Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger 2

TonyTheTiger

Voice your opinion; (15/11/5); Scheduled to end 19:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) – I am nominating TonyTheTiger (herein referred to as "Tony"). I first came in contact with Tony when he encouraged me to save an article from deletion. Eventually, I asked if he would be interested in becoming an administrator. My support for Tony's candidacy is strictly based on his qualifications as I do not have any business or any other type of relationship with him except on wikipedia. I also note that we do not edit the same material (so would not benefit directly from Tony being an administrator) nor I don't live anywhere near Chicago, Illinois (USA) or have met him in person.

Tony has been editing wikipedia for about a year. He has never been blocked. As one can see, his dedication is difficult to match as his time commitment to wikipedia shows his labour of love to help in our wikipedia community. He tells me that he has over 12,500 edits. These vary from significant article creation, improvement of existing articles as well as showing his selflessness by devoting much time to housekeeping duties such as daily or nearly daily contributor to WP:NPP, WP:AFD, WP:CFD (for first 3000 edits after his initial RfA), WP:AFD & WP:CFD. Tony tells me that he has also participated in WP:PROD, WP:UCFD, WP:TFD, WP:RFD, and CFDS as well. Furthermore, his time spent at WP:NPP gave him some experience as the nominator instead of just as a voter at AFD. He has given a bit of time to WP:AIV and has assisted at CAT:RFU. He applied last year but withdrew in order to get more experience (old RfA in discussion page of RfA/TonyTheTiger). Rather than get discouraged, he's continue to show dedication and even more of it.

We should be proud of his commitment to reviving WP:CHICOTW (Chicago) which, in itself, is a job worthy of a paid consultant that wikipedia has gotten for free. Aside from editing, he has gone through the effort of taking quite a few good photos that the articles so sorely needed.

As far as I know, in recent months, Tony has interacted like an integral team member of our community. He seems genuinely interested in helping out and doesn't seem like someone who is hungry for power or wants to show non-administrators that he has sysop powers. That's why I am happy to nominate TonyTheTiger to become an administrator.VK35 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

As we toil on wikipedia, we sometimes forget people on other computers are seeing what we do. I am grateful someone has an appreciation for my efforts and do accept the nomination. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional Statement

I failed in my first RFA in Dec at about 5500 edits. Since then I have attempted to address my weaknesses by becoming active in WP space and WP:XFD.

I had been considering renominating myself after 3000 more (8500 total) edits. However, I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Daniel.Bryant_2 and decided I had a lot to learn. This caused me to expand horizons to CAT:RFU. A request for help with Category:Unassessed biography articles, inspired me to help a little and to tag all my article creations with {{WPBiography}}, {{WikiProjectBanners}}, & {{Infobox Biography}}.

In addition to lack of WP space and XFD experience, another qualm with my prior candidacy, is that I am of Afro-American heritage and of Latin-American descent, and that I made inquiries related to the ethnicity/wikipedia administrator intersection. My heritage remains, but as far as I know statistics to quell my curiosities remain unavailable. I have been put in contact with administrators of color, however.

I should also add that in the last month two individuals have queried me about my user name using {{UsernameConcern}}. My reasons for wanting this particular name are as follows.

1. See my bio that is a linked attachment to my signature. I am a prominent martial artist. That is essentially my performing name or stage name. If the commercial release of my video CD is successful, I hope to be notable enough to have my bio unuserfied within 6 months.
2. I have been known by the name Tony, have attended junior high school, senior high school and college at schools with Tiger mascots.
3. As a prominent martial artist, the Tiger is a sacred animal to me. It represents stealth, grace, power, and ferocity.
4. I have built up a lot of human capital with 12500 good edits under this name. Last month, I earned my first WP:FL and my first WP:FA under this name. I have several WP:GAs under this name. I have also earned several barnstars and smileys under this name.

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: It is logical for me to pursue adminship to increase the efficiency with which I can assist. I have been involved in numerous types of WP:XFD, especially WP:AFD, WP:CFD. Becoming an admin will enable me to more efficiently improve the encyclopedia. I will become more involved in XFD and will be able close out discussions objectively. I mostly find stale vandalism. As such my involvement with AIV is infrequent, but as an admin I would efficiently contribute to these efforts. Once I have mastered my new tools I will be of great assistance and will get active in the unfortunate task of blocking users. Although I will surely begin by blocking very clear abusive vandals who ignore warnings, I hope to be able to steer users towards good faith contributions. Overall, I will use new tools as respectfully and pragmatically as possible while balancing efficiency with caution. Above all else, I intend to act with the welfare of the encyclopedia as a whole in mind at all times.

Since last month I received both a WP:FA and WP:FL (as further outlined below) I have an interest in WP:FC. As I state on the featured content talk pages, I have an interest in modifying featured content. I believe Featured Templates and possibly Featured Categories and Featured Galleries (the picture analogue to Featured Topics) should exist. Also, below I discuss my interest in preventing the deterioration of the WP:TFA feature now that wikipedia has grown to a point where the promotion rate far exceeds the number of days in a month. Raul has done a tremendous job as the Featured Article Director selecting such articles, but I believe wikipedia's growth will lead to problems. I hope to be involved in the featured content process and possibly redesign of the main page.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am pleased with my resuscitation of WP:CHICOTW because of its successes and general contributions. In addition, undertaking this responsibility has forced me to become a better editor. The strategy of the CHICOTW has been to attempt to create WP:GAs from redlinks and stubs. However, because of all the GAs the CHICOTW was producing I had to start cleaning up my own articles so it would not seem like all my GAs were on the coattails of the CHICOTW. If you look at my userpage you will see the numerous WP:GAC that were thusly motivated. This week I parameterized the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} so that the group members can add quality and importance designations. Any glitches with the parameters are because I am not a great programmer. However, I am quite a pirate. I do my best to give Johnny Depp a run for his money.

I am also pleased with my own progress as an editor. I have pursued editorial excellence by contributing hundreds of edits to articles that I created and guided to Template:FA WP:FA (3/26/07) (Campbell's Soup Cans) and Template:FA WP:FL (3/16/07) (List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry) status. I spent over 500 edits on the former (333 article, 19 article talk, 12 FAC1, 44 FAC2, 82 Images (13, 11, 11, 9, 8, 7, 4, 2, 1, 1) Removed images (7, 4, 4) image talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:Images-3 and Wikipedia talk:Fair use-3 as well as numerous user talk page exchanges) and 300 on the latter. I have become a much better editor over the last 4 months. I am also pleased with some of my lead roles in less edit-intensive Template:GAstar Washington Square Park, Chicago & Template:GAstar Marquette Building (Chicago) contributions. I also await responses to the numerous (currently 8) Template:GACicon WP:GACs I have in the queue.

Also, I am pleased to have created an article that survives WP:CRUFT and in fact achieved WP:DYK for an athlete that I use to root for. I am a very strong University of Michigan Wolverines fan who has trekked to Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Final Four, National Invitation Tournament Finals and NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Championship games. I have had The Victors as my ringtone for years. As a student in the renamed Ross School of Business, I use to root along with friends and classmates for the Michigan teams. I was a regular at the Saturday morning Business School tailgates. One of the favorite players for all the guys I use to hang out with in the business school was (02-27-07) Rob Pelinka and I am pleased to have been able to post an article for him. It is very rare for a student in the business school to have an important role on one of the major Michigan sports programs like Rob did. As business school students, we use to like to shout his name (like we were PA announcers) whenever he did anything (even got up to stand by the scorers table). Rooting for him rivaled witnessing Desmond Howard's Heisman season as a Michigan sports memory. It was fun to create his still stubby article.

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 had a minor dustup attempting to clarify why I could not get a block on a repeat offender just because I caught him 3 hours after the occurrence. The text can be seen on my page at Archive 7 and at TigerShark's archive. He got blocked 3 days later. I returned to my normal editing and vandalism patrol of my watchlists. I mostly catch stale vandalism efforts. However, I finally assisted on my first block on March 30 [1] [2]. My numerous talk page tags have probably helped many others succeed at getting vandals blocked at WP:AIV. Going forward, I will as time permits continue to fight vandalism, but I will be satisfied with user talk page notices unless I have a fresh catch.

Also, during my Campbell's Soup Cans WP:FAC debates fair use issues became contentious because modern art articles face stringent requirements on image inclusion. I especially had extensive debate with User:ShadowHalo. Of course, in the end I relented to a significant compromise on image inclusion to get my article promoted.

I had a much more protracted conflict with a proposal for changing the WP:TFA/R procedure for the new era of tremendous surplus in TFA nominees. It is debatable whether proper protocol was used in handling my proposal. That aside, in March 2007 a record 83 FA new promotions occurred. The current TFA/R queue has grown to about 130. There is about a 400 article pool of non TFA FAs. Many of these articles have been FAs for 2, 3 or 4 years. At the time of the debate, I had not determined a very important aspect of the problem, which is the large number of old eligible articles by active wikipedians that have not been promoted as TFAs. It seems to me that there are many problems to be solved. 1.) The FA Director, Raul654, is overworked [3] and the situation will worsen as the process continues to grow in scale. 2.) The average wait between FA promotion and a TFA/R decision is growing to a soon to be annoying length. 3.) The number of articles vying for TFA/R is growing in a way that is going to start leading to disappointment and frustration as it becomes clear that some articles will be passed over for inordinate if not infinite lengths of time. 4.) The combination of the above will eventually lead to hostility and possibly discouragement 5.) The high quality of articles chosen as TFAs somewhat masks the high quality of some of the omitted articles. I have an ounce of prevention for these anticipated problems. However, the debate has basically boiled down to a discussion over whether I am attempting to solve a problem that I can prove has become unmanageable. My take on this is that I am proposing an ounce of prevention to a mounting problem, and I am being told that until I have proof that there is need for a pound of cure, I should be satisfied with the status quo. The long and the short of how I have dealt with this conflict is that I put a lot of effort into it, discussed it civilly, accepted its failure, rewrote it, and are again discussed it politely with the others. Although User:SandyGeorgia has generally been opposed to my idea, she has helped me to fill out a summary of old TFA eligible FAs after the proposal died. I continue to improve the presentation and although it is probably not proper for me to take a third stab at the apple, I would support resuscitation of my proposal by interested parties.

Optional Question from bainer (talk)

4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?

It is O.K. to break a rule when

1. You understand the letter of the law with respect to the rule (what the rule actually says)
2. You understand the spirit of the law with respect to the rule (what the rule truly meant to say)
3. You understand the substance of the law with respect to the rule (how the rule is actually applied)
4. 1 is different from either 2 or 3.

1. If 1 differs from 2 (and possibly 3), this means that the rule was written poorly and should be changed.
2. If 1 differs from 3 but not 2 as long as you are sure 3 will continue to prevail it is O.K. This is a case where since everyone does it, it sort of becomes O.K. For example, I jaywalk before the signal actually changes in my favor. Many people do. It is sort of O.K. to do so in the sense that it is against the letter and spirit of the law, but no one really cares.

Within wikipedia the former case is the one that is important to consider here. It is a case, where because the rule may be archaic due to wikipedia growth or technological advancement something is amiss. As we grow and learn how to police ourselves better we chance upon cases where the rules are not written correctly. The proper procedure in this case is to document an understanding of why 1 and 2 above disagree and why it should be the collective consensus to change the rule for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Basically, one should say why he is going against stated policy with a justification that is clearly for the good of the encyclopedia. Then one should notify the proper authorities in order to realign the stated rule with their intent.

Addendum I should clarify what WP Jaywalking is and isn't. WPJaywalking is not inappropriately speedy deleting. That is more like playing with fire. WP Jaywalking is "per" voting. Voters are suppose to state their vote and their reason on an XFD or RFA. However, often it seems to be worth the time savings to say per nom or per user:x. I.e., instead of clearly stating one's reason stating that someone else's reason is very similar to yours is sort of acceptable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 12:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from Nick

5.You are requesting the community grant you extra tools - primarily the ability to block users, the ability to delete material and the ability to protect or unprotect pages. Could you provide some examples of when you found it frustrating or inconvenient not having these tools and how you would have used them ?

I have been at time discouraged with the amount of time it took to get a page protected (although protection always occurred within an hour).

I have at other times been impatient with the progress of closing out a WP:RM or a WP:XFD.

In addition, now that my user page is starting to embody the characteristics of a wikipedia leader, as I participate in XFD stressed out XFD participants are starting to email me with issues that they want my help with. It is probably for the good of the encyclopedia to vest persons with authority who are sought out to solve problems. It is more comforting to troubled users to have persons who they seek out for help and guidance have real authority. Regardless, of whether such authority actually changes the way the problems are solved, words of encouragement from a truly vested authority is more likely to encourage someone to continue contributing. For example, when someone emails me saying that they are so disgusted that they are blanking their page and quitting wikipedia, it might be more comforting for me to be able to say “I am an administrator. Is there something I can do to help you?”

In addition, although I seek involvement with WP:FC, I may very well not find a meeting of the minds with my expressed interests. In this case, I will likely attempt to transform the entire Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago. I.E., I will likely start adding quality and importance ratings on things and requesting help in doing so. I believe that most Wikiproject director/coordinator/leader/administrators are true admins. I have truly tried to get the whole project running, but I imagine there is a reason why these persons are admins. It is probably similarly for the good of the encyclopedia if the people who are the faces of wikipedia (the people others turn to) seem to be persons ratified by the community. It would make more sense for people to turn to me as a leader of a Wikiproject if the community showed their confidence in me. Furthermore, as an admin people are probably more likely to help me improve the project upon request.

Mostly, I would like to improve my ability to participate in XFD.

Optional question from CMummert

6. You recently commented in the following two AFD discussions: Handbra and ASCII math notation. Would you please explain the reasoning behind your comments in more detail? If you had to close these right now, using the following permanent links [4] [5], what action would you take? The purpose of these questions is to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge and interpretation of WP policy and practice relating to article deletion, following your response to question 5.

ASCII math notation: This should be closed as no consensus and renamed ASCII math notation. When User:Quarl first looked to close this there was sufficient debate to say no consensus was reached although some might say there was consensus to delete. I would tend toward no consensus because of problems with a couple of deletes. Trovatore's claim that the article is unsourceable is not really valid. killing sparrows' response translates into a weak keep given the number of experts who understand the term. Once relisted, insufficient support was given to really say keep. Given the preceding discussion, it should be clear that I felt the article involved an encyclopedic topic that needs to be sourced.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Handbra Let me apologize for not correcting my own spelling of the word risque in my comment. The article needs authentication. When voting, I did a google search to make sure the term was real and presented a couple of links to show that it was not a made up term. Thus, I sort of obfuscated the arguments on whether the term was a real WP:NEO. I would close this with a keep because the early delete votes should be discounted once the term is authenticated. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

General comments

Comment Rather than respond to everyone individually about the initial confusion with El_C who at 19:45, 14 April 2007 voted in support and at 20:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC) voted both oppose and neutral, I will respond here in the comments section. I thought he was taking my candidacy lightly and making jokes. However, I could not use my usual responses to such contributions because they are not appropriate. I actually keep my most common tags on my user page at the bottom of the "Wikipedia Resources" section. I would usually respond with a {{uw-vandalism1}} or {{uw-vandalism2}}. You can see both of these tags mention reverting. However, it is surely bad form to revert votes on your own RFA. Thus, I sought administrative assistance.

I hope anyone who has voted oppose due to my confusion on this unusual situation would reconsider. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment It seems that many voters here are confused on the difference between WP:ANI and WP:AN. I reported the odd edits to AN. I am not all that convinced that the item was not worthy of a query at AN although I concur an ANI report might have been excessive. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Discussion

Support

#Looking good. El_C 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Switching to oppose. El_C 01:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Support - I support for the reasons that I mentioned when nominating Tony.VK35 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Good answers to questions, good history. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Appreciate the detailed and honest answers to questions, good experience over a broad range of issues. JavaTenor 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong Support This editor may actually be overqualified. -- P.B. Pilhet 21:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, he's GRRRRRRRREAT! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

   Support I see no problems with this editor. The admin tools would not be abused. (aeropagitica) 22:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Support per above. Concur he probably is overqualified. Addhoc 22:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Weak support Not all that weak, but I was somewhat concerned about your understanding of WP:FU. Regardless, you worked well with all the editors (not just myself) at the FAC, and it'd be silly for me to even go neutral given your work with the project. I see no issues with your having the tools. ShadowHalo 23:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong Support - He is actually overqualified and he should get the mop..--Cometstyles 00:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Support An examination of his contributions reveals that Tony is an exceptionally qualified editor who has a sound knowledge of Wikipedia policy. --Ali 00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
10. A good candidate for the mop, from what I've seen. Daniel Bryant 01:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Support lots of writing experience, very courteous & knowledgeable when I've seen him. Johnbod 02:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. He's shown good leadership getting WP:CHICOTW back and running. I've been helping out with things there, and I'm not even a member of the project. I don't see any problem with adminship, since he knows how to work with the community. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Support I've seen Tony a few times on AFD (I think), and I'm very impressed by the nomination statement. This is as close to a no-brainer endorsement as I can think of. Good luck. YechielMan 02:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Tony Sidaway 12:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Jaywalking is not an offense in my country, which happens to have an excellent pedestrian safety record. :)
15. It is my great pleasure to support The Tiger's nomination. I have worked with him on his Chicago's Collaboration of the Week a couple of times - and he treats my Aussie attention to his group's with same utmost courtesy he treats his fellow city dwellers. Indeed at times I think he may be single handedly creating all of the articles related to that city. His edit count in terms of its roundness of contribution is excellent, he understands images, templates, wikispace etc. Good luck is all I can add.--VS ^talk 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
16. Weak Support - I didn't get what El_C's joke was about either, but reporting it to ANI was an extreme overreaction. I also don't think the answer to Q5 was entirely satisfactory; not all project leaders are necessarily admins, and the two jobs are rather different. However, in light of the candidate's frequent XfD participation and high editcount, this isn't a good enough reason to oppose. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, but if you thought that my joke directly below was vandalism, the real vandals will do circles around you. At this point, I'm inclined to think that you need more experience with interpersonal communications. Why did you not simply drop me a note? I'm really quite surprised. El_C 01:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   If I looked at it correctly, you changed the sections to say "Oppose Neutral" instead of Oppose being 2 lines above Neutral, and then you left the "joke". It confused me too when I saw it. I suppose it does say something about Tony's handling of the situation, but I don't get it at all. Leebo ^T/C 09:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   Oh no, I just realized that it was me; I thought it was there in the original. That sucks! :( Still, here's what should have happned... Tony: why did you vandalize my RfA? Me: How did I vandalize your RfA? Tony: You changed the bracket between oppose and neutral and then signed neutral as oppose (opposing nuetral or myself?) after you'd already said you support. Me: Shiiiiii El_C 12:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. His proposals to change the process for Today's Featured Article show some fundamental deficiencies in regards to decision making. TFA is one of the few things that seems to work really well on Wikipedia. His proposal, frankly, is terrible. This causes me to believe that his admin decisions would be of similar quality. --- RockMFR 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Calling another editor a vandal on ANI without first discussing on their talkpage sets a bad precedent per El_C Naconkantari 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Per Naconkantari, plus the answer to Q4. You know why jaywalking is against the law? It's not just some archaic thing that nobody's bothered to retract, it is against the law because it is dangerous. Similarly, speedy deleting non-notable articles is against the rules no matter how you spin them, yet a lot of admins do it. That doesn't mean you can, because when it is challenged, you look like a complete idiot using your powers against policy. Especially when the decision in the AfD is keep, meaning you didn't even get the right result. -Amarkov moo! 04:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
5. As above -- Y not? 08:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
6. I'm sorry but no, the answer to question 5 just feels too wrong to me. Admins aren't leaders and have no more authority than any other editor, stating the opposite in your own rfa is not very comforting. If really the biggest inconvenience for not being an admin is that you don't get some 'official' recognition, then you really shouldn't be an admin. - Bobet 10:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose, changed from neutral, per Bobet, answer to question 5 is very wrong. Majorly (hot!) 10:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   From his user page: "I am not currently an administrator. However, I like to describe myself as the adminsitrator of the CHICOTW page." I'm afraid that is not the right attitude. Majorly (hot!) 10:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Well I thought I'd be supporting this one but his behavior over the El C joke has been astonishing. A post at WP:ANI about a highly experienced contributor without contacting him first? Even worse, the explanation above said he only did so because the wording of {{uw-vandalism2}} didn't fit... So (1) we don't use templates to communicate with established editors and (2) if a standard form message doesn't say what you want it to say- write your own message! Communication skills are vital to being a good admin- bad time to demonstrate a lack of them to be honest... WjBscribe 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose as per evidence brought up by Majorly and communication issues described elsewhere. (aeropagitica) 14:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose I came here to support; however, one should not accuse an established contributor of vandalism on ANI before talking it over at his talk page. This problem, combined with a poor answer to Question 4, persuades me that this just isn't the time. Sorry. Xoloz 14:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
11. I'm sorry, but I can't support someone who appears to want the tools (that's all it is, tools) in order to have power and authority. Your statements now that my user page is starting to embody the characteristics of a wikipedia leader; for the good of the encyclopedia to vest persons with authority; more comforting for me to be able to say “I am an administrator. Is there something I can do to help you?”; and as an admin people are probably more likely to help me are all very worrying.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
# I Oppose Neutral (I hate that guy so much!). El_C 20:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Way to represent the admins... Now get some sleep or something. --I already forgot 21:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Zapp Brannigan? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just find it interesting when the admins get giddy and witty over the name TonyTheTiger like we are in high school. I guess I'm getting old, never mind me, carry on. --I already forgot 22:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the reference. It's a reply to El C and this. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral I've seen this user around Wikipedia, and I admire the work he has done as part of the Chicago Wikiproject. However, I've always had a feeling that Tony still needed to learn and gain experience in the dealings that would require administrative tools. Tony has stated he wanted to get active with the Main Page, but I have seen some of the requests he made at DYK (and one for ITN), and I get the impression that Tony is not too familiar with policy and such. The ITN item he requested was too US-centric (not really necessary too) and would have been shot down by almost any admin. As for DYK, diffs like this and this are a bit worrisome, since if one takes a look at the DYK rules, neither of the two articles would qualify. Also, in regards to this RfA, Tony went to WP:AN[6] and questioned El C's edits, thinking it was vandalism. A bit of research, and possibly questioning the user on his talk page could easily resolve the matter. I feel that these sort of little things give the impression of a lack of experience. Nishkid64 23:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

   Well I came to support, but frankly the response to El C's oppose, be it a joke or not, was not handled well at all. If a comment looks odd or suspicious, you can question it there and then, not take it elsewhere, certainly not an administrator's noticeboard citing it as "vandalism". However, it was probably just a mistake... I certainly can't oppose because as I say, I'd come to support, and your question answers are excellent and detailed. Good luck with it. Majorly (hot!) 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral per Majorly. I hate to just add a "me too" vote but it's the exact same story for me. There's no doubt in my mind that Tony is a good editor but this was not handled well, and quite frankly worries me a bit. Based on past experience, I'm going to chalk this one up to a misunderstanding though. We're all human (except, of course, for these guys ;). We all make mistakes. -- Seed 2.0 08:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral I saw that one of the things you did to prepare for your second RfA was take a more active role in deletion discussions, so I looked through your last 100 or so edits at AfD. These diffs are not representative of all your contributions there, but they are the kind of comments I dislike seeing at AfD, and several of them you repeated on multiple discussions.
   • Non-policy related keep
   • Per other comment
   • Delete per essay - event without citing the essay, "cruft" boils down to the equivalent of "I don't like it," I don't feel it's enough of a reason to delete on its own.
   • No policy discussed
   • Delete rather than research - you start by saying the school is probably notable, but then you don't make an effort to save the artcle. The best result at AfD is a better article, not a deleted article.
   • List policies rather than explain

   Now, yes, a lot of these things are acts committed by a large number of regular contributors to AfD, and observing them could lead one to believe that it's the way it should be. There are a lot of "per nom" and "WP:N" comments. But I think this shows the wrong mindset for an administrator — admins are expected to evaluate deletion discussions on the strength of the policy-related arguments. Your current participation does not give me the impression that you would evaluate comments appropriately. Other than that, I don't really see any major problems, and I'm going neutral because a lot of people participate at AfD that way. I also don't really see a problem with the "Oppose Neutral" incident above; I don't think El C's comment was appropriate. Leebo ^T/C 09:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   See above. Now that I realize I was the cause for the formatting error (thanks for bringing that to my attention), I entirely agree. El_C 12:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   Understandable. I'm sure it was not your intention. Leebo ^T/C 13:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Support. Shows proficiency in both sides of the Wikipedia world--the maintenance and the editing/writing spheres.--Xnuala (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral based on the El_C situation.--Xnuala (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
5. I don't get the point of the El_C joke, either. Anyhow, besides the understandably irritated reaction, everything else I see makes me not oppose. —AldeBaer 14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   Changed from support. I just realised he had immediately posted to AN/I over this, which is a deal breaker. —AldeBaer 14:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)