Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tony1

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 :) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Support

1. Extreme How-Dare-You vote before the nominator support. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Super strong omgwtfbbq lollergazm support. Absolutely. Linuxbeak | Talk 02:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
3. 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)
4. Support! Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support -- Essjay · Talk 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, Christopher Parham (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, he is a professional editor, and his contributions on FAC are indispensable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support --Kefalonia 08:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Though it seems a bit more edit summaries would be nice. The Minister of War 10:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
10. 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 Redwolf24 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

11. Support -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 11:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
12. 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)
13. Support A good lad, he'll go far--Xiphon 16:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
14. 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)
15. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 17:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. FAC work indicates a commitment to the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole. Chick Bowen 18:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. Impressed with work at WP:FAC. Jkelly 19:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support, I have no reservations. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 02:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
20. 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)
21. Support Wiki needs more comma's. Dlyons493 Talk 10:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
22. 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)
23. 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. encephalon 14:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support Johann Wolfgang 15:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support Molotov (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
26. FireFox 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support Sounds like a guy who does fabulous work :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Strong support for the Featured Guy! -- Svest 20:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}
29. 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)
30. 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)

    Support. El_C 03:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC) — Withdrawn until I can review a response to the concerns voiced by the opposition El_C 05:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

31. Just Came Back from Hurricane Wilma Support Sure --JAranda | watz sup 06:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support of course. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support Good contrib's across namespaces, as nominator notes. No problems with this user. Marskell 14:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
34. 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)
35. Support--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support--nixie 23:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support --Allen3 ^talk 23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Musician?? Well, support of course! :) Really, everything looks good for this editor. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 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. Private Butcher 20:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Don't think he's quite ready yet, as PrivateButcher. Ambi 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
3. 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)

   You have opposed adminship at least twice before, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harro5 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kappa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose: Possibly by Tony's supporters I am seen as the villain of the piece, which is why I have hesitated before voting. Let it be quite clear I do not oppose because his wild threats here [2] have been acted on anonymously here [3] I'm sure he would not be so stupid as to act anonymously, even if his behaviour inspires such actions in others. However, his behaviour does concern me. I was not too lazy, as he suggests, to integrate his changes, I had just spent nearly a full day attempting to do so, before deciding I just didn't like them. This is the crux of my objection oppose his views and see what happens. At best, it seems to me, his behaviour generally borders on the bombastic. Doubtless he has talents, but at the moment I feel it would not be wise for him to have powers, which could possibly be misused if he is crossed. Besides which he seems to attempt to run the FA page quite well without them. Giano | talk 09:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Does his "bombastic" behaviour extend beyond just this one situation in which grudges were formed? If so, I would reconsider my own vote. I've had my own quibbles with Tony in the past over style, but I am very confident that he would never misuse admin capabilities.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   I only speak of my own experience and that which is on the FAC page. In his reply to question 3 he lists two cases both unresolved which seem to have similarities to my experience, an editor walks out (I did that), and another accuses him of introducing inaccuracies, but that was medical, so architecture is less important, no one is going to die from confusing a staircase with a wall (well I suppose the could), but I felt he wanted to alter the balance, quality, and emphasis,of the page so perhaps there are similarities there. You must decide that for yourself. I have not stalked his edits, so really you'll have to form your own opinion, as to if he is bombastic, I certainly felt he was. Giano | talk 10:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   I hope you didn't feel I was attacking your vote. I respect your opinion. I was just hoping you might have been able to offer more information on the behaviour you think is inappropriate for an admin. I know Tony is fairly adament in his views on style (as am I, I suppose), but I haven't personally witnessed anything that might be described as "bombastic". I asked only because the objections have made me feel uncomfortable with my support, and I'm now leaning more towards neutrality - even though I congratulate Tony's efforts. I wanted to know, basically, if you think he is persistently "bombastic". Thank you anyway, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. 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)

   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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   Jossi: Did you see the last sentence in my response to the first question? :-)Tony 01:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

1. 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)
   • 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)

     • Judgements in the Guardian article of . . . Bob Dylan: I conceded at the start that you were right about that. Steve Reich: partial and inadequate as well as poorly written. Haute couture: the lack of clarity seems to be less a matter of style than of content. Samuel Pepys: inaccuracies and omissions rather than misspellings (the misspelling is something that would only be caught by a historian or particularly diligent copyeditor). Lame ending, yes: it could be improved as a matter of style. (An interesting allegation is And it is poor on the diary itself. There is no appreciation of its literary merits. [.... The ending] is hardly a worthy summary of the literary merits of one of our great literary works. Unfortunately or otherwise, any attempt to fix that would risk the charge of inserting PoV.) But look, this is a minor issue in the article, whose very title is "Can you trust Wikipedia?" and in which -- as I read it -- reliability is the main issue. You are of course free to argue that its prose is WP's weakest aspect, and you're right to say that poor prose is discussed in the Guardian article. However, if you were suggesting that the article agreed with you that prose is WP's weakest aspect, I must disagree with you. Further, I'd say that in potential conflicts between a desire for accuracy and a desire for readability, accuracy should be given priority: near-incomprehensibility can be dealt with by a reader (if only by rejection of the article and recourse to Britannica or whatever), while well-intentioned but mistaken "correction" of rocky prose can be harder to detect. -- Hoary 03:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
       • Sure, accuracy is more important than readability, and you're right, their title suggests that accuracy was their point of departure and main overall concern was accuracy. However, prose is a much bigger problem in the sense that it occupies more space than the inaccuracies within it; I guess that looms large to me, as someone who passionately believes that WP should be accurate and that its prose should be smooth, easy, seemless (even beautiful, sometimes) to read. It's a jungle out there on the Internet, and WP needs to have high standards with respect to both aspects if it's to be authoritative.
       • I think we're basically in agreement, don't you? Tony 05:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
         • Yes. I agree completely with much of your last comment, and what I don't completely agree with seems very reasonable. Thank you. -- Hoary 10:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
2. 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)
   • 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)
     • (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)
     • 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)
       • Fair enough Tony 01:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
         • That was it for me, then? OK, I'm afraid I'm ready to oppose. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC

Yep, that's it for you. Tony 14:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC))

1. This series of comments and Bishonen's diff have left me somewhat non-plussed. Disagreements—strong ones, stated strongly—are regrettable; they are especially painful to see when they occur among colleagues liked and admired. My appreciation and regard for Tony are clear; no less, I've often felt that Giano, Bishonen, Geogre, Filioct and some other editors who do a lot of work on literary and classical themes are, very simply, a gift to WP, so beautiful are their creations.

   Looking at the Sicilian Baroque FAC page, it appears that in the heat of the intense editing that so often accompanies FA candidacies, tempers were frayed and patience lost. Giano felt that the copy-editing had altered "the essence of the page", and reverted to the pre-FAC version. As this occured after a lot of editing by FAC page regulars, they understandably felt some frustration. However, while Giano could probably have been more constructive in pointing out which edits in particular were problematic, your reply, Tony, was not, in my very humble opinion, helpful. A more constructive approach might have been to determine what precisely were the problems, and move from there. Figure out why the other guy is upset first; don't say anything before that is understood—most especially if you're the admin. The expert is often able to see subtleties in meaning that are not immediately apparent to the non-expert; equally, the expert virtually always improves from input from those outside his field. Their collaboration improves articles, but will not occur in the face of angry remarks.

   I'm not going to change my vote, Tony, as I'm confident you'll make a sound admin—everything I've seen of you suggests this was a rare intemperance. However, I do hope you might reconsider Bishonen's question in #2. encephalon 04:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

NEW STATEMENT BY TONY:

• • • Encephalon, thanks for your support, and you're right, cool and calm is best; I hate conflict. However, since this process appears to have turned into a fiasco of snide attacks - even public character assassination - by users associated with the article Sicilian Baroque, I feel I must defend myself in relation to that article. Amazingly, it was promoted to FA status only a few days ago, with several comments about prose outstanding, among them, mine. No, I wasn’t the person to post it on FARC, since I know that can’t be done so soon, as Giano snidely acknowledges above (‘not so stupid as to’). I'd appreciate it if those people refrained from snide and insulting language, and, in the case of Bishonen, also misrepresenting what I have said.

I had written several flattering comments about the article on the FAC page, and because I wanted to see it promoted, I put considerable time and effort into fixing up what was appalling prose, inserting inline queries where I felt there were problems in the logical flow, and pointing out other problems that went beyond mere copyediting. I had worked on the first third, intending, slightly reluctantly given the size of the job at hand, to return to do the rest. Giano and I had a not unpleasant exchange on our talk pages, and it was clear that my efforts had triggered a flurry of activity on his part. The next day, I was gobsmacked to see that he had reverted my work with no specific explanation as to why, beyond that I had 'altered the essence' of the text. I seriously doubt that: almost all of my changes and comments were at the clause level. The first third IS now better than it was originally, despite the reversion, but still needs work to satisfy several FA criteria. The last two-thirds remains a significant problem.

Maybe my response was intemperate, but I was offended. I was, and am still, serious about listing it as a FARC ‘as soon as allowed’, I think I wrote, which is probably three months or so, I’m unsure. Here are some examples of why this article should not be paraded as ‘exemplifying our very best work' (Criterion 1). Please note that they are merely a small sample, selected at random. Nearly every sentence in the article needs at least one change, and many need major surgery.

First, there’s POV (Criterion 2d). It’s clear that Giano is passionate about the subject, and a notable expert, but he gets carried away in places that diminish the authority of the article:

'However, much of the decay and ruinous state of preservation of so many palazzi must fall not just on owners unwilling to accept change, but the pollical [sic] agendas of successive socialist governments.'

The same goes for:

‘Any visiting foreigner, especially an Englishman, was regarded as a special trophy and added social prestige.’

Numerous statements are within his area of expertise, but make me a little uncomfortable for their sweeping assumptions. Here’s one:

'Church interiors, which until this date had been slightly pedestrian …'

I’m sure he can justify this, but while the statement might be OK in the context of an audio/visual presentation with supporting evidence, here it assumes too much. Another sentence exemplifying or detailing this assertion is required for the sake of credibility. As is, it's POV, and probably also fails Criterion 2c ('the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations').

Some statements are way out of line with an encyclopedic register, although they might be alright as a push in WikiTravel, e.g.,:

‘… today long shrouded salons and ballrooms are hosting corporate and public events. Some palazzi are offering a bed and breakfast service to paying guests, in this way once again providing impressive hospitality to visitors to Sicily,..’

‘The remaining members of the Sicilian aristocracy who still inhabit their ancestral palazzi have refrained from filling their gardens with wild animals to lure in the masses to view their homes (ironically unlike their English counterparts, who spurned Baroque as vulgar excess).’ Huh?

And here’s an odd mixture of hype and tourist brochure:

‘… its Corinthian columns supporting balconies of amazing wrought iron work, while supports of grotesques mock, shock or amuse the passer-by.’

The article fails miserably in terms of Criterion 2a (prose that is 'compelling, even brilliant'). There are conflicts of tense:

‘However, when a few years later the upper floor was added, the neoclassical French influence is very pronounced.’

And conflicts of number:

‘by the time they were completed Baroque has passed from fashion’

There are bumpety-bump commas that make the poor reader backtrack (I had to read it three times before I got it):

‘Revolts against the Bourbons in 1821, and 1848 divided the nobility, and liberalism was in the air.’

And no, we’re not talking about Bach’s Mass in B minor (I had provided a reasonable defining phrase for ‘Chiaroscuro’ at the top, but it now it’s mangled):

‘… providing Baroque masses of light and shade, or Chiaroscuro …’

Isn’t the style usually referred to as the Baroque, a key termin this topic?

‘As with all architectural styles, people eventually tired of Baroque. In some parts of Europe it metamorphosed into the rococo,’

Here’s a logical problem: why is an unbroken skyline unbaroque, or antithetical to the use of giant pilasters? It’s hard to work out the intended meaning:

‘The main facade, punctuated by giant pilasters, also had Baroque features, but the skyline was unbroken.’

The grammar is garbled:

‘Furniture … [was] … frequently with marble used for table tops … [and] … was transient within the house, frequently moved between rooms as required, while leaving other rooms unfurnished.

There are some long snakes that make the reader work very hard:

‘Vaccarini also exploited the local black lava stone as a decorative feature, rather than a general building material, using it intermittently with other materials, and spectacularly for an obelisk supported on the back of the Catanian heraldic elephant, for a fountain in the style of Bernini in front of the new Town hall.’

Yet amid this, the article contains just two or three beautiful sentences, such as:

‘Above the doorways and window apertures, pediments scroll and curve with a sense of freedom and movement which would have been unthinkable to those earlier architects inspired by Bernini and Borromini.’ Oh, give me more of that.

The article was unstable before, and has been since ('major chuck' I see in an edit summary today), which may touch on Criterion 2e (stability), and suggests that the promotion was hasty. I think Raul654 does a really good job, BTW, but on this occasion, I have to question his action.

Perhaps reviewers might now understand the intensity of work that I had put in, and was willing to continue investing to bring the article to FA standard, and (2) why the article should NOT have been promoted, and should eventually be listed as a FARC. I hope this puts into perspective some of the comments that have been bandied about on this page. Tony 14:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

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 ([4])—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 [[5]]). 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)

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.