Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ttonyb1

Ttonyb1

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (6/1/1); Scheduled to end 01:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs) – I am very proud to present to the community Ttonyb1. There are a few editors I look up to with my own editing and Ttonyb1 is one of them. He has over 82,000 edits and only 31% are automated and he has been a consistent editor since November 2008 with around ~1500 edits/month (highly active). If ever there was an editor that does new page patrol the right way, it's him. Ttonyb1 is one of Wikipedia's best speedy delete taggers. As a very controversial and under supervised area of work, Ttonyb1 has shown clear understanding of the policy and properly applies A1, A7, G1, and G2. However, Ttonyb1 is unique from most CSD taggers. He understands NPP isnt just about deleting the occasional "Sally is hot" articles. He can be seen frequently copyediting new articles and fixing references. He also frequently reports to the admin noticeboards. He has clear understanding of the username policy and is consistently seen removing copyrighted material. He is very familiar with deletion policy and kept a cool head when faced with an onslaught of IP !voters in an AFD who had little rationale other than WP:GHITS and WP:ILIKEIT. He also can spot a duck from a mile away. For me, Ttonyb1 is one of those 'I thought you were an admin' editors. Giving Ttonyb1 the tools is just a win-win for Wikipedia. v/r - TP 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am honored to be nominated and thank TParis for his faith in my abilities. Thank you all that will contribute to this nomination and I look forward to whatever results the community decides are appropriate.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As a NPP my experience has been mostly with new articles and the processes associated with new articles. As such I will probably spend my time working on tasks related to the generation of new articles. I assume this would include reviewing proposed CSD nominations, sockpuppet concerns, and AFD closures. In addition, I would like to start working on AIV and UAA issues. I presume that after working on these areas for a while I will find a niche that will include some of these areas or others.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I cannot point to one or two articles that I would consider my best contribution to Wikipedia. My goal in editing has always been to improve the quality of the project. I have edited existing articles, created a few, and as a NPP, nominated articles for deletion – but the bottom line has been to improve the quality of the project. I also believe it is important that Wikipedia is an environment where it is easy for new users to create articles, regardless of the number of less than appropriate new creations. There has been a movement to restrict new article creation to confirmed users, I am opposed to this restriction. This restriction might make it easier on NPPs, but might also discourage the creation of those first attempt gems (polished or in the rough) that one sees as a NPP.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I cannot think of any situations that have created any stress for me. There have been times when I have revisited my prior edits to ensure the appropriateness of my actions, but I would hardly categorize that as stress. As an account creator I have not experienced any stress simply because I take my time when creating pending accounts. Recently, I dealt with a difficult editor (and sockpuppets) when reviewing the article Steve Comisar. The article was originally created as an unencyclopedic article with copyright and sourcing issues. I AfD'd the article, but with the help of another editor we were able to rewrite it and add supporting references. This resulted in my withdrawal of the AfD nomination. The original author of the article did not like the new version of the article and created socks to edit the article. In addition, the author claimed I created a “hit piece”, that I was harassing him, I was part of a organized effort to defame the subject of the article, and a few other interesting things. In spite of the editor's comments, I did not stress about this article, the editor, or the accusations. All one can do in these instances is try to explain what Wikipedia is about and offer help and guidance.

Additional question from Mtking

4. As I can not see deleted edits, can you please explain this addition to your talk page and the deletion of Lennert van Dessel at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lennert van Dessel ? Did you create the article ?

A: I did not create the article and at the time I received the note on my talk page, I remember I was a bit perplexed as well. When I when to the article it was already deleted. I assume I tagged it with a maintenance tag of some sort. An Admin would have to reinstate the history for me to comment further. Sorry I cannot be more specific.

Note: Just so the candidate has a fair chance to answer this question, I've moved the history to User:Courcelles/Lennert van Dessel for however long it's needed. Move/redelete/trout me, as necessary. Courcelles 01:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it appears I removed the comment, "Described by his peers as "a brilliant, albeit disturbed astrophysicist with extraordinary ideas". I marked it as fluff as it was unsupported and bordering on attack. ttonyb (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from TCO

5. In at least one structured paragraph please name the article where you have added the most referenced content and describe the extent and nature of the additions (in content, format, etc.). P.s. I appreciated the heartfelt nom from TP. Thanks in advance for the little bit of work to answer this question...it's not just the info I learn but how you answer that concerns me!

A: Could I get a bit of clarification?

• What do you mean by "structured paragraph"? Are you asking for at least a paragraph of text associated with the answer or is there something I am missing?
• When you ask for the "extent and nature of the additions," are you asking for my reasoning for the addition and format? Are you asking for an analysis of each edit/addition or just an overall analysis?
• Your statement, "but how you answer that concerns (emphasis added) me," implies you have concerns about how I have answered prior questions? If so, would you like to discuss those specific concerns or is this just a heads up that you will be reviewing the comment beyond the specific content. ttonyb (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from MC10

6. When is it appropriate to use CSD G1 (as opposed to using a different CSD criteria or not even tagging a page with CSD)?

A: G1-Patent nonsense is used where the article lacks an actual meaning or consists entirely of incoherent text. (i.e., "ASDFGH" or "gfamdsmerv") This is different from hoaxes, misinformation or vandalism. (i.e., "My mother is from Mars" or a long dissertation about the moon being made of wool spun by drones made in California) It can be used in the mainspace, but not sandbox or user name spaces. It should not be used for foreign language content - foreign language content should be marked with the appropriate maintenance tag or translated by the bilingual user. ttonyb (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Ttonyb1: Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Ttonyb1 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• For the record, Lennert_van_Dessel was not created by Ttonyb1. —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• It looks like it was created by Lennertman (talk · contribs). Baseball Watcher 02:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom--v/r - TP 01:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Definitely. You seem a well seasoned editor, the nominators statement outlines the editors contributions well and your answers to the questions are very good. Unless I've missed something untoward, I'm quite confident this will pass with flying colours. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Support Following on from the answer to Q4, have no problems supporting. Mtking (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
4. With well over 2 years of editing, I don't see why not. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Support No worries from me. 1 wrong speedy's nothing to go crazy over. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:48pm • 03:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Unfortunately, I cannot support this user for adminship at this time due to CSD tagging concerns. Some weeks ago, he tagged the article Diann Blakely for speedy deletion under the A7 criterion. It looked like this before tagging, where it clearly established the subject's significance/importance through the awards stated for her various anthologies and through her fellowship at a writer's conference. A7 is only for no claims of importance/significance, and Ttonyb1 clearly does not understand this. Sorry for being nit-picky, as I really appreciate his efforts with NPP, but I really do feel that Ttonyb1 is too trigger-happy with his speedy deletion tags and could turn new users away from the encyclopedia through unjustified deletions, at the most extreme level. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Is 1 speedy delete tag really worth an oppose? I wouldn't say anything if you had a pile of them, but we all make small mistakes do we not?--v/r - TP 01:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that a "small mistake." It was after he had already edited the article, so it wasn't a false alarm, per sé. He clearly thought that an article that established importance/significance warranted the A7 criterion. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral; editor systematically conflates WP:CSD A7 and WP:N. jorgenev 01:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

   May I ask if you have a diff to support that? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:20pm • 04:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)