Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tony1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:37, 28 October 2005

Tony1

Requests_for_adminship/Tony1|action=edit}} Vote here (38/3/1) ending 23:16 October 31, 2005 (UTC)

Tony1 (talk · contribs) – Tony1 has been here since July 14. Three month threshold? Check. He has 2100 edits, so you editcountitus sufferers should be happy. He has 842 article edits, making him an asset to the wiki. He has 433 Talk: and 230 User talk: edits, so we know he interacts a lot, and he has 430 Wikipedia edits, so he's on the admin side of things too. He's always friendly and asks for help when he needs it, and will be bold when he knows what he's doing. I'll bet my reputation he'll make a great admin :) R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.Tony 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Extreme How-Dare-You vote before the nominator support. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong omgwtfbbq lollergazm support. Absolutely. Linuxbeak | Talk 02:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Genuinely attempts to improve WP articles, and I like his attitude of attaining "featured article" status as his goal. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Essjay · Talk 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Christopher Parham (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, he is a professional editor, and his contributions on FAC are indispensable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kefalonia 08:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Though it seems a bit more edit summaries would be nice. The Minister of War 10:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not fair! Not fair! Redwolf... arrrgh!!! I wanted to nominate Tony myself. User:Nichalp/sg 10:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I welcomed him, and I knew I was gonna nominate him around the time he got his 1000th edit :P So I saw him first =P R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 11:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have been impressed by Tony's handling of a dispute at United States. I think he would make a fine admin. android79 12:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good lad, he'll go far--Xipho n 16:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Impressive contributions, and one of the most capable copyeditors on the site. He's likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 17:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. FAC work indicates a commitment to the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole. Chick Bowen 18:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Impressed with work at WP:FAC. Jkelly 19:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I have no reservations. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oran e (t) (c) (@) 02:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, without a doubt. Tony´s a hard working and talented user, well rounded and serious. I'm positive we will all benefit by handing him the mop. Shauri

smile! 09:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wiki needs more comma's. Dlyons493 Talk 10:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Although I wouldn't usually support a candidate with less than 6 months on the Wiki, I know Tony to be a trustworthy contributor. And I must say, I am very impressed with his efforts to improve article quality, and, in particular, his work at FAC. I had been intending to commend him privately, but I'll take the opportunity to do so now. So, good work! --Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly yes. Tony1 truly deserves being called an 'editor'; I've been impressed ever since he helped the wikidocs get Asthma featured. Does fabulous work—this guy is one of Wp's best copyeditors, and I think he saves a lot of our work from being painful embarrassments. Very good manner, good dispute resolution skills; X factor. Furthermore, in David Gerard's immortal words, "is not stupid or insane"; I'm sure that he'll take the trouble to learn up on those areas he's not currently familiar with before using any special buttons. Gets my strong support. enceph alon 14:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Johann Wolfgang 15:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Molotov (talk)

15:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FireFox 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sounds like a guy who does fabulous work :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for the Featured Guy! -- Svest 20:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Support, always seems very helpful about the place. I would like to know: when you replied to jossi below, you were smiling, right? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 22:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Support. Tony's absolutely invaluable at FAC, and therefore (in my opinion at least) to Wikipedia as a whole. He has also shown real calm-headedness in the face of some ugly disagreements. Updated 03:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC): Still support, but Tony's difficult-to-understand response to Bishonen's questions in the comments section has given me some pause. I was a participant in the Sicilian Baroque FAC debate, and agreed 100% with Tony regarding what he said there, so that didn't worry me, but I expected a clearer response in the face of the question. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. El_C 03:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just Came Back from Hurricane Wilma Support Sure --JAranda | watz sup 06:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support of course. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good contrib's across namespaces, as nominator notes. No problems with this user. Marskell 14:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~. Weak support. Valuable contributor to the FAC process and the music articles, and able to deliver criticism ~~without coming off as rude or abrasive. We need more editors like this.~~ Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC) In light of Bishonen's comment below, I express some reservation; I still believe he does good work but that remark makes me uneasy. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support--nixie 23:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Allen3 ^talk 23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musician?? Well, support of course! :) Really, everything looks good for this editor. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeak Oppose, just doesn't seem right to me. I don't know, I just feel as though this person isn't ready, more time I feel is needed. Atleast another month or so. Privat e Butcher 20:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think he's quite ready yet, as PrivateButcher. Ambi 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At first I couched my doubts about Tony's readiness for adminship as a comment rather than an oppose, see below, to give him a chance to modify or distance himself from the tantrum I linked to, [1] but he emphasizes that he stands by every word. OK. Other things too about his response make me dubious about adminship at the present time. I'm sorry, I've never opposed an RFA before (that I can remember), but the way Tony dismisses my concern and refuses the information I ask for makes me wonder how he'll treat people who challenge him when/if he's an admin. I may well support at a later date, but I'd just like to see a little more absorption of the best sides of wikiculture first. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral for now. I would want to know more about what sysop chores Tony1 will be inclined to contribute to. To correct prose, one does not need to be a sysop. Question: Is Tony1 willing to pick up the mop and bucket, or not? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I answer your question with this one: Will having another potential janitor on staff harm the wiki, if he's proved he's to be trusted? I'm sure I'm not the only one who never expected to get too deeply into adminship, but proved himself wrong. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi: Did you see the last sentence in my response to the first question? :-)Tony 01:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In your answer to the first of the generic questions for the candidate, you cite a particular Guardian article as support for your view that the quality of its prose is WP's weakest aspect. The comment within that Guardian article about Bob Dylan (as it then was) does indeed support you. As a whole, however, I don't think the articles says what you appear to claim it says: the contributors seem more worried about inaccuracies, glaring omissions, etc. Are you confusing this Guardian article with another? -- Hoary 05:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Response: That was the intended citation. Of the six WP articles briefly reviewed, problems that clearly fall within the ambit of copyediting were at issue in five.

Dylan (“some of the writing might piss people off”).

Steve Reich, from which a real bomb of a sentence was quoted: “’Reich is popularly regarded as repetitive and minimalist, but in some works deviates from a purely minimalist style, which shows some connection to Minimalism and the work of Reich's visual artist friends such as Sol Lewitt and Richard Serra.' Run that past me again?”

Haute cuisine (“inaccurate and unclear”).

Samuel Pepys, (prominent name misspelt, and lame conclusion).

And

Encyclopedia, from which these years were quoted: “175 [sic] to 1772”. I've had a look at these articles, and they need from light to heavy editing.

Thanks for raising this issue. One of our valued contributors to the Composer's Project has already volunteered to rewrite the article on Reich. Tony 10:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tony, could you please supply some diffs for the interactions you mention in your response to question 3, so we can see them more directly? (Diffs, please, as opposed to subsection links of the kind you provide elsewhere, since those don't work. If you right-click on a "last" button in the History tab and select "Copy this link location", you get a diff = a unique and durable link to a post.) In the recent Sicilian Baroque disagreement between you and Giano on FAC, you're IMO rather quick to be territorial about your stylistic edits, and to attack. In this retort—posted in installments—there's even a pre-emptive threat to list the article on FARC—Featured article removal canditates—if it should become Featured without your assistance, and several other statements that I think short on civility and forbearance. Even under some provocation, an admin should treat other contributors respectfully, and try to see their side of things. (Here's the post from Giano you were responding to). But I should disclose that I have a bias here, as the nominator of the article, so perhaps I'm blowing a single instance out of proportion; I hope others will take a look for themselves. I can tell from the Support votes above that you're a very fine editor and much appreciated by the community, especially for your FAC work; this is not about that, but a query about your demeanour in disagreement. Bishonen | talk 17:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's inappropriate to respond fully to your 'biased' query, as you put it, and yes, you may be blowing it 'out of proportion'. I stand by my reponse, linked above, unfairly I think, as 'retort'; I stand by every word I said there, and I think that you've misrepresented my stance ('without your assistance' - that's not what I said; my concern is the quality of the product, paraded as one of WP's best). With respect to 'diffing', there's a privacy issue involved with one person (the last-mentioned), and the second-mentioned is above in the list of supporters; in any case, everything I do is recoverable from my 'contributions'. If 'taking the mop' involves being taken advantage of in these circumstances, as I think you are doing, it's not worth it. I note that 'Hoary', who wrote the first query above, did not announce the fact that he cowrote the article in question. BTW, thanks for pointing out the diffing process, and the fact that the section links may be problem (they work on my computer) - I'll look into it. Tony 23:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit conflict, you sure do edit incrementally) I'm not sure I understand. You invite me to "recover" an interchange about an unnamed medical article, some time in the past three months, from your contributions? Is that it? Bishonen | talk 00:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You say: I note that 'Hoary', who wrote the first query above, did not announce the fact that he cowrote the article in question. I'm puzzled. My query was about your answer to the first "generic" question below, and more specifically about your characterization of an article in the (London/Manchester) Guardian. I didn't write any part of either that or Bob Dylan, which I mentioned. I have been making very small contributions to Sicilian Baroque, which Bishonen refers to, but I didn't mention that article, whose relevance to my question was only tangential. -- Hoary 00:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough Tony 01:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - That was it for me, then? OK, I'm afraid I'm ready to oppose. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I have to admit that patrolling to identify and revert vandalism is not my strongest point—others usually get there first, although I do it whenever I encounter vandalism. I'm just too taken up with reviewing FACs and helping contributors to bring them up to standard before and during nomination. Much of this task involves improving what I think is WP's weakest aspect, the quality of its prose (see the recent review in the UK publication The Guardian ([2])—ouch); it's a bottomless pit that keeps me from working on my own articles. However, I'm not averse to performing any admin task that is required of me.

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

A. I've a list of articles that I'm trying to bring up to FAC standard, as my own projects, including those on JS Bach and iMac. I've written six shortish articles, including Geoffrey Miller (evolutionary psychologist), and, more importantly, I've helped numerous articles to achieve FA status. I've rewritten the criteria for FACs (User:Raul654 pulled me up on only one point) and I added a sixth point to the PR instructions to try to make the process more effective.

I'd like to see a greater use of WP's potential for lavishly and cogently illustrating musical topics with short musical excerpts; and I want composer articles to include more information on musical style, rather than being mainly biographical. To assist in these purposes, on the Wikiproject Composers page I've written guidelines for the use and copyright tagging of sound excerpts (Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Guidelines for using sound excerpts) and suggested points to be covered in the style section of composer articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Suggested points to be covered in the style section of composer articles). I've changed the wording on the copyright tag Template:Music sample so that it's easier to read, specifies an important point raised by Carmildo concerning the avoidance of multiple excerpts from the same track on WP, and now states correctly the duration of 'the track' rather than 'the work'.

I like the teamwork and community aspects of WP.

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. Yes. The main contributor to a highly technical medical article on the PR list accused me of introducing factual errors, and was overall rather aggressive towards me. I thought this was unfair and unproductive, since I'd significantly improved what had been seriously inadequate prose in the expectation that the contributors would check through for such errors, as usual. So we had a little stouch about that. I'm the one who called User:Cyberjunkie 'bossy' <blush> (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Cyberjunkie (section)). A contributor walked out of an article in which I'd delinked the low-value chronological items (as per WP policy). That upset me, and I tried to persuade her otherwise, unsuccessfully; very unfortunate. I usually have no problem with other contributors; in retrospect, it would have been better not to react to any of these three incidents. Tony 02:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS The edit count is inflated by my regrettable habit of saving the page, then identifying further improvements; on the other hand, sometimes I do massive edits in one go.

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 #'''Strong support''' for the ''Featured Guy''! -- [[User:FayssalF|Svest]] 20:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC) <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: orange">&nbsp;<sup>''Wiki me up&#153;''</sup></font>]]</small>
 #'''Support''', always seems very helpful about the place.  I would like to know: when you replied to jossi below, you were smiling, right? --[[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 22:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
-#'''Strong Support'''. Tony's absolutely invaluable at FAC, and therefore (in my opinion at least) to Wikipedia as a whole. He has also shown real calm-headedness in the face of some ugly disagreements. &mdash;[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]]  ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 22:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
+#'''<s>Strong</s> Support'''. Tony's absolutely invaluable at FAC, and therefore (in my opinion at least) to Wikipedia as a whole. He has also shown real calm-headedness in the face of some ugly disagreements. Updated 03:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC): Still support, but Tony's difficult-to-understand response to Bishonen's questions in the comments section has given me some pause. I was a participant in the Sicilian Baroque FAC debate, and agreed 100% with Tony regarding what he said there, so that didn't worry me, but I expected a clearer response in the face of the question.  &mdash;[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]]  ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 22:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 #'''Support.''' [[User:El C|El_C]] 03:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 #'''Just Came Back from Hurricane Wilma Support''' Sure --[[User:Aranda56|JAranda]]'' | [[User talk:Aranda56|watz sup]] 06:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)