Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyBallioni

TonyBallioni

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (86/1/0); Scheduled to end 12:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) – I am pleased to nominate TonyBallioni for adminship. I've had the privilege of working with him over the past six months or so at various venues, and have grown to appreciate the collegial spirit, sound input and judgement that he brings to table. My primary interactions with him were surrounding new pages patrol, where he has in my opinion shown superb leadership. Especially in the weeks leading up to WP:ACTRIAL, he stood out to me as someone who passionately cared about the project in protecting his beliefs, but was willing to work with all parties in such a way as to not escalate tension, and even suppress it. In fact he and I don't always see eye to eye, but he always has a way of politely expressing his sentiments. Reviewing his talk page and participation at WT:NPR, it's easy to see that it is his kind, courteous and helpful demeanor that makes him such a pleasure to work with, especially with new users. This is the type of admin I'd like to see more of, but his qualifications go well-beyond composure and civility.

I invite the community to congratulate TonyBallioni on his decade-long tenure, a milestone that he reached on October 7. During this time he has had various periods of activity, but has shown continuous dedication to the project over the past 14 months. Credited with seven good articles and 15 DYKs, TonyBallioni has a lot of experience with content building, which I think plays into why he is such a model patroller. I also find his participation and accuracy at AfD to be impressive, with over 900 AfDs total, and of the past 200, 91% matching the result. For this reason I wouldn't hesitate to give him the delete button, though he nobly has expressed to me he does not have a particular interest in deletion, instead favouring second opinions.

One of the most admin-worthy areas of his focus is dealing with copyright violations. I feel this genre of work does not receive enough attention, so it seems only natural that he should be able to take appropriate action himself rather than offloading it to administrative backlogs. Should he become comfortable in doing so, I think he is fully qualified to handle G12's himself, as evidenced by his CSD log. He is also one of the top 10 users of CopyPatrol, further validating his dedication to this area.

Overall I think his positive influence, level-headedness, and well-defined administrative interests make him a great candidate. I look forward to hearing the community's opinion, and hope you will agree that giving TonyBallioni the tools would prove to be much more than a net-positive — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination by SoWhy

I’m happy to co-nominate a user who has shown that he is knowledgeable and possessing the right temperament for an admin and who is always friendly and helpful in any situation I have seen him in. Tony has proven time and time again that he is an extremely clueful editor whose patience and ability to focus on the matter at hand even when things get heated are virtually unmatched. Moreover, he is also a skilled content contributor and saver.

Some people might be surprised to see my name in this section. After all, when Tony and I participate in a discussion, we often find ourselves on different sides (example) and he holds some views that are radically opposed to mine which is often quite annoying. So why (no pun intended) am I co-nominating this user for adminship? Because despite all our differences, I honestly believe Tony will be a great asset as an admin for all the reasons I mentioned above and because I am convinced that he will not misuse the tools to further any agenda or use them to delete/block/protect against consensus, even if he (strongly) disagrees with it. So no matter the wikiphilosophy, I think we can all agree that this user - who merges content creation, new page patrolling and helpful discussion participation without any apparent effort - is a great candidate for the mop. Regards SoWhy 06:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'd like to thank MusikAnimal and SoWhy for their kind words. I accept their nomination. I'd also like to disclose that 10 years ago I had another account as a minor, which I abandoned for real life privacy reasons. This account has been disclosed to ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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: The two areas I would probably be most active in as an administrator would be with text copyright violation revdels and with PERM requests. I come across a fair amount of copyright violations in my work with new pages and also some older longstanding violations. The ability to revision delete rather than using the template or requesting it directly from an admin would be helpful, and I'd also be able to work on pages others have tagged with the template. In working with new pages, I also deal with a fair amount of oversight requests, and having the ability to revision delete private information pending attention by an oversighter would help protect individuals.

I already do a lot of work answering questions from users who are new to using some of the unbundled rights, especially with my work at WT:NPR but also with the page mover right. I think I have a decent grasp on how the rights are used, and would be able to help process PERM requests. I believe unbundled permissions often help users feel a sense of ownership in the project and are helpful in areas where we need more help dealing with backlogs.

I'd also continue to help out with closing requested moves, and the ability to execute a move when an article has been move protected and to perform G6 deletions in some complicated cases would definitely come in handy there.

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

A: I'm proud of the work I've done improving the coverage of early modern papal conclaves: I have six GAs so far there, and am working towards turning the 17th century papal conclaves into a good topic. They're important historical events that are actually quite entertaining to read about (in my opinion), so working there has been a very enjoyable project.

I've also done a lot with NPP. I've worked to make the newsletter for that project, try to answer questions as best I can at WT:NPR, and participated heavily in the implementation of ACTRIAL, where I tried to do my best to work towards a positive outcome for everyone despite the tensions that existed between the WMF and the community.

My work in NPP also includes finding gems in the rough like Mariano Gagnon, which I worked with CaroleHenson to bring to GA status after finding it in the new pages feed like this, and articles like Tallinn Central Library, which I brought to DYK after it was A7ed. I believe very strongly in countering systemic biases on Wikipedia, and part of that comes with educating people new to NPP on what to look for in an article that suggests it might be notable even if it doesn't look so at the time.

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'm very involved in policy discussions and with my work in NPP have participated in a fair amount of contentious AfDs. I always try to assume good faith on the part of the other person, but also have the unfortunate tendency to be long-winded. I genuinely view every discussion on Wikipedia as that, a discussion, and think that the back and forth is important part of reaching consensus. At the same time, it is important to realize when you as a person are getting in the way of the actual discussion, and take a step back. I try to do this, but I'm sure there are times where I haven't followed my own advice.

One occasion that I remember was during the deletion discussion on Elijah Daniel, I opened an ANI report on the conduct of another user. It was resolved quickly, and we moved to the talk page to deal with a content dispute, where we were able to come to a compromise within 24 hours. In the future, I would be more likely to avoid ANI in a similar situations: AfDs and similar discussions are stressful, and I don't think I've ever seen an ANI or content dispute get resolved when one is ongoing.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Ivanvector

4. Please briefly explain whether any of these short unreferenced article fragments are making a credible claim of significance:

BLP note: names below were randomly generated; any similarity to real persons is unintended.

a) Remigio Kumar is the coolest guy! He won all the sports awards at my school.

b) My dog Pickles held the world record for the highest jump by a dog under 15kg, but then he lost it to our neighbour's dog Joe.

c) Route 1 is the longest paved road in Canada, that's why they called it Route 1. Route 2 is way shorter.

d) Lady Reagan Harley is the former mayor of Norton-on-Derwent, serving from 1996 to 2001.

A:

a) It depends on the context of the rest of the article. It could be a credible claim of significance if the school was a post-secondary institution. If it was a secondary institution it would also depend on what the claimed awards were: if these were national awards or some other major sports award for youth. On its own, I don't think the statement is a claim of significance, but I would likely do a search first before acting on anything, both as an admin and as a new page reviewer.

b) It is definitely a claim to significance because of the Wikilinks: one to Guinness Book of World Records and the link to Joe, who is a notable animal. Again, the context of the rest of the article would help to determine whether it was credible or not, but on its face this fragment is a credible claim of significance.

c) Yes. Highways are typically considered notable, and the claim to being the longest road in Canada is a claim to significance.

d) Yes. I am unsure for that specific area as to the status of its mayor, but I would consider being a mayor a claim to significance, not least of which because even if it was a ceremonial position there is likely to be coverage in reliable sources.

Additional question from Lourdes

5. As an admin, if you were given the task of re-closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pannonian Romance, how would you do it? Additionally, after you close the Afd, if an editor were to ignore your close – as happened in the particular Afd – and choose their own preferred redirect target, what would be the administrative action you would take, if any? (I've already supported you; the query is to simply understand your assessment skills). Thanks.

A: Reading it through, I would likely close as no consensus. There wasn't a consensus to delete the article, and the IP gave the best argument in terms of sourcing, so it became a question of whether it should have a full article or be redirected, with no clear redirect target amongst those who wanted to redirect. The AfD had already been relisted four times, so an additional relist would have been unlikely to help, and AfD is not needed for a merger conversation. I would have recommended that someone take the conversation to the article talk page if they felt a redirect or merge was needed. I'd personally have felt uncomfortable choosing a redirect target if I had closed it, but if I had, I wouldn't have objected to retargeting in that instance, especially if someone had contacted me and laid out a case for why I chose the wrong target based on the conversation.

Additional question from Aiken drum

6. Did you ever edit with another account or IP address prior to creating this account? Your earliest edits suggest you were highly knowledgeable about Wikipedia from the beginning.

A: Yes. Like I said in my acceptance, as a minor I had another account. I abandoned it due to concerns about real life privacy issues that I wasn't aware of when I first registered as a young teenager. The account is declared ArbCom.

Additional question from There'sNoTime

7. As a new administrator you receive a Wikipedia email from established editor "User:X" complaining that "User:Y" has been following their contributions and reverting some of them after they recently had a heated disagreement. Often these reverts have no edit summary, and "User:Y" doesn't respond to any talk page messages about it. How would you begin to deal with this?

A:Tricky situation. It would depend on the severity of the issue and if there were other factors in play. If I examined the edits, and didn't see much, I would say as much in reply, but would also point out that I'm not the one who felt like they were being hounded, and suggest that if they still felt that way they might ask another neutral user who they trusted their thoughts. If the situation seemed like it did have merit and didn't have any privacy issues, I would advise the user of the possible dispute resolution venues/noticeboards (notably AN and ANI if it rose to that level). If there were privacy concerns with the harassment, I would advise the user to email a functionary or the arbitration committee.

Additional question from Alex Shih

8. Hello Tony, this is a hypothetical question about WP:PERM. You have just assigned an established editor with user rights to (let's say, page mover). Several editors came to you immediately after and contests your decision. How would you respond to this situation?

A: Hi Alex, thanks for your question. As always, it depends on the circumstances (which people are going to get tired of hearing before the end of this RfA, but its true). Most of the unbundled rights have pretty clear revocation criteria. In the case of page movers it is at WP:PMRR. Page mover is one of the more sensitive rights because it de facto allows a user to perform G6 deletions, so any violation of those criteria so quickly after a new user was granted the right would be cause for concern. If it was just an inexperience problem and there wasn't a reason for revocation, I would take the criticism on board in the future, reach out to the user to make sure they were aware of the concerns, but would not revoke because the criteria were not met.

Additional question from BU Rob13

9. Suppose you are an admin. You notice a new page reviewer (NPR for short) has been making several mistakes lately, including incorrect CSD tagging, moving improper drafts to mainspace, and biting newcomers. You look on NPR's talk page and see that multiple editors have tried to address the issues with no success. NPR either brushes them off, argues with them, or explains away their actions as rare mistakes. What do you do?

A: If they were a new user without the NPR flag, I would likely leave them a note pointing other areas of the encyclopedia to try first in terms of maintenance such as working in the February 2009 orphan backlog or recent changes, and encouraging them to apply for the new page reviewer user permission after they have more experience. If they are a new page reviewer it would be a bit more complicated. I'm only aware of the right being revoked from an active user 5 times (though there could be more I am unaware of), and 4 of those 5 times it was eventually restored, and one of those times is currently part of the open ArbCom case.

Because of this, I would approach the situation cautiously at first and encourage the user to focus on areas in reviewing that they feel comfortable with by using tools such as the NPP Browser. At the same time, I'd make clear that if the reviewing was causing more disruption than it was helping, the right could be revoked to make it easier for other reviewers to check the work. If I did ever revoke the user right it would be based upon the criteria at WP:NPR and as a last resort. I would also make it clear that I would be open to restoring it if the user showed improvement. I think it is important for any admin action in this area to always be looking forward towards helping build a better encyclopedia, and that means working with users to grow in areas where they are currently having difficulties, even if it does require removing a technical right for a period of time.

Additional question from Smartyllama

10. Which of the following hypothetical articles, reproduced in their entirety, would qualify for speedy deletion, and on what grounds? What alternatives to deletion, if any, should be considered? Rather than use placeholder names which can cause issues with identifying certain speedy criteria, I'll redact the name in certain cases.

a) Bob Smith was King of England from 1271-1292 before being assassinated by the Romans.

b) The Binghampton Mets were a baseball team.

c) King Paulus XV was King of Saintland before he was assassinated and succeeded to the throne by his son, Paulus XX.

d) The doughnut gun is a gun that shoots doughnuts. I invented it. It is great.

e) [Possible BLP name Redacted] is a professor of mathematics at the University of Connecticut.

f) [Possible BLP name Redacted] is a professor of Cheese Studies at Northern Connecticut State University.

A:

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Not a jerk, has clue. Superb work in helping to get ACTRIAL off the ground. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
2. About bloody time! For the benefit of doubt here's an extended rationale: AfD stats are almost immaculate, accurate work at NPP shows a good understanding of rules on tagging and speedy deletion and clearly a team player as evidenced by his work on ACTRIAL. No qualms whatsoever. DrStrauss talk 13:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support as co-nom. Regards SoWhy 12:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support - Support^support Fantastic candidate. Active absolutely everywhere, and an asset everywhere they're active. GMG^talk 13:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support. I was very pleased to see this one in the making, and I strongly support Tony for all the reasons covered by the nominators. I've found Tony to be very knowledgeable, very helpful, and of a most acceptable temperament. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support I know it's a cliché but I really did think he was one already. Clear net positive.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Support. Saw this get transcribed on my watchlist and was pleasantly surprised. I've seen Tony around quite a bit and I think he has the right temperament and clue to fit the role perfectly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
8. Weak Support I have some slight worries reguarding his AFDs otherwise good editor. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
9. Of course he should be an Admin. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
10. Support Clear Net positive started editing in 2007 experienced and well versed in policy good work in copyright investigation and AFD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
11. Support Tony's skillset would be an asset to the admin team. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
12. Support Long overdue. Reyk _YO! 13:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
13. Support precious. I understand that Tony doesn't to block much, and trust that if he would he'd talk before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
14. Support - FINALLY! Tony has a great temperament, and is already the unofficial coordinator of NPP, so this shouldn't be too big of a deal. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 13:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
15. Support. I am really pleased to see this and if I had known it would be coming I would probably have been up there as the nominator. I once mentioned jokingly to him not so long ago that he should be an admin - his reply was 'Nah! I have seen the incredible hard work Tony has been putting into some burning issues since he has had more time to dedicate to Wikipedia, especially how he stepped into NPP after my quasi retirement from it, picked up the pieces and became its new de facto coordinator. His extremely delicate manner of handling some contentious issues, particularly when taming contumacious newbies who begin their Wikicareer by Wikilawyering and harassing the old hands. His knowledge of most policies and guidelines is second to none, and a solid content contributor to boot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

    Like "contumacious" -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

16. Support, based on review; good GA work, good DYK work; was basically inactive for a few years, but has come roaring back into the thick of things. Kierzek (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
17. Support - no issues. Patient Zero^talk 13:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
18. Support. Editing history suggests that he would not abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC) (And, yes, he looks like he'd make an excellent admin. But that's beside the point. Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC))
19. Support Had no idea Tony had such a wide array of experience. My review, the noms, Kudpung above, well, they're absolutely spot on. Lourdes 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
20. (edit conflict) – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
21. Support - Genuinely thought he was already an admin. Kosack (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
22. I thought he was one^TM bd2412 T 13:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
23. Support Solid work on every front - no hesitation in supporting. Cabayi (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
24. Strong support I have every confidence that this candidate knows what being an admin is all about, and that he would do the job well (I believe this called 'having a clue'). The candidate has solid experience with making viable content and solid experience in dealing with problems on AfD and I am glad someone managed to get him into an RfA. (I asked him myself recently and he was rather neutral on it, a good sign that he is not a 'grabby' hat collector, but a genuine useful contributor). He has worked on ACTRIAL, and with NPP where he an active contributor, showing clear knowledge and depth of ability. In short I would like to see TonyBalloni join the administration team, he would be a great net benefit. Dysklyver 14:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
25. Support An outstanding editor with lots of CLUE and good temperament. I have worked with Tony on a number of occasions and the experience always left me very impressed with this editor. I think we can break out the cigars... we have a winner here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
26. Support Tony has the right disposition for adminship, a thoughtful editor with good communication and technical skills. Thank you for running, Tony. Mduvekot (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
27. I only had a brief, but lasting impression of Tony. I think he is safe to support. Samsara 14:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
28. Strong support: In my opinion TonyBallioni is a born administrator, in terms of both temperament and understanding of policy. I first became acquainted with him about six months ago, when I collaborated with him to create or rescue several articles. I was greatly impressed by his knowledge of WP policy (sometimes surpassing mine) and his pleasant, easy-to-work-with style. He understands deletion well and has experience in most admin areas. He meets all my criteria for RfA. I trust him with the tools and feel he would be an outstanding administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
29. Support Among the strongest candidates I have seen here. A superb diplomat – see his role in the discussions leading up to ACTRIAL. (Would he accept a nomination for British Foreign Secretary as well?): Noyster (talk), 14:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
30. Support Will be a useful addition to the admin corps.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
31. Support - Knowledgeable with policies, level-headed, No ref flags, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 14:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
32. Support Truly an "administrator without tools", TonyBallioni personifies the expectations we should hold of administrator candidates - they are kind and considerate, contribute greatly to both content and maintenance and has a serious dose of clue. I look forward to working with them -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
33. Support Good stuff. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
34. Support If MusikAnimal supports them, then I will gladly give a +1...TJH2018talk 15:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
35. Support Tony is the epitome of civility. The model administrator that we can all look up, intelligent and kind. Alex Shih^Talk 15:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
36. Support per nominators and Kudpung. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
37. Suport--Fantastic candidate.Is the epitome of civility and diplomacy in the project.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
38. Support. Tony is a great asset to WP:NPP, an area of the project which I think could use more attention from administrators. I'm happy to find out he is also an excellent all-round editor, so I have no qualms at all about supporting. – Joe (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
39. Strong Support - Tony has been a great asset to the community and can frequently be found at WP:NPP and helping other users. I've had many interactions with him and found him to be very competent, level headed and fair. He's experienced in content issues, dispute resolution, deletion protocol and he will make a great administrator. -- Dane ^talk 16:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
40. Support - Yes, please. Competent editor with a use for the sysop bit. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
41. Suport The most clueful candidate I've seen in a long time. That in itself should be enough, but I've also been impressed by Tony's maturity in debate and level-headedness. He'll be an excellent admin. --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
42. Support: TBH, I thought Tony was an admin already. I've noticed his username quite a lot recently, and every time it's because he has said something clueful, or done something which is clearly helpful. And his answers to the questions so far are sensible. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
43. Support - Excellent record. Will be an asset as an admin. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
44. Support with enthusiasm based on previous observations of the candidate. --joe decker^talk 16:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
45. Support, I've been impressed with the thoughtfulness and demeanor of the candidate, and believe they would make good use of the tools. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
46. (edit conflict)Support: Long overdue candidate for admin, and I thought he was in a year ago. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 16:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
47. Support - Absolutely exemplary candidate.- MrX 17:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
48. Support - I thought he already was an admin. I've worked with him extensively at NPP and at ACTRIAL, and Toni has always been level headed and very knowledgeable. A prime candidate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
49. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 17:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
50. Support A worthy candidate. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
51. Support per Kosack. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
52. Support. As a admin who specialises in the deliberative end of admin chores, I'm persuaded by the candidate's comments on deletion and permissions that he would be fit for the job. Deryck C. 17:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
53. Support Seems likely to make good use of the tools. Always a good idea to increase the number of quality active admins. Equineducklings (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
54. Support No issues that I can see. I've worked with him a few times on cleaning up vandalism, and he would make great use of the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
55. Support- Experienced editor with a good track record.  FITINDIA  18:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
56. Support. Strong candidate, answer to my question is strong. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
57. Support. Clueful editor. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
58. Support Strong nomination statements, strong candidate. I've had several interactions with him regarding UPEs and have found him to be clueful and discreet. He'll do a great job. Katie^talk 18:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
59. Really? Who would vote against this? Good editor all around, definitely deserves a mop and bucket. Metmeganslay 18:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC) — Metmeganslay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
60. Support per noms and by reputation. Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
61. Support I always assumed Tony wouldnt want this or else I would have nominated him myself. He is the unofficial, de-facto co-ordiantor of NPP/R. Like Ritchie mentioned, he also worked hard along with Kudpung regarding ACTRIAL. I regularly come across his contributions. No issues at all. Strongest support. Also per user:Patient Zero, #9, 12, 20, 21, 22, 27, 33, 46, 47, 49, and 50. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
62. Support more admins is always a good thing; also per noms. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
63. Support Seems like a chill dude. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
64. Support No good reason to oppose. Excellent candidate ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
65. Support Oh hell yeah! Tony will make an excellent admin. No doubt whatsoever. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 19:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
66. Support. I have seen his work before. Inatan (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
67. Support, no issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
68. Support Great work in NPP. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
69. Support - will do a great job. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
70. Yep. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
71. Support. The only negative I can find against the candidate is that it took too long to come here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
72. Support I'm with SoWhy. Reasonable editor even if I tend to be in disagreement a lot. Hobit (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
73. Support a clear net positive. Lepricavark (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
74. Support. Glrx (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
75. Support - no concerns. Level headed, well qualified, and a very prominent good faith editor. I also thought he had more user rights than he actually does. 65HCA7 21:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
76. Support - I've only had a few interactions with Tony, but they were positive and professional. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
77. Support, he's an ideal candidate with a demonstrated need for the tools. I'd also like to point out Tony's work at SPI combating paid editing - I think he'd be a valuable asset at WP:COIN, too. GAB^gab 21:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
78. Support I couldn't be happier to support this candidate. As a member of my "wasn't he already an admin" list, few editors have matched his depth and reach. Every pot he dips his hand into gets sweeter and each effort he leads makes this crazy project a better place. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
79. Support I have seen Tony around quite a lot of project areas, which is a plus for an admin candidate, as it indicates a versatility in roles and developing expertise. From my observations he is always clueful and seems a diamond geezer. His work in taking much of the strain from Kudpung's shoulders in the NPP area is notable and selfless. Clear need for the tools and no evidence of any potential for misuse. Good luck Tony. Irondome (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
80. Support: No issues found; excellent candidate. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 21:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
81. Support Good judgment, particularly in what is encyclopaedically notable; excellent candidate. – SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
82. Support well qualified, conditioned and seasoned for the tools.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
83. Support I've come across his great work at copyvio cleanup and NPP. Years of experience, and a good temperament. He'll make a solid admin. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
84. Support Seems an ok guy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
85. Support. Literally until yesterday was under the impression he had the mop already so I'm pleased to see this here today. I 100% trust Tony's judgement in pretty much whatever he chooses to get up to. Thank you for your work getting ACTRIAL going :D ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
86. Support. (Is this the place to say "oppose as over-qualified?") Seriously, I've seen this editor around many times, and they have always shown every characteristic I would want in an admin – I've particularly noticed the attention to detail. I knew I would support as soon as I logged in and saw the RfA, but just to be sure, I took a quick look at the AfD cited in the oppose section, and there is nothing there to change my mind. As many have said above, an extraordinarily well-qualified candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I have observed this candidate recently at an AFD and I'm very disappointed that the editor seems to bend toward the popular "vote" of opinion rather than application of policies and guidelines--specifically WP:BLP1E. I'm sure I'll catch flak for my position, but I'm unwavering in it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the AfD discussion? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination)‎.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yikes! Sorry I asked. This is going to take a while to plow through. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry; WP:TLDR, it's the same thread where User:Paulmcdonald WP:BLUDGEONed the discussion (and not just every editor that !voted in a way he didn't like, but four or five of his own colleagues as well), to the extent that this administrator found himself taken to AN by another administrator for the badgering. So, no, Paul, you won't get flak :) just a request for WP:RECALL... — fortunavelut luna 23:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I've gone through as much of that as I care to and even taken a quick look at the previous AfD. At this point I have reached a few conclusions. First that was a very long and convoluted AfD with lot's of participation and vigorous debate. I think Tony was mostly correct, though I concede that there were some cogent arguments from the other side. One of the things that took me a while to learn on here is that in a community with a quarter of a million or so active participants, and many more who edit only occasionally, you are going to get situations where multiple editors look at the same facts, read the same guidelines and policies and end up in different places. Dogmatism is, in most cases, an unhelpful trait in this kind of environment. This is why we have CONSENSUS, which is itself imperfect. When judging another editor's reading of guidelines the question that needs to be asked is, was their interpretation out of bounds or unreasonable? In this case, I would suggest it was not given that enough editors substantively concurred to establish consensus. I can and do understand that you disagreed with that consensus. That doesn't make you wrong. It just means you were on the losing end of a discussion. Been there and done that more times than I care to remember. It happens. However, I'm having a tough time seeing justification for withholding support for an RfA based solely on the candidate taking a differing stand at a heated AfD. Especially when their view was (more or less) supported by the community. To be clear your !vote is your own. And I don't care for attempts to hound editors staking out a contrary position when a popular editor is up for RfA. But I would ask that you ask yourself if it is reasonable to oppose an RfA based solely on their being on the other side of a community discussion, where they prevailed. If you think it is then your vote should stand and I will not press the matter. But if that criteria were widely applied at RfA how many new admins do you think we would get? How many editors would even be willing to step forward in such circumstances? Is it not better to judge a candidate on the totality of their record rather than one or two specific instances where we may have disagreed with them? Remember we are not electing a Pope. Infallibility is not, nor should it be a criteria. Anyways thanks for entertaining my rambling response to your vote. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• Just confirming that TonyBallioni has indeed declared a previous account to the Arbitration Committee, and that there are no concerns about that account to note here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)