test Balloonman designed to make sure that admin coachees can assess AFD/DRVs. Most of the cases are actual cases that were closed one way and overturned by DRV. All of the cases were at AfD or DRV.

Assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the page, but do not edit it. Then, return to your coaching page and comment on each entry in question. You can also click on the article link itself to read the article as it stood at the time of the AfD/DRV. Write whether you would delete the page or not based upon the discussion alone. If you would, explain why you would. If you would not delete it, state why. Remember to pay attention to the date/time the article was listed for AfD and assume that you are editing shortly after the most recent comment.

Do not use Wikipedia to see if the page still exists or if it was deleted. For best results, once you've made a decision about a page, don't go back and change your answer based upon subsequent exercises. But if a subsequent review has you questioning/changing your position, discuss mention it under the latest question.

  1. Exercise 1
  2. Exercise 2
  3. Exercise 3
  4. Exercise 4
  5. Exercise 5
  6. Exercise 6
  7. Exercise 7
  8. Exercise 8
  9. Exercise 9

DRV

  1. DRV Exercise 1
  2. DRV Exercise 2
  3. DRV Exercise 3
  4. DRV Exercise 4

Hey. Tan here live from Newark International. I'm not sure how to edit Balloonman's assignment - do I directly edit User:Balloonman/Adminetc? You spelled "exercises" wrong too, if you care. ;-) Anyways, some thoughts on the first one.

[edit] Exercise 1 - GDI Technology of Command and Conquer

Good god, as a new administrator without a proven track record, I would probably pass the buck on this one. However, I don't have enough information without actually having the article at hand (and without cheating by seeing if it's still here or not). I would guess that the outcome was keep. To form my own opinion, I need the article itself - is it even referenced? If so, are the existing references game blogs, chat room text and other fancrufty stuff? The article might be a delete just based off of not having any verifiable third-party sources at all and marginal notability. Notability is clearly the stickier issue at large here (and probably the reason you threw this one at me). Personally, I sort of scoff at articles like this, but I'm not sure I should. Being a biochemist, my vision of an encyclopedia is factual stuff. But, this stuff is here, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS notwithstanding, the standards need to be roughly the same for everything - at least in terms of WP:N. I suppose that if I were to try to tackle this one, I would need to do a little research on other related articles, see if they have gone through AfD (probably), get some more information.

The more I think about it, however, how in the hell would one come up with notability for this? Is Wikipedia a gaming guide? Are we going to have (as we already do) articles on specific game strategy? Is this encyclopedic? It's pretty clear here that most everyone that participated in the AfD had a vested interest to keep this article in the first place. If we blanket-polled every active editor on Wikipedia, I would bet "delete" would win in a massive landslide.

Well, as I said above, I would really try to gather as much information and past admin decisions as possible before making a choice. Best case scenario would probably be a merge with the main C&C article, or a transwiki to the Gaming Wiki. If that just doesn't happen, I suppose I would keep it with the caveat of DEMANDING that WP:V - -

Nope. Nope, nope. I just can't bring myself to make this adhere to "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Unless this technology was written up as a feature in a significant source - not just mentioned, featured - I can't do it. I feel that people that argue for notability of articles like this aren't necessarily inclusionists, they are just people who want their favorite hobby/sport/person, and every other little tiny thing about them, to have a unique article. Go publish a feature article on this technology, and I'll reconsider. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point... hold on answer them... I was kind of thinking about that as well... I'm going to come back this evening and recreate the articles for these as well.... which means salvaging the deleted onesBalloonman (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
All of the articles have links to bogus articles. Now you can see what they looked like at the time of the discussion.Balloonman (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I know this is balloonman's assignment, but if I may, I will make an observation. In my opinion, one of the tricks of closing AfDs is to be disconnected from the article and the nomination. Determining the consensus of what other editors who participated in good faith in the debate precludes what you may or may not want done with an article. Should this article from exercise one stay on wiki? I would say, as you have, absolutely not without meeting RS, V, and FICT. The key is, If I feel really really strongly about it, I will not close the debate, but rather participate in it. If I have no strong feelings towards keeping or deleting, that's when I'll close. Looking at Excercise one, if I didn't have strong feelings, I would close as keep per consensus, because that's what the consensus was. For the record, I wouldn't touch that landmine either. As soon as you see every "quick vote" saying keep per my previous reasoning, or delete per other previuos noms, you're stepping into what is likely an ideological edit war that has spilled over to rather pointy nominations and pointy "speedy keeps". Think TV Episodes. Think unreleased albums. Think uncharted music singles. Think sub-pro soccer/football players. So, to summarize, only close em if you are dispassionate. Don't close them if you have a preexisting prejudice or opinion about whether they should or shouldn't be here. Excercise one should be closed as keep, regardless of how you feel about it. Or instead of closing it, !vote delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, the thing about AfD's is that you are looking at consensus via strength of argument via policy/guidelines. I originally designed the test specifically not to have access to the article for that reason, but upon thinking about it decided that sometimes you have to see the article to evaluate the strength of the comments. Just because the majority of !votes said to keep, doesn't necessarily mean that you have to keep if the delete votes are stronger and policy based while the keep votes are "weak." This was actually, a case that I closed, and I closed this as a keep despite personally thinking the article should be deleted. If you think that the 'consensus' is wrong, then you need to provide a policy based reason and or follow Keeper's suggestion and !vote to delete.Balloonman (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You both bring up some great points. As for Keeper's observations, I do believe that I wouldn't close this one but instead cast a strong, policy-based delete vote. Balloonman comments that there's no way I could actually delete this one with the current consensus, and I completely agree. Even the delete arguments weren't all that strong, in my opinion. I think my sure action here is to cast the strong delete vote. Good points, guys. One of my strengths is to be objective and distant - meaning, I'm willing to let time go by. I do not need things to happen INSTANTLY. If an issue needs more exposure to gather more opinions, so be it. Wikipedia is not going to be significantly affected by letting marginal articles stay a little longer than they perhaps should. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exercise 2 - Leo Meyer

The research took some time on this one. There's just nothing out there to assert notability. Google search turns up virtually nothing. The references on the pages are useless (some mention him, others make no references at all). It's sad in a way, but as I just explained to a friend, importance != notability. The last !vote, the strong keep one, is someone who is trying to twist policy to meet his heartstring standards. Am I missing the "16 independent references" this editor is referring to? I just cheated and saw that this article was not deleted. I wonder why? Let me check the AfD. Oh boy, this one went to deletion review, where it looks like it was overturned, although per BlueValour, I would have been justified in closing it as a delete.

Well, hm. I still think that per WP:BIO, this subject does not demonstrate notability. The DR states a few times that the subject meets the Military WikiProject notability guidelines (and states that this supersedes WP:N, is this true?), but I don't really think he does. These guidelines are almost TOO strict for me; this means that my stub expansion Carl von Donop might not meet these notability criteria. I still just can't see how this article can meet notability or verifiability.

Well, bottom line is that I would have probably closed as delete, but not really minded when it was overturned. What do you guys think? Tan | 39 01:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The big problem that I have with this article is that the references are lacking. If references could be provided, then I would have not problem keeping it. I included this article for a couple of reasons. First, it demonstrates an alternative to closing an AfD or voting on an AfD. Rather than closing the discussion Redfarmer relisted it for further discussion. When he relisted it, it could have easily been closed as a delete, but he probably didn't like that option so he relisted it. An option for number 1 would be to relist the issue for discussion. The second reason why I selected this article was because I felt that this represented a case where consensus could be over written by sound reasoning. Based upon the observations made in the "strong keep" I would have had no problem with somebody citing them as proof of notability and thus deserving of an article---eventhough the 'count' said otherwise. Closing debates isn't necessarily about counting votes---it can also be about the strength of the argument. To me the final argument was compelling---perhaps that's because I'm a military brat. Balloonman (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
To me, lacking references is not a reason in and of itself to delete. Tag, remove fluff, stubbify, do a minute of research myself - these are all answers. I hate to delete something if it is clearly Wikipedia material that is just badly sourced. I also still can't really see how it meets either BLP or the MILHIST versions of notability, although a gut feeling says it's not really a bad idea to include him. The "strong keep" argument is almost silly - where on earth is that editor getting the 16 "independent references" that he uses as a core argument? Strange. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I went through all the external links and found almost nothing of value. Ah, well. Sometimes these "gray area" ones incite such heated debate - which is a good thing, I think. It will keep Wikipedia policy on its feet, and the gray areas to a minimum. If a couple manage to squeak over to one side or the other when they shouldn't have, I don't think that's such a bad thing as long as the project as a whole maintains exemplary credit. Tan | 39 05:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is a "correct" answer to most of these... Most of these I found via reviewing Deletion Review logs. Thus, you would expect some controversy. To answer your question about Milhist version of notability... MILHIST is a somewhat unique project. As a general rule, notability guidelines that are not linked directly from WP:N are not official guidelines and don't carry the weight of N/BIO/etc. For example, the Poker project has it's version of notability, but these are the opinions of the the participants of the Poker Community but do not measure up to or override N/BIO/etc. Other projects have their own guidelines. Some are more accepted than others (Baseball for example) while others aren't worth the paper they are written on. MILHIST is a little unique. MILHIST is one of the largest Wikiprojects out there and arguably the best organized/run project. I don't know the official policy relating to MILHIST's notability standards, but I do know that there some places where MILHIST has modified policies that are slightly different from the rest of Wikipedia. For example, MILHIST has it's own MOS that has been accepted by the wider wiki community. I just looked up MILHIST notability guidelines. The guidelines are written at a sufficeintly high level, that anybody who meets them will almost certainly meet the general guidelines of BIO. They do not mean that somebody who doesn't meet them isn't notable, but rather is a safety net for those individuals who may not have individual documentation. (eg the head of a nation's army is considered notable, the wikiproject considers them to be notable even if you can't find an article about ziarre's army.) Balloonman (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As for BLP... it does't apply... he's dead ;-)Balloonman (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I agree there's not a correct answer, but this is a great exercise to at least generate some discussion about policy and to see various scenarios that I would come across if I am granted admin privileges in the future. This is the line I was referring to earlier, from the DR: Overturn. As I stated above, I do not believe the AfD was properly closed. As BlueValour pointed out, it is not a vote, and the decision should be based on the evidence alone. As Avruch and TomStar have pointed out, the article met the basic criteria for inclusion, met WP:V with secondary and third party sources, and also the WP:MILHIST notability guideline, which includes and yet supersedes WP:N. I don't agree with much of this - it didn't meet WP:V with even primary sources (let alone secondary or tertiary!), it certainly didn't meet MILHISTS's notability, and there is a (confusing) assertion that MILHIST's notability guidelines carry more weight than WP:N. However, this might just be a WP:IAR case (or at least, a look-the-other-way-from-WP:BIO case) and it would be hard to put together an airtight case for deletion. Keeper, give any opinions/thoughts/comments here, but I'm going to move on to the next case for now. (EC) And yes, I knew that about BLP... I clearly meant BIO ;-) Tan | 39 05:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The milhist notability section actually includes one of the few templates that I created:
This section is a WikiProject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's.

WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability that meet or exceed the expectations of notability or the applicable sub-guideline (BIO, ORG, NUMBER, ACADEMICS, and rest of the sub guidelines). Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.
Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#NOTE
Notice the template explicitly places the section as an essay and not overriding BIO/N.Balloonman (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW thanks for saying that it was a great excercise. I tried to create this excercise in a way that generated discussion and would expose you to several different scenarios that you might encounter down the road. Some of the examples will be easy/obvious, but represent issues that may exist. Again---most of these went through deletion review, thus could go either way. In other words, don't worry about getting it wrong :) Balloonman (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>. Hey Tan and Bman, I agree with both of you. I have nothing intelligent to add to this one that hasn't already been said (he said while assuming that his own other posts were intelligent...:-) . Number 3! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is still not settled ;-) Tan | 39 15:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating. You get to decide now if you wan't jump all over it with your 2 Lincoln heads, or just watch and see how it unfolds! I'm not touching it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
And to add a bit more drama to the fold, the article Leo J. Meyer has been renominated for deletion, here. Still ten foot poling it personally, just thought you'd like to know. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exercise 3 - Richard Denner

Short AfD. Relist? A little google searching reveals notability, though I can't stand the "what harm does it do" (i.e., a wheedling WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). This whole issue sounds familiar; I think I remember reading something about it. I would probably !vote to keep and cite notability references (here, here, here, and here). Hard to do a consensus close with only two differing votes. Tan | 39 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You might find this article interesting, Tan. (I'm willing to bet balloonman has seen it, hence exercise three) It was written by User:Wageless, aka Nicholson Baker. (this isn't outing, his own NY books article, userpage, everywhere, says as much). Search the article for "Richard Denner". And then read the whole thing, it's fantastically written. (and has curbed many of my early deletionist leanings. Not that I'm an inclusionist suddenly, but certainly more moderate.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work." This was one of the most startling parts of the article, because of how shockingly true it is. Not that I think I'm a bully, but certainly food for thought. Tan | 39 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bully. I destroy good editor's hard work and then give them the finger. Why, cuz i iz an adniminz. Seriously, though, you have this one right, IMO anyway. Shouldn't have been closed as delete. (which it was). Relisting at best, no consensus at worst. DRV overturned the delete close, the article is alive and kicking. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of the issue with our favorite inclusionist, which was part of the reason why I included this. It is good to know about people with agenda's such as Baker. There is also a group whose sole purpose is to {{rescue}} articles from potential deletion. This group is knowledgable about deletion policies and often saves articles that otherwise will be deleted. The line you quote is also part of the reason why I HATE speedy deletionist. Personally, if I had the ability to change one thing on Wikipedia, it would be to curb some of the CSD categories---namely the one related to notability. (Some are absolutely necessary such as attack pages) But notability deletions just get my goat---I was writing an article the other day (that is honestly of questionable notability) but I forgot to write it in my user space. Thus, I saved the article. I went back into the article, and before I even had a chance to make a second edit, the article had been deleted as making no claim to notability.
But I digress. I picked this case because you will see a lot of articles with one or two votes like this one. Where there isn't much said in the AfD debate. I concur, I would either relist it or close it as no-consensus.Balloonman (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I like what you said above, Balloonman, specifically, It is good to know about people with agenda's. I can name 10 staunch inclusionists that !vote "keep" for everything. The irony of course, is that once that reputation is there and widespread, it usually ends up backfiring and usually they get their opinions discounted in debates. I secretly hope the articles get deleted by consensus because of the "blind inclusionism". I can also name 10 stauch deletionists (I call them "avid nominators"). I'll get to an AfD, see the nom, and just sigh. And secretly hope the article ends up being kept by consensus, saved from the "blind deletionists". I've seen it in RfAs too. The support section usually has a particular editor adding a "no problems here". We all know he/she didn't look any further than the tally box. And of course, there's the "I view self..." stuff that I am willfully abstaining from commenting on any further in RfA world. (the irony being, that whenever that particular oppose comes, it's usually followed by a quick succession of "supports" for the same reasoning, simply replacing "power hunger" with initiative). More self-noms are actually getting stronger support because of the distaste the community seems to have). So yah, awareness. Enough from me here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exercise 4 - Moreno Valley Mall

Ah, the wonderful mall articles. I actually had experience with one of these before, and it sort of escalated in a hurry. It is simply a building (or a collection of non-notable businesses) with no inherent notability. The fact that it hires its own police coverage is trivial and incidental. In addition, the mall itself has not been (either in the article or in my perfunctory google search) significantly covered in secondary sources. The delete arguments are weak - "i see no harm", "an unusual backstory" (really?) - so I would go with a consensus delete. Tan | 39 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you. I don't believe that "super regional" malls are inherently notable. But this goes to a long standing dispute on Notability. Some camps believe that "inherent" notability is important and should be defined by people who are familiar with the subject---in this case people who work on the shopping center's project beleive that 1 million square feet of retail equates to notability. The other camp believes that there is no such things as inherent notability. These two camps are constantly at each others throats. It is why a lot of wiki-projects have their own "criteria for notability." WikiProject Poker came up with our criteria of notability because we wanted to "define" what we considered notable both to argue for certain people, but more to eliminate non-notables. Our attempt to 'define' poker players who are inherently notable created a huge flap and eventually lead to the template that I created above. Officially, the Poker Player notability guidelines have no official status, except that they are an "essay" of the Wikiproject. Another example is professional atheletes. The problem, however with these "essays" is that sometimes they become ingrained as fact within the AfD process. WP:BIO now states that anybody who has played in a professional sport at the highest level is inherently notable. That means, that the person who in 1934 was called up to play in a single baseball game, had one at bat, struck out is by definition notable enough for an article---even if said person never did another thing in their life! Likewise, when these Mall articles come up, there is "precedence" that even if the mall isn't notable, if it fits certain criteria, it will be salvaged---if for no other reason that people from the project will come to it's rescue. NOTE: It is not considered canvassing to notify wikiprojects when a page with one of their tags is up for deletion... in fact, some consider it rude not to.Balloonman (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exercise 5 - Soviet Technology of Command and Conquer

Exercise 1 revisited. This one might have a bit more consensus, tho. Counting the nom, 7-3 for delete. The arguments for keep are pretty much that it needs to be merged but someone needs more time to do so (weak; do it yourself if you're so interested). A delete per consensus would probably fly here, although to be nice you could userfy so that a future merge would be easier. That's probably what I'd do here. Plus all my arguments up in E1. ;-) Tan | 39 19:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

see response belowBalloonman (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm missing it - which response below, balloonman? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Now therein lies the challenge... or perhaps I forgot to do it!Balloonman (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, there it is. Thought I was going crazy. I am going crazy, but as soon as you start to think you are, it ruins all the fun of it....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exercise 6 - Vanderbilt, Netherlands

Well, there's no way I could close this one. I would vote for a delete, as... well, does this place exist? I can't find any references at all. I personally think that almost every city/town/hamlet is notable, but it has to have been mentioned somewhere by a significant source at the very least. Population 54, no evidence of existence... unless someone could find a reference, this should be deleted. Tan | 39 18:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice how long after the nom was created and the last comment? In the actual case that I pulled this from, a non-admin closed the AFD as all real places are notable and deserve an article. (The general trend has been that articles about population centers---cities/villages/etc---are notable enough to have an article.) But you actually did a good job as the place doesn't exist!Balloonman (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exercise 7 - Allied technology of Command & Conquer

Sigh, another C&C one. This one has the benefit of having one of those people who feel the need to reply to every delete vote. Like exercise 5, this one has a consensus of 7-3 for delete. I like the last delete !vote... "once again, here's a novel concept...delete in terms of policy: this article fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS...outside the game manual, there's no references other than one blog (hardly a RS), and there's no demonstration from outside sources that this subject is actually notable in an encyclopedic way." So true. These articles are so strange to me; written like this technology is real. I hate to use WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but cmon. Depending on how bold I feel, I would either close as delete or !vote for delete. Tan | 39 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Got side tracked... I included these three C&C items because I ran into them on the same day in this order. I initially kept the first one. Then I got to the second and third one (about half a page down) and easily deleted them. I then went back and relisted the first one to get a broader consensus. If I were to do it again today, I would have deleted the first and cited the second and third as justification despite the fact that "consensus" on that isolated issue says we should keep. I share this example as it is a reminder that actions are not made in a vacuum... I would have no problem closing them as delete based on WP:NOTBalloonman (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exercise 8 - Denver police officer shooting (2005)

Interesting one! I guess my first reaction is to keep it - incident sparked national interest, an international response, and it is well referenced. Second thoughts would be a somewhat poor choice of article name. Perhaps the entire thing should be created and re-written in the name of the actual killer, instead of just "Denver police officer shooting". Definitely should not be deleted, though. Tan | 39 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This item was a bad faith nom. I had nominated an article for deletion, and the guy who created the article called me a neo-nazi troll... and some other things. He then nominated several of my articles for deletion. This would be a scenario to speedy close an AFD and possibly give the nom a stern warning and/or take the case to AN/I. As for the name, there was discussion on the name... there was some discussion on the name on the talk page. Originally, it was named after Donnie Young. Nobody wanted to give the shooter extra attention and thus, it got it's current name.Balloonman (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exercise 9 - List of deaths in some Harry Potter book

Good grief, at first I thought someone let that run on far too long, but then it was just a heated debate. I have to say I would delete this one. There are really no good keep arguments; it's mostly "it's useful" (this one kills me, what could this possibly be literally useful for) - e.g., "Strong KEEP. Very useful and timely list. and other way more inane lists survive here." Sigh, go read policy and come back. There are also pretty poor delete arguments; the fact that it "spoils" the book is irrelevant. However, there's really no getting around the point that the article is entirely in-universe trivial listcruft. The delete arguments were mostly policy-based; the keep arguments were essentially "I like it." Tan | 39 18:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment here, Tan. Good work! Remember always though, if you have a strong opinion about an article's merit (meaning you'd like to see it kept, or you'd like to see it deleted), then don't close it.  !Vote in it instead. B-man is OOT, so I guess this will hafta do for a response to E9? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this is one that often makes appearances during RfA's, so decided to go ahead and add it here... This is one that I too would probably leave for a more experienced closer, but that being said. Delete or Merge would both be reasonable responses. The keep arguments are, like you said, lacking in merit and not policy based.Balloonman (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assignment 9: Policy and Guideline Questions

Take your time with these, we're in no rush:

As an admin nobody expects you to know all of the rules, but they do expect you to be able to research the policies and guidelines--show me that you can do the research and navigate them. These questions deliberately do not include links and some are deliberately vague and open to interpretation. If the question is vague, demonstrate your expertise of the subject by covering the different options. In your own words, citing the applicable policies/guidelines/essays/etc (and link to the applicable policy/guideline/essay), please answer the following:

1 Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

  • The criteria, found at WP:CSD, is strict as a result of the process being designed to circumvent any discussion. If the CSD criteria was vague, there could possibly be disagreement among editors (more than there already is) and the system would soon devolve into a thousand separate arguments. If we narrowly define the criteria, then we minimize the chances that editors will disagree about any given article's CSD candidacy. Tan | 39 15:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

2 What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?

  • The two major alternatives to speedy deletion (WP:CSD) are WP:PROD and WP:AFD. "Prod", or proposed deletion, is the most uncontroversial way to delete an article that has not previously been nominated for any sort of deletion - if the tag isn't removed (by anyone) within five days or so, it will probably be deleted (pending admin review). Only articles may be deleted in this way. AfD is the most common way of discussing deletion of more gray-area articles - interested editors weigh in in a consensus-based discussion, and after five days or so, an admin will weigh the various !votes and decide what to do with the article. Criteria describing which articles could be eligible for this process is found at WP:DEL. There are also a couple other relatively less common deletion arenas - miscellany for deletion (WP:MFD), which is for pages outside of the mainspace, and deletion review (WP:DRV), which considers disputed resolutions. Tan | 39 15:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3 What is a "level three warning" and why is it significant?

  • The levels of warning and guidelines for their use can be found at WP:WARN. A level three is significant because it is the first to assume "bad faith". I have a lot of experience doing this in my vandal fighting time, as a lot of other users have, too. I find that some users don't realize that they are not required to "work up the ladder" from 1, 2, 3, 4 - then AIV, although there's nothing really wrong with doing it this way. Sometimes it's called for, sometimes you're just wasting time giving warnings to determined, blatant vandalism. I typically start out with a "level one" warning using Friendly - I rarely use a general level 1 template warning. However, if the edits are blatant, egregious vandalism, I see no reason to go to a level two - if it's clearly bad faith, I go right to a level three. If the edits are libel against a WP:BLP, I'll go straight from the friendly warning to a level 4. There's all kinds of nuances and subjectivity in determining which warning to give - I think that I have a good grasp on this. Tan | 39 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The bigger picture here is to remember the purposes behind vandalism patrol. The purpose is not to "catch" vandals; the purpose is to make sure Wikipedia policy is upheld. Best case scenario is that my friendly welcome can make an anonymous vandal think, "Hey, someone cares about this article, maybe Wikipedia isn't just a bunch of random crap", and once in a blue moon, they will register a username and start participating. My thinking is to assume good faith if at all possible - but not to be a fool about it. Vandalism is vandalism. Tan | 39 17:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

4 Under what circumstances can an established editor be blocked?

  • One of those slightly vague questions (as you said some were). Established editors could be blocked if there is a high likelihood that disruptive editing would continue, and to protect the rights, property and safety of Wikipedia (I did sort of cut and paste that part). While vandalism is the obvious circumstance, there's plenty of others - persistant copyright violations, personal attacks, legal threats, libelous edits to biographies of living people, disclosing personal information, or edits that put other users in any sort of danger. Any sort of apparently compromised account should also be blocked. There are also plenty other disruptive things that could be done to warrant a block - sock puppetry, incivility, harassment, spamming, edit warring or revert warring, etc. I would think that if the user truly is established, a good-faith effort would be made to try to resolve the situation without resorting to a block. Tan | 39 19:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, are these the sort of responses you are looking for, B-man? I don't want to keep going ahead on these if I'm not doing them correctly ;-) Tan | 39 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll respond in full detail later on, but I am growing more and more convinced that when you go for it, you should pass hands down. 3 months after a failed RfA is the guideline, but based upon your work here and elsewhere *I* would not be opposed to pushing it forward a little. Pushing it forward does have some risks, but I think your expertise is shining through!Balloonman (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this where I get to add the "I told you so" or do I hafta wait, "pushing forward" is exactly the conclusion (and I think language) I used in AC#1...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a few thoughts here. First, I'll take this as a yes, I'm doing these exercises correctly. Secondly, when my next RfA occurs is completely up to you two - of course it will always be all right with me. I don't need to have assurance that the RfA will be unanimous - if you two think I'm ready, then whenever is fine. I'm sure there will be people out there who will find some edit or another that they don't like and use it to oppose. You saw how I reacted to negativity in my first RfA; I think the second will most assuredly be the same reaction from me. Thirdly, it's really no rush - becoming an admin is far less of a goal than writing good articles. It would be convenient to be an admin for certain activities I like to do - new page patrolling, AIV, etc - but the tools aren't a requirement for me to add to Wikipedia's progression. Tan | 39 19:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

5 How long can an IP address be blocked?

  • The relevant information page here is WP:IP. Per the page, and my own experience, an IP address should almost never be blocked indefinitely. The length of time should be solely based on the protection of Wikipedia and not on the punishment of offenders - not that we block for punishment, but we don't do "vandal-only" indefinite blocks on IPs. For repeated vandalism, the blocks usually start (after applicable warnings) at a few hours, and range up to a year for IPs that cause frequent and heavy vandalism. Special care should be taken for shared IPs. The bottom line here is that caution should be exercised that legitimate users (i.e., users that have higher potential for positive contributions) aren't needlessly blocked. Tools and functions such as WHOIS and reverse DNS lookup can reveal a shared IP, which should be tagged as such. Range blocks are also an option here, but again, should be used with caution, as legitimate users could be affected. Tan | 39 02:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Good answer. IP's that are known to be part of a school are often given shorter leashes. Eg, are more likely to be blocked for a longer period of time (up to a year) than IPs of unknown nature. Also, be careful about sensistive IP's.Balloonman (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

6 How many times can an editor make the same edit before violating 3RR? Can an editor be blocked before they reach that number?

  • Well, the question is posed to elicit an obvious answer - an editor can make the same edit four times (meaning they reverted three reversions) before violating WP:3RR. If an editor is being blatantly disruptive, then yes, an editor can be blocked before their third edit. The rule is in place to prevent edit warring, and thus there are some exceptions to the rule, as I learned the other day while participating in a somewhat silly talk page discussion. These include obvious vandalism, violations of copyright, spamming, or non-free content policies; libelous or unsourced additions to living person biographies (this is the one I didn't remember when I engaged in that discussion). There are also some other more minor exceptions - banned/blocked users evading their block, user's own userspace and talk page, etc. In the spirit of the rule, when in doubt, don't revert. This is the attitude I follow and why I started that RfC. Tan | 39 02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Good answer, this question often catches people off guard because the rule has (at various times) been worded poorly. But yes, the relevant edit is the fourth one. Of course, this is a guideline and as you mention, exceptions do exist. If a person blatantly declares an intention to edit war, they might be blocked even if they haven't broken 3RR.Balloonman (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

7 How can you tell if an editor (whether an account or an anon IP) is a sockpuppet?

8 What is "rollback"?

9 What is the difference between protection and semi-protection?

10 An article has been vandalized several times. Under what circumstances can it be protected or semi-protected?

11 Under what circumstances would you invoke IAR? Can you provide a scenario where IAR might apply?

12 A page has been deleted several times, and keeps being recreated. What options do you have?

13 Explain how one goes about changing one's name

14 What types of names can be blocked?

15 You come across a page with material you consider to be highly libelous material on the page. Others don't believe it is, what should you do?

16 Somebody makes a legal threat, what do you do?

17 What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?

18 You are involved in a content dispute with another editor that is starting to get nasty. The other editor then vandalizes your talk page. What do you do?

[edit] Out of town

Hey coaches - just a note to let you know I'm in New Jersey for a few days (and have been all week) on business. I might make some easy vandal edits or whatever, but don't anticipate making any coaching edits or hardcore additions. I'll be home late tomorrow night, and will start on this stuff over the weekend. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What, your Wiki-life isn't your only life? Obviously you lack the dedication needed in an admin candidate. </sarcasm>. See you when you get back. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey coaches. I wanted to check in and make a few comments/announcements. First, I've been out of town again for a few days (Dallas, TX - I'm at a Starbucks right now) and Wiki-ing on my work laptop isn't nearly as convenient as my home computer for several technical reasons. Secondly, my activity on this coaching page has decreased and my exercise completion time has increased. This is for a few valid reasons - first, I have several months to go until another RfA is viable, so really, there's no rush. Second, I've been enjoying some article building lately, doing some preliminary research, paper sketching, and then actual writing of information on Landing at Kip's Bay. I tend to agonize over wording and I always want to make sure I'm not inserting my own POV or interpretations into the article, so it takes some time.
Also, specifically to Balloonman, I just !voted a strong support for a user that you had !voted a strong oppose. I'm going to assume that we are allowed to disagree on things like this and that it has negligible bearing on your opinion of my editing style or what my style will be as a possible future administrator. Tan | 39 15:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not... don't you know that when you are my coachee... oh wait, I have no problem with your taking a different stance than me... I commended you for your MFC RfA comment even though I opposed MFC. I'm more concerned with your supporting your reasons than mimicking mine. Also, keep up the article building, I think that was the area that people wanted to see the most work from with you. IMHO, it will, ultimately, be more important towards your passing the next RfA than our "coaching" will be.Balloonman (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be out of town for a few days... thus, if you are going to try to sneak an RfA in, now is the time to do so ;-) Balloonman (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Crap, I think we missed our window, Tan! He'll be back before we could pull off a successful RfA...:-). By the way, based on your contribs, this coaching, and your overall awesomeness, I am aiming for a unanimous RfA. I'm thinking a 89-0-0 would be in order. Now, how do we get rid of JayJay? (I'm joking...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hah, I would just prefer a passing RfA next time. The Lawrence RfA that's ongoing right now is insightful, in that you really do have to keep your nose clean in the lead-up to an RfA. Not that my demeanor, policy use or civility will change at all, but it would be nice to not have to worry about offending any RfA regulars. Tan | 39 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that sad that that is what it comes down to sometimes? Being sure you don't piss off the Rfa regulars? Sigh. For what it's worth, I just switched my opposition of LC's RfA from neutral to support, and he and I have had a discourse on his talk page. I'm not sure if his riffa (that's how I pronounce RfA) will pass, but my conscience is clear at least, as I believe he is a net positive to this wacky place... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arizona State Parks

Hey guys. Created User:Tanthalas39/Arizona State Parks awhile ago, and it's been languishing in my userspace for some time. Do you think it's right to release this into the wild? It definitely meets notability and verifiability etc, but it's pretty short - there's just not much out there to actually reference. I hope to make this at least into a start-class article in the future, as part of the WP:AZ project, but for now it's stubby. There's also an inconvenient name issue that this will probably create a need for a disambig page (or at least a "see also" addition), is it worth the hassle? Whaddya think? Oh, and Keep, i sort of lifted your signature for mine, flipped the colors, etc. Call it a tribute to the head coach. Tan | 39 05:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, the only references now aren't very (read: not at all) third party. Let's keep this one on the back burner for the time being. Tan | 39 05:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No comments on my new user page?! Sheesh, you guys are hard to please. You'd think all you were worried about is content and building encyclopedias and stuff. Tan | 39 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yikes, hadn't seen that. Very nice. Clean and pretty. Oh so pretty. I'll probably steal it as paybacks for teh signature pilfering. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Butting in...

Tanthalas, if you are in Arizona then teh library should have some books you could flesh out this article with, and add some written sources. Like I have said elsewhere, getting a GA or (better) FA is really good as it shows someone in about 3 seconds that you can negotiate. If you have significant mainspace contribs that can be seen quickly, you may attract some more support (not many think like me but if it si the difference between success and failure you'll be very happy/relieved). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Participation

Hey there Tan, I just wanted to let you know that I think your contributions to the RfA process are great... I particularly liked your comments on Milk's Favorite Cookie's RfA.Balloonman (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Keep the comments coming. Tan | 39 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse report comments

Just wanted to solicit comments from you two about my submission here for repeated IP abuse. I was prompted to do so by the notification at the top of the IP's talk page, "efforts should be made to contact Northwest Ohio Area Computer Services Cooperative to report abuse". Was this appropriate? Tan | 39 19:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to pass on this, as I'm very much a n00b when it comes to vandals/abuse/etc. I've not only never done a report there, I've not even done an WP:AIV report. Not one. "How the hell did I pass an Rfa?", he asks himself quietly... Any advice Balloonman? (On Tan's question, please please ignore mine :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that they do have a volunteer list. Perhaps someone there can advise you? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was accepted, so I guess it was a valid submission. If anything interesting happens, I'll let you know. Tan | 39 21:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Something sort of interesting happened. Would have been an interesting call to hear. Tan | 39 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That makes me smile like Avi | Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About your use of twinkle

I use admin coaching pages as a place to keep notes on candidates as well as actual coaching. One thing that I want to remember about you when you run again is that you don't blindly use twinkle like a lot of people. You use Twinkle as a tool---within a series of twinkle edits, there are often places where you've done some article building/fixing. You don't blindly tag every revert as "vandalism" in fact, you seem to go out of your way to call something a good faith edit if you think it's necessary.Balloonman (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Koli culture

Hey guys, when you get a chance, can you take a look at Koli culture for me? An article that I consider entirely WP:OR. I had nommed for AfD but someone removed the AfD tag this morning, and I don't really want to get into it. I had corresponded with the creator of the page, and tried to help him to add references, but as of now, it is still entirely unreferenced. Maybe this page should stay, tho, although in its current form it is completely untenable. Let me know your opinions. Thanks! Tan | 39 15:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, the discussion with the author is on the talk page of the article itself. Tan | 39 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I restored the tag and explained why on the talkpage. Hope that helps. I'll watchlist the page and the afd, hopefully they get the message. It's a lot tougher (and hence much patience is needed, as you've definitely shown) when the primary authors/talkpage responders are not primarily English speaking, as is apparent here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I pretty much knew what the "solution" to that would be; I was just hesitant because I didn't want it to appear as if I was on a mission to have that page deleted. It would be a good page if it was cleaned up and cited, but.... it's not. Thanks Keeper - Tan | 39 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, I'm disgusting. Tan | 39 15:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It's about time someone told you the truth....er, I mean...I'll look into it...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I might have just violated 3RR with the STP disambig page - last night an IP address kept adding their non-notable band with no article, and today it's a registered user. I'm stopping my activity with this now, as the user seems determined to keep adding this, and it's not quite vandalism. Can you give me some direction on this? Thanks! Tan | 39 15:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, didn't violate 3RR as I see/read it, anyway, as you were attempting to keep unsourced, unverified info out. Just saw the newuser on your talkpage. I've got his/hers watchlisted as well. Have fun! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity page

What do you guys think about this page - Eric Litman? Total vanity page. I'm not sure what to do about it, if anything. Note I have a little history with the page - I think I nominated it for speedy in an early version. Tan | 39 16:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, that's pretty borderline spammy. I would actually say keep though, in this case, as he is a founder of a publicly traded company. Checking out the sources to verify the truth of that would be merited, but otherwise, vanity/COI issues can be wikificated and cleaned up. If, however, upon attempting to cleanerize it, you run into an adamant editor, the COI board would be a good place to chat about it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with the keep. I was more asking for the COI/spammy side. I'm gonna sit tight for awhile and see how the page develops, then maybe I'll try a little cleanup. Tan | 39 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous notes

I should have made a section like this a long time ago. I don't know if you two watch my contribs, but I wanted to point you towards some mainspace activity I've been involved in recently. Of course, Landing at Kip's Bay is coming along nicely, and I've started an image discussion on its talk page. I also listed the article for peer review here, with an editor already making some great observations. Lastly, there's some related task force discussion going on here, which relates to the Kip's Bay article and some preliminary research on my next project (Battle of Harlem Heights). Feel free to browse the various discussions and throw in an opinion, or let me know here if you have any admin-coaching related observations. Thanks guys! Balloonman, hope your conference (?) in Vancouver, and especially your presentation, went well. Tan | 39 16:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

They went great, thanks for asking... I kept waiting for the paparazzi to show up to start taking my picture. One of the managers that I work with, who went to the conference, told me, "I knew you were good. I even knew you were recognized as an expert. I just didn't realize how famous you in this industry!"
As for your edits... yes, I do keep an eye on the edits of all of my coachees---when I see something I don't like, I'll let you know... if I see something I do like, I'll post it here, as I want to ensure that I remember it when it comes time for your next RfA.Balloonman (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed a discussion happening involving lots of established editors here. That whole thread is on its way to destroying some shoes (people are digging in heels). I would advise not to get too involved, it's not very often that a thread looks like it's headed straight for Arbcom. My money is on Arbcomm, RfC, some hurt feelings, bad blocks, huffy retiremments, and other such drama-laden ultimatums. Not what you need right now. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. That one (and the one with Tango on ANI) were minefields at best. I've been adding in opinions lately and I probably shouldn't. I'll redirect my efforts to my project articles ;-) Tan | 39 16:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My first real conflict! Yay.

Hey coaches. I'm currently having a bit of conflict regarding an editor (Trip Johnson) and some potential ownership problems. I'm going to summarize in another paragraph below so that if I want to easily export to ANI or 3O or something, I can. In the meantime, I haven't gone to 3O or such because I don't think it will really work - he's not argumentative, he's dismissive.

Recently, there has been active discussion (mostly driven by me) about the outcome of the Battle of Harlem Heights, along with some proposed infobox changes. These discussions are mainly here and here. The user in question is making changes that are related to these discussions without participating in the discussion itself (and is fully aware of the discussion). Instead of my providing random diffs, please just see the user's contributions for an easy look at the blanket changes being made. The user is dismissive, deleting good-faith queries I made on their talk page ([1], [2]. Then the user left a somewhat cryptic message on my talk page about a minor change that wasn't completely on topic ([3]), and implied that I was being silly by wanting to discuss these changes. If you read the user's talk page, you can see that I'm not the only editor who has had some issues here.

What are my options here? How would you handle this? I don't want to display the same ownership tendancies as this user, and I also don't want to be petty or overreactive. What do you think? Tan | 39 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting editor, TJ. A (rather) small, and (rather) semantic disagreement, working itself out civilly on the talkpages. He (I assume he's a he) goes and makes changes to his liking anyway and calls for site banning/page locking to avoid "American bias and vandalism?" Sheesh. He's way over the top. Not that you wouldn't anyway, but keep your cool. Apparently, it is extremely important to him that the British did something right in a war 232 years ago, and apparently you are part of a continued American patriotic conspiracy hellbent on erasing British victories in the war once and for all. On Wikipedia. In 2008. Laughable really. I'll watchlist his contribs. I'd like to see him (based on the diffs you've provided), convince anyone that you/others are "vandalizing" and deserve a site ban. That'll be fun. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you and I both are having a rough Wikiday, Keep. Talk:Battle of Harlem Heights Tan | 39 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been watching over the talkpages. In my opinion, Tan, you've handled yourself very well and you have policy/consensus and sources on your side (I'm not sure if that gives you a victory though, or if it only gives him a defeat. Or maybe it's a draw. Or maybe it's indecisive. Tactically indecisive, not strategically of course...). I'm proving to you that from a topic standpoint, I have nothing to say, just that from a Wiki standpoint, you are doing very well. I specifically like how you have "drawn him out" on Talk:Battle of Harlem Heights, basically saying "Got Sources?" (And for him to presume that his source is unbiased, even though it's called britishbattles, and yours, all of them independent of each other, are biased, is well...) You've said what needed to be said. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Balloon / Keeper, can you have a peek at User:Tanthalas39/test and let me know your thoughts? You can go ahead and reply right on that page, probably easier than here. Tan | 39 23:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whole new section

Based on this second round of "coaching", based on my rather biased view of Tan, and based on Balloonman's recent posts, I'm bluelinking this. But I won't transclude it myself. And I don't think Tan should. Balloonman? What's your timeline? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes Keeper, you told me so... but based on Tan's comments above, I say we wait another month. Coming back after one month might be pushing it a little, but if we wait two months (especially with Tan's attitude) then we will probably be better received. I don't think we need to wait the full 3 months though, his answers here have been superb.Balloonman (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Kosher with me. Tan already said whatever we decide he is required to do, so I'm comfortable saying "Yes sirs" on his behalf...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I cant wait! Tiptoety talk 00:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, I might have too much coaching now. I'm feeling rather manufactured... Tan | 39 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not... Keeper, we need to have a check on Chip number 12345 checked... he's questioning our authority... there must be a malfunction.Balloonman (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh shit you guys, your plan looks like it is backfiring, better just shut him down now to avoid the community finding out that you are trying to improve his admin ability (cause we cant have that can we?) :) Tiptoety talk 03:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Keeper, your note about this page being used by B, K, and T appears to have a loophole ;-) Balloonman (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This should cheer up Keeper

After today's oppose on CapitalR's RfA, I'm halfway tempted to have Tan do a self-nom, with two co-noms!!!Balloonman (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha. I'm trying very hard to keep this all in perspective. Tan | 39 17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This made me laugh. (as did the thread directly above this). I'm calling it right now, by the way. After the posts I've made to KMW, I'm pretty sure he'll oppose Tan's RfA if my name is anywhere near the nom section. I'd be interested in a balloonman/tan nom, see how that strikes his fancy. So, Tan, when you're ready, we'll have to concede that the nom will likely not be unanimous. Hope that's alright with you...:-) Thanks for the cheer up guys, actually I'm doing fine, I've vented, I know Kurt read my post (after all, he had the gall to try and persuade me on my talkpage, after deleting it from his own talkpage). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, this has occured to me several times recently. Over the past week or so, I've made some comments in ANI/RFa talk/other places that could be construed as "pissed off". This is because I was, well, pissed off. I've been waiting for one of you to tell me, "cool it, man, you're sinking your next RfA", but you two have been remarkably composed. I feel that by just sitting back and being vanilla, as one should do in the months prior to an RfA, I'm not being me. I don't want to be one of those admins who got the trust of the community by acting like a saint - I should act now how I will when I'm an admin. If people have issues with that, that's fine. Tan | 39 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never enjoyed vanilla. As long as you are debating civilly, there is no need to agree with everyone on everything. Makes for a boring website. I've never once seen you disagree with something to the point of being incivil. Acutally, quite the opposite. I've been impressed with your ability to say what you mean and mean what you say. A good clue that you are doing it "right" is that nobody's throwing any AGF's at you. I should really use you as an example, my recent "activity" has been a bit over the top. I didn't think I had a nerve that could be struck by an anonymous editor here, but KMW managed to find one, and caught me off guard at that. I don't care how many ridiculous articles he insists on saving, I don't care how many self noms he opposes, and I don't care how ridiculous most of his ideas are. They can be discounted as exactly that, ridiculous. What he has done most recently, on AN and RFA no less, is down right dangerous and irresponsible. But that's my opinion. Kudos to you Tan for saying what you mean and meaning what you say. And don't worry, if I think you've crossed the line, I'll tell you, even after you've passed your RfA :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I actually hadn't looked at your posts in a while, I meant to do so last night, but got side tracked... I try to look at my coachees once a week or so...Balloonman (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

This Afd. Oops. Seemed like an okay tag at the moment (considering how I removed the CSD tag), but it really kinda got away from me. I didn't tag it to force cleanup - I wouldn't do that - but then I tried to use that as an excuse. Oh well, I suppose mistakes will be made. On a totally unrelated note, SM closed this partially "per SNOW", which I don't really agree with. This is a common misunderstanding I see of WP:SNOW - people quote it when there is a huge consensus, like something is "snowballing" - but really, it means that something didn't have "a snowball's chance in hell". While this AfD might have been a mistake to start, I certainly don't think it was a SNOW close... or am I just being defensive again? ;-) Tan | 39 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it...Balloonman (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I wouldn't worry too much. I read the "first draft" of the article, where it says things like "Mary is a great opera singer, I know because we grew up together (sic), even though I don't know much about opera, she's really really great!" (sic). Justifiable speedy, also a justifiable removal of speedy (and I'm willing to bet that 9 out of 10 C:CSD patrolling admins woulda deleted it on sight). I'm also willing to bet that every single editor that commented in the AfD with their "shame on you"s, who would seem to prefer to slap a meaningless, messy tag on the top to bury the article in a heap of never addressed backlogs, would never have cleaned up this article. They (certain inclusionists, not all) have a very much "holier than thou" attitude in general, and are very very good at the "How dare you bite a new article!" as if you are stepping on a baby bird in the yard. Ridiculous. It was a good nom, It was a unanimous keep, it was closed way to early by a non-admin (I agree with you there), but it's closed. Over and done with. I also noticed the posts you made on Quasi's talkpage. Once again Tan, I found those couple of posts to be very composed even though you were being accused and mislabelled with assumptions about your character and Wiki-practices. I think I might nominate you for adminship one of these days....:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review

I've been a little negligent lately on reading your edits, so I'm going through them now. Let me see what I come up with.

  1. Looking at your talk page, you are clearly an admin already! You just don't have the buttons! I always say that the best way to become an admin is to be seen as an admin.
  2. Nice job turning this guy around
  3. went through your last 500 edits... not much in the way of content building.Balloonman (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No, not too much on content lately. The whole User:Trip Johnson thing was really a turnoff, and I stepped away on purpose and letting the fire restoke ;-) Thanks for the other kudos. Tan | 39 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, don't forget about the essay questions above...Balloonman (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nom

Looks like keeper already started it, but I just added my co-nom to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39 2 I'll probably add more, but I want to get it ready for whenever Tan decides to run. Keeper, as you as Tan's primary coach, i'm letting you be the primary nominator as well. Put your nom above mine and make sure you flush it out more. I'm keeping my 'co-nom' short in the spirit of secondary noms should be shorter and to the point.Balloonman (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I like my nom, are you sure I need to flush it out more? :-) I'll add mine in the next week or two. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Nom updated. I'm leaving it to Tan now to accept and transclude when he wants to. Also, let me know if there is anything glaringly wrong with my nom statement. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. I got called to Houston for a few days to take care of a work issue that came up over the weekend (you don't want to hear about it; one of our research patients had a, uh, rectal abcess). Anyway, definitely waiting until at least next week to run that RfA - I want to finish Kip's Bay over the weekend and have the time to dedicate to questions, etc. You know, living in Phoenix I'm used to the heat, but the humidity here... zomg. Tan | 39 21:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If we don't want to hear about it, why did you tell us anyway? :-). Have fun in Houston. Green light either Balloonman or myself once you're ready to go live. Cheers, be well - Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Believe you me; I could tell you a lot more detail. Tan | 39 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ready

Hey guys, I think I'm ready. Barring any further comments from you about the RfA questions/statement, and the timing of this thing, it's ready to transclude. Tan | 39 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you're ready, excellent. Balloonman is having, um, issues at the moment. Have you been reading his talkpage. I have even personally suggested he withdraw his nom for you as his credibility is tainted at the moment in many editor's eyes because of his "other nom". That would be very unfair to you and balloonman if that whole mudslinging mess sullied up your RfA. Your thoughts? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I read that issue. I didn't participate because, well, I don't participate in those sorts of things :-) I don't mind a few opposes - if someone wants to project Balloonman's problems onto my own, I suppose that's fine. I still think Balloonman is a fine editor, and I shouldn't overreact and cut ties because of one event. Tan | 39 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Should I assume by your silence that you agree? Do we need a third-party opinion? :-) Tan | 39 17:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't been able to do much, I can't resist that damn orange bar that seems to pop up on my talkpage way too much. I say transclude it if you wish (make sure to change the endtime), I'll be the first in the support column! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.