The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

TonyTheTiger[edit]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final (39/40/8); Ended Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:04:00 UTC

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) - Self Nomination: I have twice run for administratorship: 1, 2.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I recently got my 2nd assist at WP:AIV with block nomination for this edit on Britney Spears, which resulted in an indefinite block. I may help here at times. However, I have been spending so much time on WP:CHICAGO related things I can't promise. I have reduced my role at WP:XFD where I use to regularly comment and voice opinions for my first 15-20,000 edits. Now, my most likely traditional administrative roles would be at WP:DYK and possibly helping close WP:PR where automated reviews now seem to be special treatment. There are also occasional times where I could better administer WP:CHICAGO (especially resolved discussions) if I were an admin. However, despite my recent hiatus from XFD, I still see myself getting involved in WP:AFD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution is first resuscitating WP:CHICOTW to the point where it regularly produces respected content and then bringing more life to an impotent WP:CHICAGO (interest can most easily be seen by the modest success of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 2 and interest in selecting Top articles). I probably would have given up on this effort to bring the project to life if it wasn't for the hard work of Speciate who constantly finds things that make the effort seem worthwhile while going about his role of Chicago-related mopmeister. However, I have had editorial success at all levels ranging from WP:HEY & WP:DYK to WP:GA, WP:FA and WP:FL.
Both of my most recent HEY successes have been greatly assisted (1700 East 56th Street and power pitcher/control pitcher). However, my HEY contribution to the latter came mostly immediately before reaching WP:AFD while restoring a redirect, creating a template to better incorporate the article into the project, and beefing the article enough to stand a chance at WP:AFD. I have accumulated 23 DYK credits (many due in part to the work of my WP:CHICOTW colleagues). These are constantly changing and can be found here. I overlooked the DYK feature until after I had already created dozens of interesting articles. I believe I could have 50 if I had understood the feature earlier in my WP career.
If you are interested in particular pages you can see the results of my work on my user page. My current credits as the leading editor (or in a few cases 2nd leading) are: Campbell's Soup Cans, Chicago Board of Trade Building, List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry, All-Star Final Vote, List of Chicago Landmarks. My current credits (also mostly as the leading editor) are: Seymour H. Knox I, The French Connection (hockey), Joffrey Tower, Wigwam (Chicago), Rock N Roll McDonald's, Marquette Building (Chicago), Gilbert Perreault, Chris Young (pitcher), 108 North State Street, Washington Square Park, Chicago, Blackstone Library, Paul Cornell (lawyer), Chicago Theatre, Hull House, Rookery Building, Crown Fountain, Timothy Blackstone, Burnham Park (Chicago), Washington Park (Chicago park), Near South Side, Chicago, Union Stock Yards, Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, AT&T Corporate Center, Douglas Park (Chicago), Historic Michigan Boulevard District, Arts Club of Chicago, William W. Powers State Recreation Area. I would like to emphasize my primary role in almost every one of these credits that you can confirm with this tool. This does not count articles like Tiger Woods where they are GAs in spite of my minimal efforts:-). Using this tool you can also see I am the leading editor at Barry Bonds and Donald Trump, which are two of the eleven articles I monitor for vandalism. I am also the leading editor at several other pages such as Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago). I hope to see success in my recent WP:FAC nomination of Chris Young (baseball pitcher). When I last ran for administrator, I had earned my first successful WP:FA and WP:FL. Since then, I have been able to shepherd Chicago Board of Trade Building and List of Chicago Landmarks to FA and FL status successfully on behalf of WP:CHICAGO. I should probably at this time note that the edit count tool above may mislead you into overestimating my contribution to Chicago Board of Trade Building because User:LurkingInChicago was formerly User:ChicagoPimp and the counts do not aggregate properly. I have on behalf of WP:MLB shepherded All-Star Final Vote to FL status and Chris Young (pitcher) to GA status as well as served as the leading editor of Barry Bonds and Héctor López in addition to creating the Category:World Series championship templates and three of the first seven templates in it (1955 Brooklyn Dodgers, 1981 Los Angeles Dodgers, 1988 Los Angeles Dodgers). I hope these contributions somewhat offset WP:GA/Ring New York Yankees (Truly not GA/Red out of Dodger-Yankee rivalry) and WP:FARing Ted Radcliffe and Steve Dalkowski. I believe I have been a good contributor to the project. I am also pleased to have passed my first GA as a reviewer (Manu Ginóbili).
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: As I approach 25,000 edits I have had a few significant controversies. One you will see in my signature. Some would say I have overdone it a bit keeping this in my sig for so long, but it may remain there. Personally, I have been in a few disagreements and I believe it is proper to acknowledge what the misunderstanding is so that all involved can gain an understanding. Something like this is appropriate when you are the at fault party. I imagine my signature will remain in its somewhat ostentatious form as long as I remain unsure whether the point has been taken.
Basically, we WP:CHICAGO tag all articles bearing any of these categories. In some cases, the connection to Chicago is less strong than one might want. However, we have in the course of following this procedure chanced upon several articles we were able to help. We have guided some toward WP:GA (Hillary Clinton born and raised in Cook County, Illinois). We have delisted some GAs such as Bertrand Russell. We have also placed some articles at WP:FAR such as Pioneer Zephyr. In addition, we have taken to adding ((ArticleHistory)) or ((WikiProjectBanners)) to articles like Bobby Fischer. I have attempted to track down a shepherd for a Stephen Colbert WP:FAC. I have sent very few articles to WP:AFD, but I probably should have sent a few more through the process. We are another set of eyes on even low importance and loosely affiliated articles. There is no harm to an article to have our tag with an importance=low parameter. There is benefit to additional oversight on an article. Sometimes the oversight does not amount to much more than reverting edits like this. It is not an attempt to hijack articles or even their talk pages. Tagging articles is important to the monitoring of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Reviewed_content. As uncontroversial as these goals are, this topic almost went to WP:DR over Jon Corzine (debate here, here and here), which was the only hotly contested subject of our domain.
This brings me to a much larger controversy arising from my role as Director of WP:WPChi. Again I think there is a problem on the acknowledgment of resolution of the issue. However, it has evolved as follows. Of the nearly 12,000 articles that have Cook County related categories and thus have been tagged by our project a few lead editors have contested the propriety of adding ((ChicagoWikiProject)) to the talk page. Our general policy has been that if the contesting parties believe that Cook County related category is important enough that it should be in the article, then our tag should be on their talk page. The most hotly contested of these articles was Jon Corzine, which as stated before nearly went to WP:DR. I am satisfied that Corzine's page has become stable, but this is the second instance where the counterparty refuses to state clearly a resolution on a dispute with me.
Another hotly contested debate was the Chris Young (pitcher). The main contestant was Ksy92003. However, once things got rolling Bjewiki, Nishkid64, Epeefleche, Hornberry, Sanfranman59, and Basar all got involved. I participate in many internet era sports WP:FAC debates. I have a philosophy of requesting box scores or game recaps of any internet era game that was notable enough to be specifically mentioned in an article. I believe in heavily citing articles when possible because of the reputation wikipedia has among the general citizenry for often getting facts wrong. This rubs many the wrong way. I am a firm believer in WP:ATT, WP:RS, and WP:V. This is exhibited in my history of sending WP:CHICAGO and WP:MLB articles to WP:GA/R and WP:FAR mostly for substandard referencing. Thus far every article I have sent has either had to be significantly revised or delisted. With respect to Chris Young there was extensive debate on whether the article was both over cited and whether it contained too much minutia. The debate occurred in many places, but is summarized at the current FAC.
At DYK, I have rubbed many the wrong way by using ((CUR-CHICOTW)) in article space the template has been toned down significantly from earlier (more controversial) versions as a result of the discussions regarding its propriety as a substitute for ((underconstruction)) in light of WP:ASR. I think the series of modifications to the template has finally made it palatable.
I have on two particular articles been accused of WP:OWN. Gilbert Perreault is currently open for discussion. The aformentioned Chris Young (pitcher) is currently at WP:FAC. I think there is a difference between owning an article and trying to defend interesting editorial content.

Optional question from Arkyan

4. Much of the opposition to your previous request for adminship was centered on the fallout from a "practical joke" that you interpreted as vandalism and your reaction to it. Based on your experiences from that incident, I pose the following question. As an administrator, how would you handle a situation in which you encountered unconstructive edits that might be interpreted as vandalism from well-established editors?
A: Direct contact at the user's talk page would be my first pass at resolving the conflict. Outside intervention would follow, if I was unsatisfied with the response and subsequent dialogue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Húsönd

5. Under what circumstances would you decline and remove a request at WP:AIV without blocking the reported user?
A: It has been my experience that if a vandal is not active (vandalized in the last 3 hours) a request should be declined. In almost all cases where the vandal has not received a proper set of warnings it would be inappropriate to block. Thus, unless he has received sush warnings and has been reported for vandalism occuring after a recent last warning it would generally be inappropriate to block.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Coppertwig

6.How would you use admin tools at WP:CHICAGO? In what situations would you refrain from using admin tools? Why do you have many more edits in Wikipedia namespace than Wikipedia talk? --Coppertwig 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (Note - I've moved this to the correct location from the end of the article) - Iridescent[reply]
I'm not the one running here, but FWIW I don't understand this question at all - my Wikipedia-space edits are ten times my Wikipedia talk edits — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Wikipedia works in a manner that things get done when people get around to them. It works better when things get done faster. There are several types of actions that are only appropriate for an admin to take and that if I were an admin I could take on behalf of WP:CHICAGO, especially as it relates to discussions. Two come to mind quickly. The recent WP:FPO promotion of Portal:Illinois did not seem to be closed properly because the discussion was not closed like most WP:FC discussions which are closed by various administrators. Since the article appears to have been promoted as indicated by the ((featured portal)) ((featuredportal)) tags, it would be appropriate to close out discussion. In general the WP:FPO administrators should do this. However, in this case, if I were an adminisitrator, I would feel comfortable cleaning up such a closure (since it is more than a week overdue for the 2007-08-22 promotion). Also, in the past WP:RM discussions have had to wait for an administrator to come around and close debate. There are probably other types of administrative actions that I could take, but those are the first two that come to mind. I have compiled a number of namespace edits administering WP:CHICAGO and especially WP:CHICOTW. Most things are laid out so that action takes place in namespace. Things could be laid out differently, but they are not. Look at this tool and you will see.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum Of course, I could also help with all Chicago related WP:XFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from IvoShandor

7. Okay, here is the question I promised in my comment under the "neutral" section. I am concerned about your ability to judge sources according to WP:RS and WP:V (one guideline, one policy), so I am going to pose this as a mutli-part question. You are free to not answer, of course, but it may sway my opinion.
How do you interpret WP:V? What is a reliable source in your opinion?
Based on the merits of the following sources, would you consider them reliable for the types of articles listed:
Thanks for your time on this question. If anyone has their own assessment to compare with Tony's please wait until Tony is finished answering to post it. Thanks, hope this question isn't out of line for an RfA, I don't participate in many unless I know the editor. :IvoShandor 07:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I'll get to it within the next hour or two. It will take a bit to put a complete answer together.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. (cont'd) WP:V is a standard at wikipedia, which places a responsibility upon an author to add content that a reader can confirm the validity of. Content that does not achieve this standard should not be in article space. It is a standard of validity and not veracity. I.e., one only need be able to check that a WP:RS said it (thus making it a valid claim) and not that it was true. The second paragraph at WP:RS explains it best "WP:V says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material."
Reliable source are those that are trusted authorities on a given subject. Publications that are known for fact-checking and editorial oversight are primary examples. Authors renowned and recognized as having expertise are also reliable sources.
I am only familiar with the first two of the cites you mentioned above and I do not believe that either has a structure for fact checking, but I am not sure emporis, which is a wiki, as I have been told, does not. I know emporis allows users and companies to participate in information generation. I am not familiar with their fact checking, but I presume such fact checking is modest. However, I have used it a lot and it seems to be fairly accurate, thus there must be something about the typo of user contributing to it that makes it tend to be fairly reliable. They are not as reliable as an architectural journal. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would rate it a 4 or a 5. I am fairly certain geocities is not much more than a web host with no fact checking. It is a 1 on the scale. Quincynet has earned many web content awards. I am not familiar with it having any open platform, and I am not sure what its awards mean for fact checking. It is certainly not as reliable as Encyclopedia of Chicago. On a scale of 1 to 10 it is probably about a 6. Movie web seems to combine content from places like the New York Times and its users. I would classify it as about a 4 or a 5. Enterprise is clearly an open platform. I would call it a 3 or a 4.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from James086

8. If mediating or closing a discussion would another admin's view hold more weight than a relatively new user? For example in an XfD, content dispute, on talk pages or in other discussions?
A. Debates come down to merits for the most part regardless of title. However, in addition to merit there are people who by interactive experience have been able to demonstrate that they seem to have a better understanding of the wiki way. Thus, I would place greater weight on certain arguments by certain persons. For example, User:ProveIt really seems to know what is going on at WP:CFD. I would be slightly more inclined to place a greater weight on his argument on any CFD. I do not know if he is an admin, but he probably is, but I would tend to listen to him more because he knows the deal at CFD than because of any title.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Xiner

9. Why do you find it important to call yourself a director of a WikiProject? You can simply state that you're by far the most active participant there? Some call it an issue of semantics, but I fear that it points to a deeper issue of ownership. After all, your being "director" isn't the real reason, and even if true wouldn't require that, you go around tagging articles.
A: I find it relevant for people to know who to ask questions about the project. Some questions people don't want to post to the project talk page log. Additionally, many people do not know about WP:CHICAGO and wonder why their page has a ((ChicagoWikiProject)) tag on it. When I tell them I am answering as the leader of the project they seem to feel they are getting a credible answer. Since we are finally achieving a critical mass of activity as seen at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment/Voting, I am moving to open the preject up for open elections. The format of the project is up for discussion. Offices and appropriate titles are also up for discussion. In the near future, I expect some consensus on who has what responsibilities and what titles. I believe that I currently do the most work for the project (although Speciate may have a case) and that I have done most of the reformating of the project. I seem to be the guy who makes most of the administrative decisions for the project. One can see by the pages, templates and categories created at User:TonyTheTiger/creations that I do many of the important things for the project. Any ownership of the project issues will be resolved in the near future with project wide open elections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Black Falcon

10. One of the issues that seems to figure prominently in the disagreement over the placement of project tags is "whether consensus applies to talk pages" (quoted from this diff). I have a feeling that the phrase is being used in a specific context, which I'm not seeing at the moment. Would you please clarify?
A: The debate with User:Pmanderson centers on whether a project such as WP:CHICAGO can add a tag such as ((ChicagoWikiProject)) to a talk page such as Talk:Jon Corzine over the objections of the consensus of the main editors of that talk page. It is my argument that a project should be able to place its tag on pages that are relevant as determined by the project participants not by the page editors. The Chicago project has been tagging all articles that include any of the following categories. Corzine's article includes Category:University of Chicago alumni. Thus, he falls within the domain of articles we claim an interest in. The main editors of this talk page claim it is disruptive for me to insist on having such a tag on his talk page when his affiliation with the University is so trivial as to not warrant the tagging relationship with the city project. They believe that they have reached a WP:CON regarding the undesirability and unsuitability of such a tag on the talk page. They also claim that even appointing myself as some sort self-proclaimed puffed up director is misleading with respect to this act and a valid bone of contention with regard to posting the tag. There were some contentions about whether our parameterization of our template with things such as importance=low might have violated POV as well. We clearly stated out importance rating system. Eventually, after much back and forth I believe that I came to an understanding that the lone real point of contention was whether CON applies to talk pages. I encourage you to review my attempt at User_talk:Pmanderson#DR_summary to distill their arguments. If WP:CON does apply to talk pages then editors that are not a part of a project can in essence hijack, remove or reparameterize templates regardless of the interests of the project members attempting to properly use the tag for oversight of the page. Thus, fans of any page could change importance=low to importance=top regardless of the project's interests. We at Chicago consider our top-importance rating to be a serious issue. We don't want someone to say it is vandalism unless we claim their page is top or high importance in our tag. If WP:CON does not apply however, then a project can add its tag to an article without fear of the uninvolved changing its tag and base it on the projects own determination of proper inclusion and parameterization.
Our project is using a policy whereby an article that has our category gets our tag and thus an article should remove our categories in order to rightly remove our tag. Good examples of articles we have stumbled upon via a bot and explained ourself without contentious debate are seen in the following links Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Alternative_music, User_talk:TommyBoy#Jody_Wagner, our contribution, and Talk:Deval_Patrick#WP:CHICAGO. Admittedly, many articles that you see at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Reviewed_content or elsewhere in the project are loosely affiliated with Chicago and others are very much at the core of the project. That is why we use the importance tag. It is my belief that if Corzine's editors feels his affiliation with the University is unimportant the category should be removed. However, if it is important we want to monitor his article. The CON argument is the core argument of whether Chicago can place a tag on an article like Corzines.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a much better way to do that; bots can follow the categories directly. Talk to User:Jitse Niesen, whose bot searches a much larger range of cats for Wikiproject Mathematics. If you want A and B articles, confine that to articles the project is actively involved with, please; or the project can keep a list in its own space.
More importantly, this is the assertion that one project can overrule consensus anywhere on Wikipedia. Does anyone else agree with this?
In short, Tony, you just don't get it; and I don't trust you with a real mop until you do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not listening.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this edit is precisely what I mean. There is no way we can manage the project if people outside of the project are running around behind us making their own determinations of the projects assessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain how this attitude is compatible with WP:OWN? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Blanking--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional follow-up question from AldeBaer

10 (b) The earliest mention of consensus in association with the WP:CHICAGO tag I found on Talk:Jon Corzine is here. Do you remember any earlier mention of the process within that debate, maybe on another talk page?
A: I am on dial up the rest of the night. I will check tomorrow morning.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 02:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a really good diff because if you read down at the bottom you will see most of our arguments leading up to the point where it was claimed that using ((ChicagoWikiProject)) is disruptive behavior. I do not see any diffs before that and most debate occurred on Talk:Jon Corzine, User talk:Pmanderson and the other pages I have pointed you to. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Septentrionalis:

11: This discussion with RGTraynor depnds on the interpretation of the carefully crafted language in WP:V that statements must be sourced if they are challenged or likely to be challenged. Admins should understand our policies; what is your understanding of the meaning of that phrase? How does its presence affect the policy?
A: I am a very strong advocate for citing claims. In fact, I attribute most of my WP:GA, WP:FA and WP:FL success to well-cited articles because I am not a very good writer. I think many people are a little leary of the reliability of WP. People would like to be able to say I found this fact on WP and I know it is true because WP says so. However, we are truly a tertiary resource. Thus, everything we print should be something that someone else (hopefully a WP:RS) said. It is best if those someones are verifiable to the reader. Thus, I feel most interesting claims that a reader would want to state as a fact should be cited. The reader should be able to say I found this claim on WP and they say that so and so said it. If we do not properly cite interesting facts and err on the side of overciting this is not likely to happen.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11ATony, this would have been a perfectly adequate response to "What do you think of WP:V?" In fact, I agree with it; but I would like a response to the question I asked. Would removing challenged or likely to be challenged from the policy change the meaning of the policy, and, if so, how? If you think the phrase has no more meaning than a watermark, feel free to say so; if you haven't thought about it, do say that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: That phrase in particular in the abstract is undefined. Challenged or likely to be challenged . . . by whom? I guess it might be reasonable to add by a reasonable person, but then we have to ask did the reasonable person have an understanding of the topic on the page or was he coming to WP to learn about the topic? Are we suppose to write the encyclopedia for an audience that might be learning and thus doubtful of any extraordinary claim? Do we expect the reader to be experts? A debate I am having on Gilbert Perreault is revolving around the fact that as hockey fans many things would not be challenged. However, maybe a biography researcher or a History of Buffalo researcher might challenge a fact in the article. I tend to err on the side that a fact that is interesting enough for a WP:DYK hook should be cited. In fact, I tend to cite any fact I think is even remotely interesting as a tertiary resource editor/author. I do not know if I am right, but I do know despite my poor writing I am able to get a lot of thing promoted up the quality scale with that approach.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum To be more clear, as a tertiary source, anything I write, I try to write as if it will not be believed unless cited. Everything on WP is suppose to be something we say someone else said. In fact, everything on this tertiary resource is suppose to be something a reliable secondary source said. Regardless, of the fact, it is suppose to be something someone else said. In my highest quality efforts I attempt to cite my articles as if anything I don't cite is unverified. That is my standard of challenged or likely to be challenged and what has gotten me several WP:FC credits and dozens of WP:GA credits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Betacommand:

12: Why should you not be granted administrator rights?
A: I believe I should. However, the best arguments seem to be based on WP:OWN, yet I have not been in a WP:3RR debate, have freely debated changes to pages I actively edit, and have relented on many issues. There is some debate about the editing of Gilbert Perreault by persons who don't know much about WP:GA production (see Q11 above), but persons who understand the editing side and what it means to be a tertiary resource understand what is going on. Please cite a debate where this has not occurred. Other arguments seem to be based on my understanding of the role of an admin, which I do understand and which is very similar to my leadership/followership role at WP:CHICAGO. That is my brief reply. I will extend this answer later today or tomorrow. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: (contd) I have a problem with opposition votes based on failure to walk away. Basically, this says that if someone want to impede a RFA they can pick a fight over an issue where they are wrong, but can feign lack of understanding. E.g., analyze WP:V, my answer to Q11 above and analyze all WP:OWN opposition votes and the issue at Gilbert Perreault that is now at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Gilbert_Perreault. I don't think there planting such opposition should be deemed reasonable. Other OWN issues involve a debate over what the scope of a project is. Is it really sensible for people outside a project to tell the WP:CHICAGO that it is not within their scope to review articles of Category:University of Chicago alumni regardless of the ongoing relationship with the city. If our project decides we want to review such articles it does not seem that non-project members should be saying Chicago editors can not be interested in University of Chicago alumni unless they dedicate their lives to the city in a way that makes them notable upon graduation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quote of mine that I've recycled more than once is pertinent here: "The concept of consensus includes that sometimes you are going to be on the losing side of debate, and that when you are, you need to accept the fact graciously and move on." There is nothing sinister about disagreeing with you, nor prima facie disruptive about daring to object to your actions, nor unreasonable about believing your reaction to the same bears heavily on your fitness for the mop. If you really do believe that people are deliberately baiting you over issues against their better judgment, let's add WP:AGF to the tally here. It isn't that we don't understand. We just don't agree.  RGTraynor  17:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on the losing side of several debates. I am sort of seeing that when I am on the winning side everyone goes mute, which is sort of disappointing. I have tried two talk boards (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Gilbert_Perreault and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Gilbert_Perreault) about our Perreault debate. I still don't view it as a win or a loss because no one has stepped in to intermediate. I just hope everyone does not remain mute on this issue. I am hoping not to have to take it to WP:PR and WP:BIOPR for a third attempt. I have not thought about where the 4th option would be if no responses come in there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Comment There seems to be some uncertainty on my understanding of an admin role. I believe an admin should work for the whole of wikipedia as I have done for WP:CHICAGO. I run around closing merger discussions, posting notices, and making discussions readily available for those who want to partake. I make new promotions of content readily available for those who like that aspect of the project. I perform many other mundane tasks for WP:CHICAGO. I make sure that every article that anyone shows enough interest in to increase its quality rating rating gets an importance rating. The unofficial Chicago mop that I wield also has me making edits to every newly created page posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Newly_Created_Chicago_Related_Pages. There also seems to be some debate about whether this is a power quest. At WP:CHICAGO, I have not exerted any titular pressure. As director (or whatever you think they guy who makes the project run should be called), I merely do what it seems I am asked to do. I have merged things I don't think should be merged because the debates carried that way. I have lopped text off of pages such as WP:CHICOTW because that it what people wanted. I run Chicago like someone who wants to be an admin should.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

General comments

I would like to point out something about this 'Directorship' business. A project having a leader - almost necessarily self-appointed in a volunteer project where voting is anathema - is not 'un-wiki'. (Unless it's being done in a divisive, authoritarian way of which there is no suggestion here). Team success is often the fruit of effective leadership; and WP:CHICAGO has a very healthy number of FAs, GAs and the like to its collective name. If the WikiProject were less motivated and less well-organised for not having someone giving it leadership and impetus, it's reasonable to imagine that the output of the project would be diminished. To go further and suggest, as some among the opposers explicitly do, that offering to provide and maintain such editorial momentum makes the volunteer a person they, and I quote, "don't trust" seems misguided at best.

Those opposing the adminship of the coordinator of a successful WikiProject just because of the semantic difference of "director" over "plantpot" or whatever would be 'more-wiki' should consider the damage they may inflict both to WP:CHICAGO and to WikiProjects more generally if they are socio-politically deprived of effective, motivated leadership. Splash - tk 10:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I believe that the semantics issue here reveals a deeper problem, which is WP:OWN. I am also very uncomfortable with this language of "socio-politically deprived of effective, motivated leadership". That sounds like a veiled appeal for a specific population, unnecessarily injecting POVreal-world politics and worse into what should be an administrative procedure of RfA. Xiner (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no veil and no trace of a reference to the world beyond Wikipedia: if the Wikipedia-specific socio-politics of RfA result in putative admins deciding against offering their leadership services to WikiProjects, then those internal wiki-socio-politics have deprived Wikipedia of a much-needed service. There was no need to strike out your entirely un-veiled accusations of POV-pushing (I don't know how you could know my real-world political views); you added the entire comment in one go and either you meant it or you didn't. The fact of the matter is that the prevailing views of those who frequent RfA spill over into the editorial conduct of the Wikipedia community at large. That much is obvious. Splash - tk 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: if you view that the candidate has problems collaborating because of what you see as a tendency to wish to control the editorial process (I presume that's what you're sort-of getting at with the acronym), then I would agree this is a good reason to oppose an adminship. However, it is related only indirectly and not in general to the concept at large of volunteering to provide leadership and motivation to a WikiProject which, below, has in isolation been branded a bad thing. Splash - tk 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is a difficult issue, Splash, and one that users should think about when commenting. On the one hand, adminship is not a big deal and can be given to editors who prove trustworthy. On the other hand, adminship is not a reward for leadership or hard work since it is to not be a big deal. So these support/oppose reasonings are relative and mutually exclusive. The bottom line is do I trust this user, and do I think that s/he will use the tools well and contribute to the encyclopedia with them. Let's keep a level head. This message was brought to you from a NPOV. My opinion on support, opposition or neutral will take a few days after my participation in Tony's last RfA. Keegantalk 06:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your "socio-political" statement prompted my post. Xiner (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support - Seems to be an excellent editor. Has a lot of contributions to GA, FA, and DYK. I see this editor often on Afds, and I can trust him that he won't abuse the mop. --Hirohisat Kiwi 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Cooperation is key on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Answer to Q4 shows an understanding of this concept. Previous concerns about the candidate's percieved ownership of certain pages or projects seem to have been alleviated as of late, and his contributions are substantial and good. Candidate looks ready for the mop now. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support This user has good judgement. T Rex | talk 16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Seems like a consistent editor. Lots of mainspace edits. A decent amount of user talk. Doesn't neglects edit summaries which some careless editors do. Overall, candidate is a very active editor who will benefit wikipedia with the mop. -ScotchMB 16:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Hirohisat just about covered it. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Good work as director of the Chicago project, and clearly an experienced editor with contribs in a variety of fields. Btw, I don't see what's wrong with calling yourself "director" - lots of WikiProjects have a "co-ordinator", and "director" seems an appropriate title for the de facto leader of a large project. WaltonOne 18:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 24,000 edits is way to many to not be an admin. Heck yes! Politics rule 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC).. To oppose[reply]
  6. Support, no reason for him not to be an admin. Wizardman 20:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, changed from neutral. see below. Politics rule said it best: "24,000 edits is way to many to not be an admin". J-stan TalkContribs 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of those 24,000 edits, have you looked at any? If not, why are you voting? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, minor issues, but overall deserving. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Although the signature is a bit long. GDonato (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A very active editor with lot's of edits (good mainspace and projectspace, as well as several GAs and FAs). Seems experienced enough for adminship. ♠TomasBat 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I supported in the previous RfA and I think there is even more cause for support now that the main concerns of the opposers are four months ago. Captain panda 22:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support. Daniel 23:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support I was planning to nominate him, (I could still can if you ask) and last asked about a month ago saying that he needed more experience, I'm not convinced about Boricaeddie oppose, where did he said that AFD is a vote, also it doesn't matter if he's director of an wikiproject or not, with that criteria Ral315 (signpost), Krill Loshkin (military wikiproject), and several other trustworthy admins should be desyropped. Jaranda wat's sup 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Too much concerns for me to support, prior experience with Tony won't oppose nither, no vote now Jaranda wat's sup 22:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Pretty hefty list of GA's, FA's, and the like there, and he sounds like a pretty good candidate to me. Homestarmy 00:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is some merit in Boricuaeddie's concerns below, but when I'm in doubt only a little and there aren't any serious deal-breakers, I usually support as long as I see no reason to assume the candidate would misuse the tools inadvertently or purposefully. —AldeBaer 01:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    Much as I hate to do this, I'm changing to abstention (opposing is unnecessary and would be a mere pile-on by now). JodyB perfectly summed up my thoughts below. I was hesitating to do this, but although you're a very good editor and appear to be a friendly guy, I developed doubts over that CHICAGO tag situation as to your ability to walk away and simply forgive and forget (doubts regarding not only or even just particularly your ability to do that, mind you). Work a bit on keeping your cool, no matter if the other side does the same and you should be perfectly fine. —AldeBaer 14:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support, the FA and GA lists were just startling. @pple 02:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support An excellent editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support While the editor may have been a bit quick with the Afds and did not thoroughly check if the schools were notable, I think that this user has an adequate understanding of policy and the afd was a mistake from which he has learned from. The most important thing is that he would not misuse the tools and is trustworthy. Adminship is not a big deal. --Hdt83 Chat 06:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, nothing particularly moves me to think he would not be capable enough. Oakshade's opposal, in particular, seems ungracious ("oppose because he dared to nominate a school for deletion and then had the temerity to politely and civilly withdraw his nomination"). Seems like he could be trusted with the tools. I want to work in some kind of "He's G-R-R-R-R-REAT!" pun here, but don't have the strength. Neil ム 08:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - this user has a wealth of experience, and seems to know what he is doing. Good candidate. ;-) Lradrama 10:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Although the opposers bring up some points I don't feel any of them are too big to be overcome. I have no big issue with the "director" thing (I'm a company director off wiki so heck!) as the output from the project has resulted in excellent work. I also see a user who is prepared ot change their mind and discuss things, which are prime admin traits. 24000 or 2400 edits is academic - I just see evidence from the contributions of a commited editor who I trust to know policy and apply the tools carefully. Best Wishes.Pedro |  Chat  12:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I don't believe he's likely to misuse admin tools. Chaz Beckett 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Tony's a responsible guy who understands the purpose of the project, and works productively to improve it. I see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Concerns about how to describe his position within the Chicago wikiproject seem overblown. Tom Harrison Talk 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per many ideas above. 24 thousand edits, work on AfD, project "director", learned lessons from past failed RFAs, are all reasons to give him the mop. Bearian 15:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - oppose votes aren't convincing. I'm not sold on the idea that if anybody suggests the RfA or AfD process is analagous to a vote s/he must be terrible editor and won't be a competent admin. Also, his nominations of articles that appeared to lack notability don't, in my humble opinion, represent meaningful grounds to believe that he wouldn't use the admin tools responsibly. Addhoc 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. The candidate's questionable use of the term director doesn't negate his strong contributions, teamwork and skills. Majoreditor 17:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support fine user; there is nothing to suggest that TonyTheTiger will be abusive. Acalamari 18:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I'm a little worried about the ownership concerns as mentioned in the oppose votes, but I support per the fantastic work the nom has done at WikiProject Chicago, and the project in general. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. No reason to believe that he would abuse the tools. Melsaran (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Changing to Support. While I've concerns (outlined here and on my talk page) about the whole "director" thing, I don't think it's enough not to support as I think you're replied to the insanely heavy barrage of questions very well. I don't get the "He wants to be an admin" opposes at all, either - what would he be doing submitting an RfA if he didn't? — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I think your understanding of role of administrators has improved since the previous rfa, and I think the possibility for misuse of the tools is low. Nevertheless, concerns remain, so please be open to suggestions for improvement if this request for adminship succeeds. Picaroon (t) 00:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Tony is well intentioned and I trust that he would be sufficiently cautious not to create a big mess as an admin. I'm hesitant, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and supporting. James086Talk | Email 14:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I don't like Wikiprojects tagging talk pages and I agree with the removal of that one in question. But I have no reason to believe that he would abuse the tools. Garion96 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Good editor, don't see him as potentially abusing the tools. --Strothra 21:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Why is there no edit tab at the top of this section? KP Botany 23:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Formatting reasons, but is that your support rationale? —AldeBaer 23:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Seems to be a very active user in the Wikipedia community. Has a lot of experience and sounds to me like he knows exactly what he wants to do as an admin. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Strong editor and well ready. Dfrg.msc 02:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - high time this editor got the bit. Reasons for opposing amount to IDONTLIKEHIM - mostly that he participates in actually writing the encyclopedia. I truly doubt this editor will try to own any pages, and use his bit as a baseball bat. The Evil Spartan 05:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Very experienced user and knows a lot abouut Wikipedia. He has 25,000 edits which I find to be very impresive. Good luck! --bobsmith319 13:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support I've disagreed quite strongly with Tony about Chicago's use of a WP:ASR template in the article space. But he's dealt with me politely and in good faith. What's more important is the stunningly high quality of Tony's work. Military History and the Featured Article projects both have directors—while in general, I agree, I'm not a fan of the titles—it's very obvious that they shouldn't be universally banned, and Tony's opinion on the matter doesn't represent any sort of failure to understand Wikipedia. --JayHenry 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose, for several reasons. 1.) Edit count alone is never a good reason to support. Instead of just checking the candidate's edit count, participants in RfA discussions should evaluate the quality of individual edits. 2.) I don't trust people who fancy themselves "directors" of a WikiProject. Projects are groups that organize themselves in order to focus on improving articles within a specific topic. They should not have "directors" or "leaders", as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I'm sure many people have helped the project just as much as you have. 3.) From your answer to question 1, I can see that you believe adminship = power, as you mention that you want administrator rights in order to "win" discussions just because you have more "power". This is certainly not what adminship is for. 4.) Also in question one, you say you wish to participate at AIV, yet I don't see much active participation in vandal-fighting or reports to the noticeboard. Also, and please forgive me if I'm wrong, you don't need admin rights to participate in WP:PR. 5.) AFD is not a vote. If you believe this, then you certainly can't be trusted with the ability to close them. I'm sorry, but you're not ready for adminship. --Boricuaeddie 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1) True, I don't base my application on edit count. Do you believe that is the emphasis of my argument?; 2)One person has done a lot. He is noted in my essay and I have barnstarred and cookied him. I would do so more often if it were appropriate; 3)I don't follow; 4)Somewhat true. I have gotten only two people blocked and probably posted a half dozen notices; 5)In my first 20000 edits I developed as high an understanding of various XFD as most. I use the term vote loosely above, but understand very well the importance of weighing arguments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1.) That was directed at the users who are supporting your RfA. 2.) No comment. 3.) This means that you think that you can use admin rights to "win" arguments, which is wrong. 4.) Exactly- if you have only gotten two blocked and many incorrect reports, then you do not have the experience necessary to work in that area. 5.) You have not demonstrated that. --Boricuaeddie 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3)I never said that and I don't believe it. 4.) I have experience at CAT:RFU and have as much AIV experience as many a successful RFA candidate. 5.)For months and months I attended XFDs almost daily. I am very intimate with the prevailing philosophy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean by putting "win" and "power" in quotes? I'd be interested in how you arrived at your conclusion in point #3. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Not sure I remember where I read it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for now... --Boricuaeddie 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose per Boricuaeddie. -Lemonflash(do something) 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I agree with Boricuaeddie in a few points. Firstly, AfD is not a vote in any way. It's much easier and better to say discussion and comments. I'm also quite opposed with a users who appoints themself a "director" — we're not a bureaucracy. Also, I've noticed him in disputes, including one that leaked over a bit on the WikiProject Ice Hockey talk page. The above just makes me not trust the candidate with the tools. Maxim(talk) 23:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I do not believe AfD is a vote, I have more experience at XFD than most RFA candidates and understand very well how it works. At over 24000 edits, I have never been involved in either end of a WP:3RR, WP:DR (although close), any sort of arbitration. I have resolved every dispute, mano-a-mano without need for outside intervention. I have had editorial tussles, but nothing has ever gotten to a level of taking anything to a higher level than a talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: the candidate's comments leave me generally uncomfortable and unsure about their understanding of the sysop's role. A good contributor, for sure, but I'm not convinced the candidate will make a good admin.--cj | talk 00:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: The nom is engaged in an edit conflict with me at the present time, but the basis for our disagreement isn't the reason I oppose. Unfortunately, I've gotten a strong whiff of WP:OWN from his comments on my talk page, all the more jarring when this is an article on which his first edits have been within the last few months. I don't foresee him being any less proprietary over admin work and decisions. Obviously he is a diligent and active editor, but the qualities required to rack a giant edit count or to count GA coup have little to do with the mop.  RGTraynor  01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: I am concerned at the nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Park High School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curie Metropolitan High School. We don't delete for lack of sources; we tag and improve. We delete when notability cannot be established after a search for sources. Undoundtedly poor articles but reseach shows numerous sources from which the articles can be expanded. I would expect an admin candidate to do this research first. I am comcerned at how the user would close AfDs. TerriersFan 02:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that the user (he is not the only one) disagrees with your approach to AFD's, or your opinion on the notability of schools is not a legitimate reason to believe they would abuse the sysop tools. Being an ardent Inclusionist is not a test for adminship. VanTucky (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - actually, I happen to agree with all you say but that's not the issue :-) I am not suggesting that he would abuse the tools but I am suggesting that he might lack the understanding of policy to use them correctly. I have closed many AfDs and the policy approach that I apply, across the board, is to make a distinction between articles that harm Wikipedia (corporate spam, vanity articles etc.) and those for which notability cannot be demonstrated on the one hand and those for which, after research, notability can be established but which need improving on the other hand. TerriersFan 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment and extending oppose reasons. My initial position was as a result of a relatively narrow issue. However, in the light of subsequent discussions, I have become increasingly concerned about the attitudes of the candidate. For example in response to one comment he said "I must commend you for finding the only semi-valid reason to object to my candidacy". This shows a lack of regard for the views of other editors. As an admin you are given tools to be used on behalf of the Community; admins have no particular status with regard to other editors and should give equal weight to the views of all editors. TerriersFan 21:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose like CJ, the candidate's answers and comments leave me unsure of his understanding of sysop's role and exactly what he plans to use it for outside of the WikiProject which he is involved in. Am also unease over the Director issue as has already been outline by others. KTC 03:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - I just encountered this user as the nominator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curie Metropolitan High School where the user is attempting to delete a 3,000+ student Chicago high school because it hasn't yet established WP:N, a classic case of "Let's kill it instead of improving it." So far, unsurprisingly, the votes are a unanimous keep. Even the user/nominator changed their stance from "Delete" to "Neutral" [1] as the level headed editors explained why this article should not have been nominated. I don't think someone who displays this mentality should be an administrator and am concerned ill-advised reasoning will be used when closing AfD debates. --Oakshade 03:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But doesn't the fact that he changed his mind demonstrate the ability to listen to others, to recognize consensus and to back down from his original stance? It takes humility to admit where you were wrong - isn't this a desirable mentality for adminship? ---Sluzzelin talk 05:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good trait, but I'm concerned that the AfD was initiated in the first place after all the experience this editor has had. It's usually a beginner that initiates the snowball-closed keep or delete AfDs. --Oakshade 05:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit unfair - I'm sure most of the XfD regulars can think of at least one occasion they've seen something they've nominated snowball-kept (this was one of mine) — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - haven't had much contact with editor since first RFA but have seen arguments and comments made at XFD over the past few months that do not necessarily apply. Also concerned at the apparent power hunger of wanting the bit, added on to "directorship" of a wikiproject (which is rather against-the-grain of the "wiki spirit"). I do not trust the user with the tools at this moment. – Chacor 05:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose ack all concerns raised above, seems to be looking for some sort of award --Benspeak 11:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Very weak oppose, leaning neutral Oppose, with the following comments:
    • I have no issue with the candidate's self-proclamation as director. Although I don't like the bureaucratic/hierarchical connotations of a title of "director", if it helps to revive a dead/dying project, I guess it's OK. I'm a little concerned about the idea of elections for offices, but think it right to defer to the project on that issue, as long as they continue to produce good content.
    • The nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curie Metropolitan High School is definitely an issue for me. It's not the fact that it was snowballed, but rather the deletion nomination consisted essentially of a 'unreferenced, ergo AfD/delete' line of thought. I wouldn't want this viewpoint to be applied when evaluating and closing AfDs. A similar situation took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Park High School.
    • Ultimately, what leads me to oppose at this time is There's also this diff. When discussing dispute resolution, comparisons to the KKK and lynch mobs are hardly productive. The concluding sentence – "You can inform the entire lynch mob of this fact." – comes off as somewhat of a personal attack. If I've taken the diff out of context, please let me know so that I may reconsider my stance. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No you haven't. See the link below, and his rant in response to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: On every single red linked wikipage, when an editor goes to create it, they find this statement, quite prominently placed: Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. So I am not quite sure why this would be construed as a reason to oppose. If you disagree with Tony's opinions/nominations of articles that is legitimate. I do not think it proper to oppose him for something that appears to be perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, unless, of course, the statement quoted above doesn't apply to articles any longer, WP:V seems to imply otherwise. Considering he withdrew the nom, I do think that shows his ability to work with and compromise with others. IvoShandor 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that editors who nominate articles for deletion should do some prior research of the subject to determine whether it it is notable/could be sourced. They are not required to do so, but I think it is a matter of courtesy (yes, it's also a matter of courtesy to add sources to an article from the beginning ... but that's a different debate altogether). Suggesting deletion of an article for failing to prove the subject's notability through reference to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is a perfectly valid reason for deletion (in fact, it is probably the most common reason for deletion offered at AfD and WP:PROD). However, I am of the view that such arguments should be accompanied by evidence of an attempt to find sources, especially in the nomination. I perceive a qualitative difference between "Delete. No sources given." and "Delete. No sources given and I couldn't find any via an online search." With regard to this RfA specifically, the Curie Metropolitan High School AfD is not what prompted me to oppose (it's a factor, but a secondary one); I think TTT's extensive and valuable contributions overshadow a single AfD. The only reason I mentioned it was that it was so recent (yesterday, in fact). — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Contextually, that is an extremely hard diff to explain my emotions on. In all honesty, I must commend you for finding the only semi-valid reason to object to my candidacy from what I recall about my contributions. However, I do believe it is not representative of me because it ended up almost getting worked out on our talk pages although the counterparty to this day fails to acknowledge as such. Let me try to explain. I am a guy, who with almost no help is doing his darnedest to revive a project that is important to me. I have people fight to undo what I am doing. In addition to that it seems to me the counterparties have mastered the system by raising off topic objections to my arguments, gaming the system to report me at WP:ANI after I called the Help Desk and Village Pump to query his about his actions. Actually, I should note that this debate temporarily was raised to an outside intervention level until we agreed to take it back to our talk pages to consider WP:DR. It seems somehow that my attempt to manage the project was being construed as some sort of malicious/destructive act. The party then in what I believe is a move that lacks class would not agree to isolate our differences in what I believe was an attempt to railroad me into a debate about irrelevant topics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your response. Please allow me some time to review the issues/archives you note. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I should add that the high school afd is probably influenced by a English Boarding school afd from many months ago that is much more prominent that I believe got AFDed. It might have been Exeter or Philips or some name that reminds me of prominent Eastern U.S. boarding schools. I will look at your question.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have posted an optional question. Also, I revised my initial comment; after thinking about the issue some more, I have no issue with you claiming the title of "director" of the project as long as all of the other project members agree. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (restoring oppose after deletion removal by candidate) Unconditionally oppose. The dispute with me is discussed here. Tony claims that WikiProject Chicago has the right to tag whatever it likes, despite the objections of other editors. I do not trust him as an admin; and I doubt his competence as an editor. He is provincial, as his nomination to move Samuel Johnson from primary usage shows; and his judgment at FA and GA are among the worst I've seen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Deletion was by mistake if true due to edit conflict.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps. Is his reversion of the count, and messing up the page by omitting the required #, also accident, or is it inexperience? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Assume good faith. Judging from the edit summary, the removal of your comments was purely accidental, in contrast to what you are apparently trying to imply with "(restoring oppose after deletion by candidate)" comment. —AldeBaer 18:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    The problem is that if everyone starts changing/removing other project's tags then sections like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Reviewed_content are not possible. P.S. User:Pmanderson and crew are still invited to a WP:DR on whether consensus applies to talk pages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, I have to ask this, what in the world makes you think that consensus doesn't apply to talk pages? IvoShandor 19:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be noteworthy that Tony appears not to have been the one who introduced the notion that something as trivial as tagging the talk page of an article included in Category:University of Chicago alumni as being within the scope of WP:CHICAGO requires consensus. He also didn't call others single purpose accounts [2] as far as I can see.—AldeBaer 23:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    The conversation was here; other editors had complained at some length about the tag, but Tony, and only Tony, was arguing and revert-warring for it; it was at that point that I went elsewhere. That is as close to consensus as we usually come. If someone else agrees with Tony's views on the "rights" of a WikiProject, I will be happy to continue the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason for this edit other than to disrupt our project. You continue to represent the only one of 12000 articles that opposes our projects self management and use of its tag. You make up other editors and revert wars that don't exist. Please show me a diff of a revert war over our tag. You are successfully derailing my candidacy. You pretend to be willing to discuss the issues, but when I boil them down you fail to respond. I continue to be willing to pursue a WP:DR on whether people outside a project should be able to come to a consensus to override a projects use of its template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument that "there's only one of you, so your views don't count" is used by every abusive admin we have. I am even less encouraged by Tony's redefinition of his persistent and solitary replacement of the Project tag as not being revert warring; although the bot seems to have done just as much — admins should not behave like bots. I cannot accept credit for derailing his candidacy; I am the twelfth Oppose, after all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question, Tony, but I'm afraid my concerns were not assuaged. Many big WikiProjects thrive without elections or titles; the open nature of Wikipedia means they won't mean much anyway, and will only add bureaucracy and inhibit participation by those who may not wish to go against you. I fear that elections will only solidify ownership by making it clear to everyone who is in charge. I therefore cannot support you in your pursuit of adminship/more power. Xiner (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Calling an oppose rationale "semi-valid" like you just have is a bit disconcerting too.[reply]
  14. Oppose. Too many concerns about temperament and ownership issues. Singopo 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, essentially on the basis concerns already voiced by others. Candidate is obviously a valuable editor, but I'm afraid he would likely use admin tools too aggressively on controvertial issues. — xDanielx T/C 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Oppose You have grown quite a bit from your last Rfa, but I am still unsure, especially in light of the other opposes and neutral editors I see here. Jmlk17 06:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. My concerns about possible WP:OWN in the Chicago project were not allayed by the lack of response to my question about situations in which the candidate would refrain from using admin tools; the lack of response hints at a possible lack of understanding of the need for recusing under some circumcstances. The comments by the candidate about elections are also worrisome. --Coppertwig 16:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Strong oppose, rationale given below. I'm very troubled by the comment "I must commend you for finding the only semi-valid reason to object to my candidacy from what I recall about my contributions., which comes across as being dismissive of other people's opinions, and to be quite honest, sounds pretty arrogant to me. This, along with concerns about article ownership, lead me to question your understanding of consensus. You've made a lot of valuable contributions as a writer and editor, but I'm not comfortable with granting you the admin buttons at the present time. Sorry. --Kyoko 17:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After this comment (diffs selected to give context, feel free to read intermediate revisions), I felt compelled to change my position, due to the argumentative tone of Tony's comments, and the following sentence which to me seems the very definition of WP:OWN: If we are interested in such articles and do a better job at managing them is this within our own scope. I hope that Tony continues to write and take photos, because his hard work shows with all the GAs and FAs. However, I also hope that he will think about the concerns raised in this RfA. --Kyoko 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Discussion above raises serious concerns. Tony appears to lack understanding of the role of Wikiprojects, the role of consensus, etc. Also, interpreting the removal of a template as an effort to "derail his candidacy" is troubling; keeping conflicts about content from turning into personal conflicts is important, and Tony displayed a startling lack of composure in this instance. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose This user's bureaucratic tendencies disturb me a lot. See this discussion for a really great example. Atropos 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Respectfully, I must oppose based on the WikiProject Chicago issues raised above. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. I was neutral last time, declining to support because I didn't see a good case made for needing the tools. Now I must oppose per the WP:CHICAGO issues, which to me indicate an attitude that could cause real problems in an admin. The "Does WP:CON apply to talk pages" excuse especially rubs me the wrong way. Mangojuicetalk 23:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify; I don't think the directorship thing is a big deal, but the WP:OWN issues involved in trying to force the WP:CHICAGO banner onto the talk pages of articles where it isn't wanted is a big problem for me. Mangojuicetalk 17:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Way too bureaucratic. Has no understanding of what being a sysop really is. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Very strong oppose per most above. βcommand 02:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Oppose. Everything I read here is based on statistics, titles, formula, numbers, authority, and literal interpretations. None of these are how Wikipedia works. I see nothing to convince me that TonyTheTiger gets the Wikipedia community. The "Director" issue, the tagging controversy (consensus is consensus, no WP has "power" above consensus), the "leading editor" garbage, and many other issues here are simply contradictory to the way Wikipedia functions. -- Renesis (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose (switch from neutral) Sorry Tony, I didn't want to do this, but the myriad issues raised here truly do suggest that you aren't sure how the Wikipedia community works and that you are not ready for the sysop tools. Sorry, your contributions to the project are greatly valued though and don't let it get you down. IvoShandor 05:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Obvious lack of understanding regarding process and policy and has demonstrated very poor judgement in many of the instances raised above, and in his conduct during this RFA. Suggest that the candidate undertakes a full review of process and policy, and spends time demonstrating their understanding, before being nominated again. However, the lack of judgement demonstrated makes me believe that it will be a long time before this candidate is ready. TigerShark 10:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. I find some of the opposition to be less than convincing. However, on two very narrow areas I find I must oppose. First, the diff given above involving the KKK comment suggest how you function under fire and I think you lost it. There is much incivility on Wikipedia and it is incumbent on administrators to demonstrate cool and professional conduct. Second, the persistence over the Corzine tagging suggests to me that you just don't know when to walk away. There are times when you ought realize that you've lost the argument, have little or no support to prevail, and should simply move on to other work. I think until these two issues are thoroughly settled I should oppose. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. JodyB has articulated my concerns much better than I could have. older ≠ wiser 11:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose As this is the third RfA for this editor, I am looking for signs that the individual has matured, and learned from past mistakes which prevented prior RfA's from closing successfully. While clearly a valuable editor, I do not currently believe this person has my trust as an admin. The KKK comment is particularly disturbing, because it was made after two failed RfA's, and vividly illustrates the lack of growth which would garner my support. I was also put off by the editor asking if it was OK to post this RfA on a project page in which they are involved: While it was appreciated that they asked, it seems strange for someone who has already been through two RfA's not to know this would look like blatant canvassing. Moreover, I found the desire to do this a sign that this candidate simply covets the sysop tools far too much. Hiberniantears 20:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose While impressed with all of your contributions, I was unimpressed with your handling WikiProject Chicago issues. Your signature makes it seem like you are still pouting over the director thing. P.Haney 21:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose per Jody B, especially the inability to walk away. I'm also uncomfortable with the addendum to Q6 of "Of course, I could also help with all Chicago related WP:XFD" - Tony, does this mean that you would close Chicago-related XfDs? Do you think you would be able to do this objectively? The long answer to Q2 also leaves me feeling uneasy. There is such a lot that can be done without admin tools that I now tend to be sceptical about any long and overly detailed record of contributions as an answer to Q2, sometimes to the extent of overwhelming the reponses to other questions. A short and to-the-point statement should suffice for Q2, with a link to a separate page detailing their editing contributions. My stance on the WP:CHICAGO tagging can be seen at User:TonyTheTiger/DR bot. It's an interesting issue and debate, and one that I would encourage others to contribute to. I think the problem can best be summed up as: "Some people think low [importance] equals almost any connection, while others think low [importance] still requires a major connection, but less importance than the "importance=mid" ones. In other words, one set of people are mentally measuring "low" as a small but measurable increase from zero, while others are measuring it as a drop in importance from mid [importance]." Or even recognising that the line has to be drawn somewhere and saying, "no, this article is not relevant". Getting back to this RfA, a prolific editor should not feel discouraged because the community is not supporting their bid for adminship despite them being a prolific editor. Being a prolific editor is not enough. Interaction with other editors is more important, and it is this that some editors are saying needs addressing. I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting in a future RfA unless the 'director' and 'tagging' issues were fully resolved, no matter how many more GAs and FAs were produced. Carcharoth 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for questioning the answer to Q6, Carcharoth. It was so obviously against the rules that I was reluctant to raise the issue while this RfA was more finely balanced, lest I had misread the statement. I had thought it showed a startling lack of understanding about adminship and even common sense. Xiner (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I would not trust this uses as a sysop. 24.176.25.116 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anons can't vote Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Per most of the above, especially JodyB. Wikipediarules2221 04:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose per several responses above and in the neutral section below. As you note, a lot of the things you do at the Chicago WikiProject are indicative of an administrative temperament. Unfortunately, it seems that you have a tendency to fight on behalf of the project when dealing with outside users. If your current directorship allows you to improve your own favored area of the Wiki (and it's clear that you do improve it), maybe continuing in that capacity would be of the greatest overall benefit to the encyclopedia. I think the issue here is a sense (true or not) that you see adminship as a vessel to grant you the hierarchical power to read your desired outcome into discussions. You will need to change that perception if you want to be more successful at RfA in the future. Dekimasuよ! 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Although incredibly experienced user, just too many problems. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose - Boricuaeddie and Septentrionalis articulate my concerns.Brusegadi 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose A number of issues make me uneasy but the one that did it was the addendum to Q6. As Carcharoth pointed out, the closing of Chicago XfDs would certainly be inappropriate and makes me doubt that Tony would know how to use his sysop rights with the required objectivity. Pascal.Tesson 04:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose Per Boricuaeddie. Only two out of half a dozen AIV reports sucessful? I've made more than 200 and like 4 or 5 were rejected. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose For my above reasons, I'd also like to point out that Tony is harassing some users who oppose. Examples: [3] [4] Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Read that guideline, Jetlover. You may not like what Tony's doing, but it's not "harrassment".--Chaser - T 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, that's the point. He may not like what he is doing, and he is opposing per that. PatPolitics rule! 11:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the people the two diffs given was directed at, IMO actively posting a neutral (not oppose) !vote as opposed to just abstaining is a de facto invitation to the candidate to post a reply. While I agree it would have been more appropriate to have posted the reply on the RfA discussion so others could read it, I don't think the act of replying to it constitutes harassment — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just looked over the linked comments, I agree. His rebuttals were measured and not out of line. There are a lot of reasons to think Tony's unfit for the mop, but those aren't among them.  RGTraynor  13:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. Yikes... The misunderstanding of what Wikiprojects are for, the obsession over trivialities like talk page tags, the bureaucracy and dismissiveness, the KKK comment... None of it seems like someone who will be a responsible admin who will take other peoples' opinions seriously. If you're so upset about not being able to call yourself a director that an essay about it is linked to in your signature, and that other people call themselves "Directors, Coordinators, Leaders and Managers", please give us specific examples, so we can help fix that. You're a great article-writer, and I think that you should continue to be just an editor... Not a "director", "coordinator", "leader", "manager", or for now, "administrator". Grandmasterka 04:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose As Jetlover said. I left a comment in the Disscussion area saying that if the coming down hard on opposers I would oppose, and I am. PatPolitics rule! 11:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral I run into you repeatedly, and have never seen any reason to oppose. However, I have two major concerns; your self-proclaimed status as "Chicago Director" (you've heard all the arguments already, so I won't bore you with them again), and your (the project, not necessarily you personally - but if you're going to set yourself up as "Director", it means taking responsibility for their actions as well) tagging of every article on (apparently) everyone who's ever set foot in Illinois with the WP:CHICAGO template and the bad tempered edit-warring of "your" project's members should anyone dare to take the template off. I've also got a concern about your claim above that you've 27 GAs, but have only just reviewed your first GA; while it's not an order or policy, it is common practice (and stated as such on WP:GAC) for people submitting articles to GAC to choose another from the list to review. It's also only a couple of weeks since this episode — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with the AfD you cited - Tony's views might have been against consensus in that instance, but he expressed a legitimate opinion. WaltonOne 18:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I'll strike the bit about the AfD. I disagree with you about the whole "Director" business, though - a co-ordinator, chosen by consensus to watch over things and try to make sure people pull in the same direction is IMO qualitatively different from TTT's self-declaration of himself as Director, especially when the project under his direction then went on to carry out some fairly bitchy edit-warring (the nadir of which was probably here - and it's much to TTT's credit that he mentions it above). As I say, the whole business was far enough in the past that it doesn't warrant an oppose, but it's recent enough to stop me supporting — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning toward oppose. Your answer to Q5 concerns me. 3 hours is too short a time. Maybe after a period of a day or so, but someone may have things like work or school where they wouldn't be able to vandalize for a short period of time, but after that they might get right back into vandalizing. But I do not feel this is enough reason to make a full oppose, so I am neutral. Change to supportJ-stan TalkContribs 20:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MY response is based on a long debate about not being given credit for a block when I identified a vandal 3.25 hours after he last vandalized. He was not blocked until he caused havoc again a few days later. I wanted him blocked, but was convinced that this was not proper. I think I mentioned this in RFA2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant that if a vandal was given warnings, wasn't active for a few hours, and vandalised again after three hours and was reported, you wouldn't block him. You're talking about being reported after 3+ hours of inactivity, and so I apologize. J-stan TalkContribs 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral for now. You provided a good answer to my question, but I am still somewhat unconvinced of your preparedness and trustworthiness to become an admin. And when in doubt, I refrain from supporting. Sorry. Húsönd 00:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I think your content contributions have been great, but from my prior experience with your comments at AFD I think you may lack both a comprehension of the importance of process on Wikipedia and a sufficiently calm attitude in disputes essential to someone with the sysop powers. However, your understanding of policy is strong, imo. VanTucky (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now: I am concerned with Tony's understanding of Wikipedia:Reliable sources which I think is especially important for participating in WP:XFD. I am going to post an optional question about this topic in just a little bit. IvoShandor 07:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Switched to oppose.IvoShandor 05:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - You have some good contributions, but the opposes bring up good points, and I am worried about your percieved owning of articles, and your total understanding of the role of sysop. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I'm sorry, because I know he is very well-intentioned, but I still have some concerns. Deb 11:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the candidate would appreciate it if you could point out those concerns. Melsaran (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I'm concerned that this editor wants to be an admin so bad it hurts reading the answers to the questions. But it's mostly he wants to be a cop rather than build the project. Yes, that's my impression. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - As I understand it, there are only two projects with coordinators: WP:LGBT (for which I hold that role) and WP:MILHIST. In both cases, coordinators are elected and hold no power other than to mop up and to chivvy, roles any editor can take on at will. Appointing oneself a "director" rather implies you don't understand how leadership, for want of a better word, on wiki quite works: think R2-D2 as opposed to Emperor Palpatine. :D Get rid of your self-appointed job and start a genuine discussion on whether your project needs a coordinator. Do that and you're on your way to being one with the force, my son young Padawan learner. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't that be "Padawan", master? —AldeBaer 23:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    I am requesting an essay.  :-) daveh4h 05:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As you wish, Aldebaer. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that although possibly only two project leaders have formal titles, many others have a person recognized as the leader. Additionally, others things that are not necessarily projects such as WP:FA/WP:FAC/WP:TFA have leaders. I was only thinking of WP:MILHIST and WP:FA/WP:FAC/WP:TFA when I entitled myself. Discussions will be held within the group on whether we need titles, offices, etc soon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Raul and Kirill Lokshin have been ratified/elected, so I don't know how your self-appointment compares in this case. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - the whole Jon Corzine tagging thing was enough to make me hesitant, but the reaction to it displayed here has unfortunately eroded my support for this candidate. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Good contributor but there are some issues, as per Dev920 and a few others, which prevent me from supporting. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category