Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger 2

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

TonyTheTiger

Final (30/34/16); Ended 22:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) – I am nominating TonyTheTiger (herein referred to as "Tony"). I first came in contact with Tony when he encouraged me to save an article from deletion. Eventually, I asked if he would be interested in becoming an administrator. My support for Tony's candidacy is strictly based on his qualifications as I do not have any business or any other type of relationship with him except on wikipedia. I also note that we do not edit the same material (so would not benefit directly from Tony being an administrator) nor I don't live anywhere near Chicago, Illinois (USA) or have met him in person.

Tony has been editing wikipedia for about a year. He has never been blocked. As one can see, his dedication is difficult to match as his time commitment to wikipedia shows his labour of love to help in our wikipedia community. He tells me that he has over 12,500 edits. These vary from significant article creation, improvement of existing articles as well as showing his selflessness by devoting much time to housekeeping duties such as daily or nearly daily contributor to WP:NPP, WP:AFD, WP:CFD (for first 3000 edits after his initial RfA), WP:AFD & WP:CFD. Tony tells me that he has also participated in WP:PROD, WP:UCFD, WP:TFD, WP:RFD, and CFDS as well. Furthermore, his time spent at WP:NPP gave him some experience as the nominator instead of just as a voter at AFD. He has given a bit of time to WP:AIV and has assisted at CAT:RFU. He applied last year but withdrew in order to get more experience (old RfA in discussion page of RfA/TonyTheTiger). Rather than get discouraged, he's continue to show dedication and even more of it.

We should be proud of his commitment to reviving WP:CHICOTW (Chicago) which, in itself, is a job worthy of a paid consultant that wikipedia has gotten for free. Aside from editing, he has gone through the effort of taking quite a few good photos that the articles so sorely needed.

As far as I know, in recent months, Tony has interacted like an integral team member of our community. He seems genuinely interested in helping out and doesn't seem like someone who is hungry for power or wants to show non-administrators that he has sysop powers. That's why I am happy to nominate TonyTheTiger to become an administrator.VK35 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

As we toil on wikipedia, we sometimes forget people on other computers are seeing what we do. I am grateful someone has an appreciation for my efforts and do accept the nomination. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional Statement

I failed in my first RFA in Dec at about 5500 edits. Since then I have attempted to address my weaknesses by becoming active in WP space and WP:XFD.

I had been considering renominating myself after 3000 more (8500 total) edits. However, I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Daniel.Bryant_2 and decided I had a lot to learn. This caused me to expand horizons to CAT:RFU. A request for help with Category:Unassessed biography articles, inspired me to help a little and to tag all my article creations with {{WPBiography}}, {{WikiProjectBanners}}, & {{Infobox Biography}}.

In addition to lack of WP space and XFD experience, another qualm with my prior candidacy, is that I am of Afro-American heritage and of Latin-American descent, and that I made inquiries related to the ethnicity/wikipedia administrator intersection. My heritage remains, but as far as I know statistics to quell my curiosities remain unavailable. I have been put in contact with administrators of color, however.

I should also add that in the last month two individuals have queried me about my user name using {{UsernameConcern}}. My reasons for wanting this particular name are as follows.

1. See my bio that is a linked attachment to my signature. I am a prominent martial artist. That is essentially my performing name or stage name. If the commercial release of my video CD is successful, I hope to be notable enough to have my bio unuserfied within 6 months.
2. I have been known by the name Tony, have attended junior high school, senior high school and college at schools with Tiger mascots.
3. As a prominent martial artist, the Tiger is a sacred animal to me. It represents stealth, grace, power, and ferocity.
4. I have built up a lot of human capital with 12500 good edits under this name. Last month, I earned my first WP:FL and my first WP:FA under this name. I have several WP:GAs under this name. I have also earned several barnstars and smileys under this name.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: It is logical for me to pursue adminship to increase the efficiency with which I can assist. I have been involved in numerous types of WP:XFD, especially WP:AFD, WP:CFD. Becoming an admin will enable me to more efficiently improve the encyclopedia. I will become more involved in XFD and will be able close out discussions objectively. I mostly find stale vandalism. As such my involvement with AIV is infrequent, but as an admin I would efficiently contribute to these efforts. Once I have mastered my new tools I will be of great assistance and will get active in the unfortunate task of blocking users. Although I will surely begin by blocking very clear abusive vandals who ignore warnings, I hope to be able to steer users towards good faith contributions. Overall, I will use new tools as respectfully and pragmatically as possible while balancing efficiency with caution. Above all else, I intend to act with the welfare of the encyclopedia as a whole in mind at all times.

Since last month I received both a WP:FA and WP:FL (as further outlined below) I have an interest in WP:FC. As I state on the featured content talk pages, I have an interest in modifying featured content. I believe Featured Templates and possibly Featured Categories and Featured Galleries (the picture analogue to Featured Topics) should exist. Also, below I discuss my interest in preventing the deterioration of the WP:TFA feature now that wikipedia has grown to a point where the promotion rate far exceeds the number of days in a month. Raul has done a tremendous job as the Featured Article Director selecting such articles, but I believe wikipedia's growth will lead to problems. I hope to be involved in the featured content process and possibly redesign of the main page.

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

A: I am pleased with my resuscitation of WP:CHICOTW because of its successes and general contributions. In addition, undertaking this responsibility has forced me to become a better editor. The strategy of the CHICOTW has been to attempt to create WP:GAs from redlinks and stubs. However, because of all the GAs the CHICOTW was producing I had to start cleaning up my own articles so it would not seem like all my GAs were on the coattails of the CHICOTW. If you look at my userpage you will see the numerous WP:GAC that were thusly motivated. This week I parameterized the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} so that the group members can add quality and importance designations. Any glitches with the parameters are because I am not a great programmer. However, I am quite a pirate. I do my best to give Johnny Depp a run for his money.

I am also pleased with my own progress as an editor. I have pursued editorial excellence by contributing hundreds of edits to articles that I created and guided to WP:FA (3/26/07) (Campbell's Soup Cans) and WP:FL (3/16/07) (List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry) status. I spent over 500 edits on the former (333 article, 19 article talk, 12 FAC1, 44 FAC2, 82 Images (13, 11, 11, 9, 8, 7, 4, 2, 1, 1) Removed images (7, 4, 4) image talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:Images-3 and Wikipedia talk:Fair use-3 as well as numerous user talk page exchanges) and 300 on the latter. I have become a much better editor over the last 4 months. I am also pleased with some of my lead roles in less edit-intensive Washington Square Park, Chicago & Marquette Building (Chicago) contributions. I also await responses to the numerous (currently 8) WP:GACs I have in the queue.

Also, I am pleased to have created an article that survives WP:CRUFT and in fact achieved WP:DYK for an athlete that I use to root for. I am a very strong University of Michigan Wolverines fan who has trekked to Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Final Four, National Invitation Tournament Finals and NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Championship games. I have had The Victors as my ringtone for years. As a student in the renamed Ross School of Business, I use to root along with friends and classmates for the Michigan teams. I was a regular at the Saturday morning Business School tailgates. One of the favorite players for all the guys I use to hang out with in the business school was (02-27-07) Rob Pelinka and I am pleased to have been able to post an article for him. It is very rare for a student in the business school to have an important role on one of the major Michigan sports programs like Rob did. As business school students, we use to like to shout his name (like we were PA announcers) whenever he did anything (even got up to stand by the scorers table). Rooting for him rivaled witnessing Desmond Howard's Heisman season as a Michigan sports memory. It was fun to create his still stubby article.

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

A: I had a minor dustup attempting to clarify why I could not get a block on a repeat offender just because I caught him 3 hours after the occurrence. The text can be seen on my page at Archive 7 and at TigerShark's archive. He got blocked 3 days later. I returned to my normal editing and vandalism patrol of my watchlists. I mostly catch stale vandalism efforts. However, I finally assisted on my first block on March 30 [1] [2]. My numerous talk page tags have probably helped many others succeed at getting vandals blocked at WP:AIV. Going forward, I will as time permits continue to fight vandalism, but I will be satisfied with user talk page notices unless I have a fresh catch.

Also, during my Campbell's Soup Cans WP:FAC debates fair use issues became contentious because modern art articles face stringent requirements on image inclusion. I especially had extensive debate with User:ShadowHalo. Of course, in the end I relented to a significant compromise on image inclusion to get my article promoted.

I had a much more protracted conflict with a proposal for changing the WP:TFA/R procedure for the new era of tremendous surplus in TFA nominees. It is debatable whether proper protocol was used in handling my proposal. That aside, in March 2007 a record 83 FA new promotions occurred. The current TFA/R queue has grown to about 130. There is about a 400 article pool of non TFA FAs. Many of these articles have been FAs for 2, 3 or 4 years. At the time of the debate, I had not determined a very important aspect of the problem, which is the large number of old eligible articles by active wikipedians that have not been promoted as TFAs. It seems to me that there are many problems to be solved. 1.) The FA Director, Raul654, is overworked [3] and the situation will worsen as the process continues to grow in scale. 2.) The average wait between FA promotion and a TFA/R decision is growing to a soon to be annoying length. 3.) The number of articles vying for TFA/R is growing in a way that is going to start leading to disappointment and frustration as it becomes clear that some articles will be passed over for inordinate if not infinite lengths of time. 4.) The combination of the above will eventually lead to hostility and possibly discouragement 5.) The high quality of articles chosen as TFAs somewhat masks the high quality of some of the omitted articles. I have an ounce of prevention for these anticipated problems. However, the debate has basically boiled down to a discussion over whether I am attempting to solve a problem that I can prove has become unmanageable. My take on this is that I am proposing an ounce of prevention to a mounting problem, and I am being told that until I have proof that there is need for a pound of cure, I should be satisfied with the status quo. The long and the short of how I have dealt with this conflict is that I put a lot of effort into it, discussed it civilly, accepted its failure, rewrote it, and are again discussed it politely with the others. Although User:SandyGeorgia has generally been opposed to my idea, she has helped me to fill out a summary of old TFA eligible FAs after the proposal died. I continue to improve the presentation and although it is probably not proper for me to take a third stab at the apple, I would support resuscitation of my proposal by interested parties.

Optional Question from bainer (talk)

4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?

It is O.K. to break a rule when

1. You understand the letter of the law with respect to the rule (what the rule actually says)
2. You understand the spirit of the law with respect to the rule (what the rule truly meant to say)
3. You understand the substance of the law with respect to the rule (how the rule is actually applied)
4. 1 is different from either 2 or 3.

1. If 1 differs from 2 (and possibly 3), this means that the rule was written poorly and should be changed.
2. If 1 differs from 3 but not 2 as long as you are sure 3 will continue to prevail it is O.K. This is a case where since everyone does it, it sort of becomes O.K. For example, I jaywalk before the signal actually changes in my favor. Many people do. It is sort of O.K. to do so in the sense that it is against the letter and spirit of the law, but no one really cares.

Within wikipedia the former case is the one that is important to consider here. It is a case, where because the rule may be archaic due to wikipedia growth or technological advancement something is amiss. As we grow and learn how to police ourselves better we chance upon cases where the rules are not written correctly. The proper procedure in this case is to document an understanding of why 1 and 2 above disagree and why it should be the collective consensus to change the rule for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Basically, one should say why he is going against stated policy with a justification that is clearly for the good of the encyclopedia. Then one should notify the proper authorities in order to realign the stated rule with their intent.

Addendum I should clarify what WP Jaywalking is and isn't. WPJaywalking is not inappropriately speedy deleting. That is more like playing with fire. WP Jaywalking is "per" voting. Voters are suppose to state their vote and their reason on an XFD or RFA. However, often it seems to be worth the time savings to say per nom or per user:x. I.e., instead of clearly stating one's reason stating that someone else's reason is very similar to yours is sort of acceptable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 12:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from Nick

5.You are requesting the community grant you extra tools - primarily the ability to block users, the ability to delete material and the ability to protect or unprotect pages. Could you provide some examples of when you found it frustrating or inconvenient not having these tools and how you would have used them ?

I have been at time discouraged with the amount of time it took to get a page protected (although protection always occurred within an hour).

I have at other times been impatient with the progress of closing out a WP:RM or a WP:XFD.

In addition, now that my user page is starting to embody the characteristics of a wikipedia leader, as I participate in XFD stressed out XFD participants are starting to email me with issues that they want my help with. It is probably for the good of the encyclopedia to vest persons with authority who are sought out to solve problems. It is more comforting to troubled users to have persons who they seek out for help and guidance have real authority. Regardless, of whether such authority actually changes the way the problems are solved, words of encouragement from a truly vested authority is more likely to encourage someone to continue contributing. For example, when someone emails me saying that they are so disgusted that they are blanking their page and quitting wikipedia, it might be more comforting for me to be able to say “I am an administrator. Is there something I can do to help you?”

In addition, although I seek involvement with WP:FC, I may very well not find a meeting of the minds with my expressed interests. In this case, I will likely attempt to transform the entire Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago. I.E., I will likely start adding quality and importance ratings on things and requesting help in doing so. I believe that most Wikiproject director/coordinator/leader/administrators are true admins. I have truly tried to get the whole project running, but I imagine there is a reason why these persons are admins. It is probably similarly for the good of the encyclopedia if the people who are the faces of wikipedia (the people others turn to) seem to be persons ratified by the community. It would make more sense for people to turn to me as a leader of a Wikiproject if the community showed their confidence in me. Furthermore, as an admin people are probably more likely to help me improve the project upon request.

Mostly, I would like to improve my ability to participate in XFD.

Many have reacted negatively to my answer on number 5. Others have requested further clarification. I presume the problems are with the two larger paragraphs. Some question my mind set. I presume associating promotion to adminship with a vestment of authority is a problem. From experience, I know that sometimes when I have problems, I look through contributors to discussions to see who is an administrator because I feel they might be better able to help me. I presume I am not the only wikipedian who has done so. The fact that they have certain authorized "powers" is an implicit vestment of authority by the community. In my case, it seems granting of GAs, FAs, FLs, barnstars, smileys, etc. has given me the appearance of someone who knows how to take care of things. People are starting to turn to me. For example, today I will be looking at problems that User:Nimrod 1976 has with Assyrians as a neutral party. I have also been getting bombed with emails and talk page messages related to requests for involvement or thanks for involvement in other peoples' article interests. I am not a human psychologist. However, you should understand why people seem to be turning to me. Many of you may have been promoted to admins contemporaneously to having the outward appearance of leadership if you are an admin. Those of you who started getting my type of request before becoming an admin better understand my situation. The problem should not be in your perception of my mindset, but the very real mindset of other wikipedians with respect to this issue.

Obviously, leaders are really people others follow and not necessarily those bearing titles. I am the leader of WP:CHICOTW. I am becoming the leader of WP:WPChi. I use my unofficial broom as the leader. It might be nice to have a freshly minted mop. Having created Category:Chicago articles by importance and Category:Chicago articles by quality has created a need for leadership at WP:WPChi. I hope people will follow my lead with or without any titles. I do believe, however, that they would be more likely that they would follow if I were an admin. However, there is certainly room to question whether increasing the propensity of people to follow me is good for wikipedia. Many of you may not think I have been a very good leader. Obviously, I have not taken a single WP:CHICOTW article to the WP:FC level in my four months as collaboration leader. I am setting about getting straight this week. Chicago Landmark will be a WP:FLC. I do apologize if you think we have been wasting our time only taking redlinks like Chicago Board of Trade Building to GA level. I imagine there are others who would have done better than I have based on early results. You certainly should choose very selectively who you want to use broom and who should be using mops. Furthermore, you may question whether it was a wise decision for me to try to move the WP:WPChi forward to be a more full fledged project. I am sure many of you question whether such a project should even exist let alone attempt to begin article assessments. Those of you in this camp certainly have room to look at my track record and question whether I should be given a mop. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It now seems that all objections are coalescing around my answer to #5. Oddly, I am in complete agreement with the most extensive and clear opposition stated by Teke. I understand that being an admin involves two types of roles. One that he emphasizes is grunt work. You can look at my edits over the past 24 hours from this signed time stamp to see that my responsibilities at WP:CHICOTW entail grunt work. I am use to this. The other role could be described as grunt work or leadership. Taking the point on blocking vandals and being the decision maker on assessing comments at WP:XFD are sort of leadership and sort of grunt work. You must trust an individual to make decisions in both cases. What I am saying is that I believe people turn to me because I can probably help them pursue the right course of action. An admin fighting vandals or closing XFD is a person who has to determine a course of action. You may want to say he is following policy or leading. In either case an admin has to make decisions. In many cases, he makes the final decision (subject to review such as WP:DRV or renomination, or subject to a block review). A person who is charged with the responsibility of making final decision such as those in question 6 that follow would be called a leader in many circles. Nonetheless, I agree with Teke's message and admit I may have emphasized the wrong points. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good Tony, thank you for reading my opinion. The second to last point in my opposition still seems to have missed you, though.

It is incredibly easy to put a lot of hard work into something you care about. What is hard, is putting the work into something you don't care about as a topic. Of course there is no obligation that an administrator has other than removing personal information, spam and copyright violations on sight. No one asks you to clear backlogs, no one requests that you have to make blocks. Some administrators almost never block. Some almost never delete. Some almost never protect. But it is about chipping in and helping where the help is needed, even outside of your Wikiproject. This is something that I think you will definitely do now and in the future but based on what your aim was when this RfA began I don't think the bit would have been used this way. As such I opposed your nomination. Hope this helps for the future, <edit> and I will support in the future </edit>. Teke 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I do concur that it is harder to exert effort outside of your interests. I find that while coordinating the WP:CHICOTW I have learned a lot about subjects I was not interested in, but that were elected as the COTW. I manage to be first or second in edits on most COTWs regardless of the topic nonetheless. The likely future RFA3 will hopefully have a summary of new skills and wikipedia experiences. I am now branching from the WP:CHICOTW to the entire WP:WPChi. I will in the near future be spending a lot of time on Chicago article assessments. I hope to spend time with FACs and possibly with Fair use. I am not sure how interesting each of these things will be, but I will put forth great effort. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from CMummert

6. You recently commented in the following two AFD discussions: Handbra and ASCII math notation. Would you please explain the reasoning behind your comments in more detail? If you had to close these right now, using the following permanent links [4] [5], what action would you take? The purpose of these questions is to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge and interpretation of WP policy and practice relating to article deletion, following your response to question 5.

ASCII math notation: This should be closed as no consensus and renamed ASCII math notation. When User:Quarl first looked to close this there was sufficient debate to say no consensus was reached although some might say there was consensus to delete. I would tend toward no consensus because of problems with a couple of deletes. Trovatore's claim that the article is unsourceable is not really valid. killing sparrows' response translates into a weak keep given the number of experts who understand the term. Once relisted, insufficient support was given to really say keep. Given the preceding discussion, it should be clear that I felt the article involved an encyclopedic topic that needs to be sourced.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Handbra Let me apologize for not correcting my own spelling of the word risque in my comment. The article needs authentication. When voting, I did a google search to make sure the term was real and presented a couple of links to show that it was not a made up term. Thus, I sort of obfuscated the arguments on whether the term was a real WP:NEO. I would close this with a keep because the early delete votes should be discounted once the term is authenticated. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

General comments

Comment Rather than respond to everyone individually about the initial confusion with El_C who at 19:45, 14 April 2007 voted in support and at 20:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC) voted both oppose and neutral, I will respond here in the comments section. I thought he was taking my candidacy lightly and making jokes. However, I could not use my usual responses to such contributions because they are not appropriate. I actually keep my most common tags on my user page at the bottom of the "Wikipedia Resources" section. I would usually respond with a {{uw-vandalism1}} or {{uw-vandalism2}}. You can see both of these tags mention reverting. However, it is surely bad form to revert votes on your own RFA. Thus, I sought administrative assistance.

I hope anyone who has voted oppose due to my confusion on this unusual situation would reconsider. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment It seems that many voters here are confused on the difference between WP:ANI and WP:AN. I reported the odd edits to AN. I am not all that convinced that the item was not worthy of a query at AN although I concur an ANI report might have been excessive. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am disappointed with the editors jumping the "Oppose" bandwagon because of Tony's reaction to El C's practical joke. Although a little humor is acceptable in some situations, it is important to realize that an RfA is usually one of the most significant experiences an editor faces on Wikipedia - and unjustified joke edits such as El C's appeared to mainly humor the editor and hurt and disappoint the candidate. Tony has come a long way and worked extremely hard since his first RFA, and demonstrated his abilities as both an editor and as a future administrator - and it saddens me that he is now being opposed with "per this editor" or "per that editor" votes. Administrators are always in demand on Wikipedia, and I am often frustrated by the lack of administrator intervention (due to the shortage of active administrators) while I am attempting to revert vandalism. Tony, regardless of his handling of humor or his view of adminiship, has demonstrated a clear use for the administrator tools and I have no doubt that he will have a greatly positive impact on this encyclopedia. I stick with my original vote. --Ali 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While I understand the qualms with my answer to number 5, I would appreciate an explanation to the problems with my answer to number 4. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• See TonyTheTiger's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Discussion

Support

#Looking good. El_C 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Switching to oppose. El_C 01:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Support - I support for the reasons that I mentioned when nominating Tony.VK35 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Good answers to questions, good history. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Appreciate the detailed and honest answers to questions, good experience over a broad range of issues. JavaTenor 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong Support This editor may actually be overqualified. -- P.B. Pilhet 21:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

   Support, he's GRRRRRRRREAT! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Changing per concerns raised and later answers. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   Support I see no problems with this editor. The admin tools would not be abused. (aeropagitica) 22:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

5. Support per above. Concur he probably is overqualified. Addhoc 22:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Weak support Not all that weak, but I was somewhat concerned about your understanding of WP:FU. Regardless, you worked well with all the editors (not just myself) at the FAC, and it'd be silly for me to even go neutral given your work with the project. I see no issues with your having the tools. ShadowHalo 23:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong Support - He is actually overqualified and he should get the mop..--Cometstyles 00:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Support An examination of his contributions reveals that Tony is an exceptionally qualified editor who has a sound knowledge of Wikipedia policy. --Ali 00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
9. A good candidate for the mop, from what I've seen. Daniel Bryant 01:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Support lots of writing experience, very courteous & knowledgeable when I've seen him. Johnbod 02:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. He's shown good leadership getting WP:CHICOTW back and running. I've been helping out with things there, and I'm not even a member of the project. I don't see any problem with adminship, since he knows how to work with the community. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Support I've seen Tony a few times on AFD (I think), and I'm very impressed by the nomination statement. This is as close to a no-brainer endorsement as I can think of. Good luck. YechielMan 02:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Tony Sidaway 12:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Jaywalking is not an offense in my country, which happens to have an excellent pedestrian safety record. :)
14. It is my great pleasure to support The Tiger's nomination. I have worked with him on his Chicago's Collaboration of the Week a couple of times - and he treats my Aussie attention to his group's with same utmost courtesy he treats his fellow city dwellers. Indeed at times I think he may be single handedly creating all of the articles related to that city. His edit count in terms of its roundness of contribution is excellent, he understands images, templates, wikispace etc. Good luck is all I can add.--VS ^talk 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Weak Support - I didn't get what El_C's joke was about either, but reporting it to ANI was an extreme overreaction. I also don't think the answer to Q5 was entirely satisfactory; not all project leaders are necessarily admins, and the two jobs are rather different. However, in light of the candidate's frequent XfD participation and high editcount, this isn't a good enough reason to oppose. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. This RFA will be a learning experience in terms of how to deal with established editors collegially, and I this seems to be a one-time incident anyway. Nominee seems familiar enough with the current state of AFD to help with it. The comments made by nominee at this RFA seem forthright enough for me. CMummert · talk 19:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
17. Support I don't think the vandal argument is a great enough concern to oppose. After observing the other contribs of this user, I will support. Captain panda 20:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Excellent editor, who provides rational arguments of AfD.--Agha Nader 22:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
19. Support, I personally don't have any problems with him becoming an admin.--Wizardman 06:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
20. Support, just tone it down a bit. Abeg92contribs 10:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
21. Alright, this may appear a bit weird, but in light of the fact that El C did not provide a sufficent explanation for his practical joke and why he did it on this RfA, I'm now changing back to support. —AldeBaer 12:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

    I can't speak for anyone else, but my reservations are not because he doesn't have a sense of humor, it's because he 1. Characterized the editor as a vandal without 2. Doing some basic research and then 3. posted to AN with the vandal assumption. In fact, I think the thing that disturbed me most about this was the quick assumption of bad faith. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, it's a downer, but I ask myself how I would react if someone made edits like these in my RfA: [6]/ [7]/ [8]. Since El C refuses to explain, I don't know what to make of this. It's obviously not an insider joke between old friends. Or maybe reporting to AN was a practical joke in response? How's that for assuming good faith? —AldeBaer 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

    It stretches the definition; in your case, too. It was a joke, get over it. RfA is not —or should not— be as big a deal as you make it out to be. Calling another editor a vandal on one's own RfA without bothering to do the most cursory resaerch is indicative of somewhat alarming carelessness. Will be willing to support next time. El_C 19:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

22. Weak support- I support as you are a good editor, but the reasons of oppose does not give me a strong reason to support you. Retiono Virginian 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
23. While there is no formal endorsement from WikiProject Chicago, I am a member of that WikiProject and have had ample opportunity to observe Tony's interactions with the rest of that project there. I am convinced that if we actually held a formal discussion on the matter, we'd endorse him, and so I consider him endorsed. He otherwise seems quite suitable as a candidate, and I therefore do support his candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
24. Strong support - Tony is one of the hardest workers I've ever met on Wikipedia. He more or less singlehandedly revived the CHICOTW project (which is currently thriving and churning out GAs on a regular basis), he always has a friendly word and has been MORE than communicative in handling that project, he's made a great deal of mainspace edits in general, and is really an overall responsible and decent guy. I can't think of anyone who deserves this more. As for this El C "joke," I think it's in pretty poor taste. The timing and placement of this "joke" was unfair and reflects poor judgement, and it's in poor taste to then oppose someone's adminship based on the fact that someone momentarily tricked them, ignoring recognizing the huge amount of hard work they've put into the project. I have yet to meet an admin who is perfect. TheQuandry 19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. I opposed his TFA proposals, but was impressed with the effort he put into them, and how civilly he took their being shot down. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
26. SupportThe user seems like he would make a good admin.LordHarris 20:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
27. Support The key characteristic of a manager (aka admin) is judgement, and Tony has that whether it's AfD determination or applying rules.H Bruthzoo 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. From the little I have seen of this editor, I know that he is a good editor, loyal to the Chicago WikiProject, and has made good policy change suggestions in the past (TFA). On another note, I would urge him to keep going with that, because that is definitely an important think to accomplish, because there are fundamental problems with the current system. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  17:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Clarified answer to Q5 and the Q5 answers seem tempered when view along with answers to Q1; He does give detailed thought to his actions and I think he will do the right thing when it comes down to it. -- Jreferee 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
30. Support per long history of excellent contributions. He has a good understanding of the various deletion discussion areas, and would make an excellent admin. Recommend taking it slowly at first, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, but if you thought that my joke directly below was vandalism, the real vandals will do circles around you. At this point, I'm inclined to think that you need more experience with interpersonal communications. Why did you not simply drop me a note? I'm really quite surprised. El_C 01:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   If I looked at it correctly, you changed the sections to say "Oppose Neutral" instead of Oppose being 2 lines above Neutral, and then you left the "joke". It confused me too when I saw it. I suppose it does say something about Tony's handling of the situation, but I don't get it at all. Leebo ^T/C 09:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   Oh no, I just realized that it was me; I thought it was there in the original. That sucks! :( Still, here's what should have happned... Tony: why did you vandalize my RfA? Me: How did I vandalize your RfA? Tony: You changed the bracket between oppose and neutral and then signed neutral as oppose (opposing nuetral or myself?) after you'd already said you support. Me: Shiiiiii El_C 12:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. His proposals to change the process for Today's Featured Article show some fundamental deficiencies in regards to decision making. TFA is one of the few things that seems to work really well on Wikipedia. His proposal, frankly, is terrible. This causes me to believe that his admin decisions would be of similar quality. --- RockMFR 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   I'd like to add on that I think disagreeing with a proposal is not a terribly good reason to oppose. I'm aware. --- RockMFR 19:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Calling another editor a vandal on ANI without first discussing on their talkpage sets a bad precedent per El_C Naconkantari 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Per Naconkantari, plus the answer to Q4. You know why jaywalking is against the law? It's not just some archaic thing that nobody's bothered to retract, it is against the law because it is dangerous. Similarly, speedy deleting non-notable articles is against the rules no matter how you spin them, yet a lot of admins do it. That doesn't mean you can, because when it is challenged, you look like a complete idiot using your powers against policy. Especially when the decision in the AfD is keep, meaning you didn't even get the right result. -Amarkov moo! 04:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
5. As above -- Y not? 08:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
6. I'm sorry but no, the answer to question 5 just feels too wrong to me. Admins aren't leaders and have no more authority than any other editor, stating the opposite in your own rfa is not very comforting. If really the biggest inconvenience for not being an admin is that you don't get some 'official' recognition, then you really shouldn't be an admin. - Bobet 10:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose, changed from neutral, per Bobet, answer to question 5 is very wrong. Majorly (hot!) 10:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   From his user page: "I am not currently an administrator. However, I like to describe myself as the adminsitrator of the CHICOTW page." I'm afraid that is not the right attitude. Majorly (hot!) 10:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

8. Strong oppose. Well I thought I'd be supporting this one but his behavior over the El C joke has been astonishing. A post at WP:ANI WP:AN about a highly experienced contributor without contacting him first? Even worse, the explanation above said he only did so because the wording of {{uw-vandalism2}} didn't fit... So (1) we don't use templates to communicate with established editors and (2) if a standard form message doesn't say what you want it to say- write your own message! Communication skills are vital to being a good admin- bad time to demonstrate a lack of them to be honest... WjBscribe 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   Per the candidate's request on my talkpage, I have modified the above to clarify that the post in question was made to WP:AN not WP:ANI. WjBscribe 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose as per evidence brought up by Majorly and communication issues described elsewhere. (aeropagitica) 14:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose I came here to support; however, one should not accuse an established contributor of vandalism on ANI (sorry, that AN, modified per request) before talking it over at his talk page. This problem, combined with a poor answer to Question 4, persuades me that this just isn't the time. Sorry. Xoloz 14:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
11. I'm sorry, but I can't support someone who appears to want the tools (that's all it is, tools) in order to have power and authority. Your statements now that my user page is starting to embody the characteristics of a wikipedia leader; for the good of the encyclopedia to vest persons with authority; more comforting for me to be able to say “I am an administrator. Is there something I can do to help you?”; and as an admin people are probably more likely to help me are all very worrying.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Regretful oppose. I originally came to support as well, but the issues provided above leave me in serious doubt. Administrators aren't an "upper authority", nor community trust reflects leadership. I strongly advice you to to rethink your approach to this — remember, "janitor" is the key word. Michaelas¹⁰ 20:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose per WJBscribe and the user's actions surrounding this RfA. He makes a big deal about the difference between AN and ANI and that it's better that he did it at AN and not ANI. But when it comes down to it, he still called the user a vandal. In addition, the fact he edited other people's comments on this AfD shows a complete disregard of the guidelines of WP:TALK. Metros232 20:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Didn't much like the interaction with El_C. This was a case on which assumption of good faith was beyond obvious. --Sn0wflake 21:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Changed from neutral, based mainly on the first general comment. I'm still convinced that Tony is a good editor but I don't think he's ready for adminship yet. Frankly, I still don't really understand the explanation or how the whole template business figured into the decision making process (after all, templates are just tools - they're supposed to facilitate communication, not hinder it). That pretty much turned a (in the great scheme of things) rather insignificant error in judgement into a dealbreaker for me. Sorry. -- Seed 2.0 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
16. Weak Oppose Like Xoloz, I was also planning on making a hearty endorsement of the candidate, but could not quite reconcile Tony's answer to question five with my own notions of what an administrator's mindset should be. With some further clarification, as I may have read the question wrong, I'd be more than willing to revisit my original plans of supporting this request, as things can often get misconstrued in such a forum where direct communication can be quite difficult at times. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
17. sorry no I oppose not ready as yet.Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose per answers to Question 4 and Question 5. I have grave concerns that this user still doesn't understand much about Wikipedia, it's policies and especially, the role of administrators. I fully expected to Support this nomination too but I regretfully have to Oppose. -- Nick ^t 11:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose per answers to q4 and q5, and per poor communication skills during this RfA itself. Calling El C a vandal in a centralised discussion without asking the user what was going on first, seems to show that Tony is not yet ready for adminship. --Guinnog 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose multiple concerns, well-aired above. --Dweller 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Administrators have a lot of influence over policy, and the many incarnations of his TFA idea have shown his apparent intent to take policy in the wrong direction. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose Excellent contributor to WikiProjectChicago, but poor response to question 5. Has demonstrated tendencies toward "ownership" rather than leadership. In the initial efforts of providing article ratings, what contributor wants to find a talkpage message stating: You are being too liberal with your ratings. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment. We want to be as strict as they are. In short, less than 1 in 1000 article should be rated as top. I believe that the 5 I have chosen are our top 5. I am open for debate, however. We probably should delete a top for everyone we add until we have 6000 articles tagged in our project. Shedd is either Mid or High, not top. but whatever, just keep contributing. ChicagoPimp 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
23. Regretful oppose, still has done a lot of good work, but I just can't stomach the answer to 5. If people follow your lead, it should be because you've shown you know what you're doing, not because you're an admin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
24. Oppose for the second worst use of fair use images in usersapce I've ever seen. I just removed them, see [9]. This was an active page edited by TonyTheTiger from November to February with the intent of displaying the images and intent to leave the page displayed. I expect admins to understand this simple rule of the complex fair use criteria. MECU≈talk 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose There's not much point in expressing my opinion here as far as how the RfA is leaning, so I'm posting this just to make something perfectly clear: administrators are janitors. I know that it has been said before in the opposition, but I would like to clarify for Tony's sake in just why the answers to questions four and five are just wrong in the spirit of everything admin. Administrators are the people in the office cleaning up before everyone gets to work, while they work, and after they go home. If it is agreed by the office that a particular painting is unfit, it is the lowly janitor that trudges in in overalls, takes it off the wall, and hauls it to the trash while everyone else keeps working. An administrator is not the office boss, and adminship is to be no big deal because of that. Accepting a nomination is the voluntary submission to undertake extra work, not to delegate that work out or to add an air of authority. I have served in voluntary, elected positions of authority in life and it is in no way like being an administrator on Wikipedia. I believe that Tony is in good faith in his answer to question five, that he believes he has respect and trust in the community and makes a good leader. However, this is not what the mop and keys entails. It is absolute grunt work. If you were to try spending three hours clearing out an image deletion backlog of only 120 images, properly removing redlinks and researching source claims for fair use or free use, it is my belief that you will not use the bit much at all based on how you present yourself. I may support in the future, should the user humble down, but I don't want extra hands that think being an administrator is a mark of authority aside from a gesture of trust and good faith. Teke 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose very prolific but too arrogant. Manderiko 01:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
27. Strong Oppose Answer to Q5 is about as bad as it gets. Definitely not the kind of attitude and motivations I'm looking for in an admin. (switched to strong oppose on that Martin Brodeur FAC bit) Pascal.Tesson 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
28. Oppose per answer to Q5. --Mus Musculus (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose. First off, as has been stated above several times, candidate's answer to Question 5 is disconcerting, and hints at wanting the admin position for the sake of having it. But more importantly (at least personally), the user indicates an unwillingness to follow standard Wiki procedure. See user's opposition to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Martin Brodeur, where he objects to the article because of a lack of box score citations for every game referenced in the article, and claims that he will object to any and all sports FAC that do not follow his view of references. I do not feel that this user exhibits the qualities necessary for adminship. Anthony Hit me up... 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

    The comments on that FAC are indeed worrisome. Tony refers to "my article" when discussing an article he helped bring to FA and does not show sound judgement by defending a citation criterion that's way beyond what is necessary and then refusing to listen to people pointing this out to him. Pascal.Tesson 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

    Comment In my defense, if you have ever spent over 500 edits on an article that you created and brought to FA, you might use the possessive my as well. I do not edit the article with any ownership however, which is what matters. You can ask any editor who has contributed to the article and I believe they would support this statement. Also, out of context, my Martin Brodeur objection sounds mean to a non-sports fan. You should also note that I actually found and added the first 4 citations that I was requesting as a show of good faith of my intentions. I would stand behind my discourse on this WP:FAC. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

30. Oppose per the answer to Question 5, per the slight ownership problems and per the issues with the user's AFD responses, as pointed out by Leebo. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose. Q5 shows poor instincts, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
32. Dppose, as per the answers to Q4 and Q5, both of which i find worrying in different ways. Q4 suggests a willingness to ignor established policy and process far to easily. Q5 seems to indicate a desire for adminship as a badge of recognition, although the desire to help others is laudable. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose as per Amarkov and Bobet. Answers to Question 4 and Question 5 concern me. While the user may have experience I think the user needs to have an understanding of the project.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
34. Oppose per answer to Q5 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
# I Oppose Neutral (I hate that guy so much!). El_C 20:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Way to represent the admins... Now get some sleep or something. --I already forgot 21:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Zapp Brannigan? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just find it interesting when the admins get giddy and witty over the name TonyTheTiger like we are in high school. I guess I'm getting old, never mind me, carry on. --I already forgot 22:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the reference. It's a reply to El C and this. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I figured it was a reply to El C but wasn’t sure if the Zapp B. comment was a pointed remark on me personally, inside joke, or a witty ref. It's difficult to figure out when you don’t personally know the individual making the comment. Getting somewhat back on topic for the RFA, I didn’t think El C meant any harm, just seemed like (s)he was a bit tired so I commented, however, it was brilliant on the part of El C as it possibly exposed the candidate’s weakness in judging vandalism and how to handle it. I think the El C ploy is definitely something to consider in future RFAs. --I already forgot 20:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral I've seen this user around Wikipedia, and I admire the work he has done as part of the Chicago Wikiproject. However, I've always had a feeling that Tony still needed to learn and gain experience in the dealings that would require administrative tools. Tony has stated he wanted to get active with the Main Page, but I have seen some of the requests he made at DYK (and one for ITN), and I get the impression that Tony is not too familiar with policy and such. The ITN item he requested was too US-centric (not really necessary too) and would have been shot down by almost any admin. As for DYK, diffs like this and this are a bit worrisome, since if one takes a look at the DYK rules, neither of the two articles would qualify. Also, in regards to this RfA, Tony went to WP:AN[10] and questioned El C's edits, thinking it was vandalism. A bit of research, and possibly questioning the user on his talk page could easily resolve the matter. I feel that these sort of little things give the impression of a lack of experience. Nishkid64 23:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

   Well I came to support, but frankly the response to El C's oppose, be it a joke or not, was not handled well at all. If a comment looks odd or suspicious, you can question it there and then, not take it elsewhere, certainly not an administrator's noticeboard citing it as "vandalism". However, it was probably just a mistake... I certainly can't oppose because as I say, I'd come to support, and your question answers are excellent and detailed. Good luck with it. Majorly (hot!) 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral per Majorly. I hate to just add a "me too" vote but it's the exact same story for me. There's no doubt in my mind that Tony is a good editor but this was not handled well, and quite frankly worries me a bit. Based on past experience, I'm going to chalk this one up to a misunderstanding though. We're all human (except, of course, for these guys ;). We all make mistakes. -- Seed 2.0 08:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral I saw that one of the things you did to prepare for your second RfA was take a more active role in deletion discussions, so I looked through your last 100 or so edits at AfD. These diffs are not representative of all your contributions there, but they are the kind of comments I dislike seeing at AfD, and several of them you repeated on multiple discussions.
   • Non-policy related keep
   • Per other comment
   • Delete per essay - event without citing the essay, "cruft" boils down to the equivalent of "I don't like it," I don't feel it's enough of a reason to delete on its own.
   • No policy discussed
   • Delete rather than research - you start by saying the school is probably notable, but then you don't make an effort to save the artcle. The best result at AfD is a better article, not a deleted article.
   • List policies rather than explain

   Now, yes, a lot of these things are acts committed by a large number of regular contributors to AfD, and observing them could lead one to believe that it's the way it should be. There are a lot of "per nom" and "WP:N" comments. But I think this shows the wrong mindset for an administrator — admins are expected to evaluate deletion discussions on the strength of the policy-related arguments. Your current participation does not give me the impression that you would evaluate comments appropriately. Other than that, I don't really see any major problems, and I'm going neutral because a lot of people participate at AfD that way. I also don't really see a problem with the "Oppose Neutral" incident above; I don't think El C's comment was appropriate. Leebo ^T/C 09:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   See above. Now that I realize I was the cause for the formatting error (thanks for bringing that to my attention), I entirely agree. El_C 12:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   Understandable. I'm sure it was not your intention. Leebo ^T/C 13:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Support. Shows proficiency in both sides of the Wikipedia world--the maintenance and the editing/writing spheres.--Xnuala (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral based on the El_C situation.--Xnuala (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   I don't get the point of the El_C joke, either. Anyhow, besides the understandably irritated reaction, everything else I see makes me not oppose. —AldeBaer 14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   Changed from support. I just realised he had immediately posted to AN/I over this, which is a deal breaker. —AldeBaer 14:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   TonyTheTiger pointed out he had not posted to WP:AN/I, but to WP:AN, and asked me to correct this. Hereby done. The difference does not, however, give me sufficient reason to change my vote. On the other hand, seeing how Tony didn't get the "joke" makes me question El_C's judgement in this case more and more. Maybe after a while as admin you tend to not take RfA as seriously, but for a current candidate it's a different story. —AldeBaer 19:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   That, itself, is a questionable statement: it's not that he didn't get the joke, it's that he didn't bother clicking on my logs. El_C 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   ?? I still don't get it... what's to see in your logs? —AldeBaer 11:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   Proof that I'm not a vandal (I really thought that was obvious). El_C 11:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   Obviously not, never misunderestimate the total lack of any sense of humour in other editors. Of course you're not a vandal, but I'm curious: Do the logs provide proof that your edits in question could not under any circumstances be construed as vandalism, in spite of the fact that you're not a vandal at all? —AldeBaer 11:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   I feel that this threaded exchange is becoming tendencious & unhelpful, so I am opting not to comment. El_C 12:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   So do I. How's that for a practical joke? —AldeBaer 12:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Usually, editors at the succesful RfA stage are a bit more aware of their surroundings, the reaction to the dumb El C joke reminds me of a four syllable admin I've had to clean up after whos "bull in a china shop" routine (though well intentioned) creates lots of work for others. Projecting this forward, I could see this candidate ending up in the same place. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral This incident makes me think that there should be a sense of humor requirement or related question in RfA. Maybe an example of a humorous exchange you've had or something, I don't know. While some might not have got the joke, it was clearly a joke. We give adminships to personalities not usernames (as far as I know). El hombre de haha 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   I like the idea. Sense of humour is a sign of maturity, even I can recognize that, in spite of my total lack of any humour. Just take a look at my bureaucracy-oriented userpage. —AldeBaer 12:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Neutral I don't think much of El C's silly joke and Tony's green response, but A5 bothers me and Leebo's AfD diffs don't inspire confidence.--Chaser - T 15:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral with moral support. I'm not particularly impressed with A1 or A4, but I am impressed with Tony's dedication to the project, I just question why he wants the tools. I hope he does get involved heavily with the featured article process, it's a valuable thing and helping out Raul is good, but adminship isn't required for it. Mangojuice^talk 16:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral leaning toward support. Excellent contributions to Wikipedia as a whole and his dedication to the WP:CHICOTW prove he is a dedicated editor, but some of his answers and userpage make him look too eager for admin status. Combined with some of the concerns expressed above keeps me from outright support however. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 20:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral dedicated editor but your actions raise too many concerns for me to support you.-- danntm ^T _C 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral dedicated; but the views of those opposing his adminship suggest that that is not enough... Chensiyuan 08:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Neutral - I hate to oppose anyone who is doing their best, but I still have a few concerns about this user. However, I'll keep an eye out for him in future and see if he's addressing the perceived problems raised by his opposers, so that I can consider support at a later date. Deb 11:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Neutral - Darn! I came here to support but some of the answers to the questions above disquieted me a little. Tony is an excellent and courteous editor but some of the answers bother me, esp. around adminship and its status in the community - Alison^☺ 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Neutral Seems to be a good/great editor with much knowledge and very capable. But he still needs to gather further experience and his answers were a bit disheartening. Jmlk17 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
14. I don't think you should have mentioned on your user page your RfA, and asking to vote on the page. It just doesn't seem like fair play on an RfA. Maybe that applys only to asking certain users, such as ones who are likely to support, is considered unfair, and probroly considered canvassing.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

    Canvassing is posting on other's talk pages, not your own. -- Jreferee 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

15. Sorry, I'm balanced for now. Think that Tony needs to understand about sysophood not being a trophy or a source of power.--Tdxiang (Talk) 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
16. neutral due mainly to Q5 response. I see growth arising from the various conflicts, but perhaps a little more time would help. Gimmetrow 20:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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.