Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tone

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Tone[edit]

Final (46/2/3) ended 21:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tone (talk · contribs) – I first came around Wikipedia at the beginning of 2005, when I discovered Slovenian version. I liked the idea from the beginning. I later got promoted to admin there. Once in December, I decided to put a part of my time in the English version as well. At the beginning, I was checking articles about my country, updating, adding and correcting things, I also started the Portal:Slovenia. Later, my area of interests became wider so I started participating in XfD discussions, stub-sorting and image tagging. And so I came to a point where I realized that I could help the community more if I were equipped with some extra tools. For those who are interested in my editcount, it must be somewhere around 3000 now, not sure whether I should add deleted edits or not. If I get promoted, my admin actions would focus on monitoring the new pages and XfD discussions. Tone 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: This is a self-nom, I accept. --Tone 21:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Although it seems like many of your edits aren't really major, your history seems to indicate that you're trustworthy and you appear to have a reason to become an admin. joturner 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I have bumped into this user in several contexts and have always been impressed with his/her seriousness and balance. I assume this bodes well for a conscientious adminship. Bucketsofg✐ 21:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Taking a quick look through your edits, it seems like you are doing a good job. I wouldn't mind you being a wiki-en admin. --Alphachimp talk 21:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Ideally woudl have a few more significant article edits on en. but a user with a willingness to do lots of janitorial work and a level head will make a good admin. The Land 21:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support ForestH2
  6. Support - even if there are no Portal Talk edits... okay, no really. This user drops mostly into the same tracks as User:Dewet - experience on the si server helps much; but it's a different animal. Keep a level head (I think said level head has been kept so far) and you'll be fine. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 22:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Edit count does not reflect work on Slovenia Wikipedia. More than ample time on project. Would have preferred more experience in area for which he said he needs admin powers, but judgment seems sound. Affable, receptive to constructive criticism. :) Dlohcierekim 22:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Experienced. RadioKirk talk to me 22:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. agreeing with all above comments. Kukini 23:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support If (RiskOfAbuse=LOW && AdvantageToWikipedia=HIGH) {Tawker.Support = True;} -- Tawker 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Great user. Very experienced and will make a good admin. DarthVader 23:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per above. Great user and will make great admin.—G.He 23:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per Tawker. Kusma (討論) 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, definitely. --Terence Ong 04:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support editcountitis aside, contribs look good. Our CSD removal squad needs more people. Kimchi.sg 04:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I know the user from :sl and no problems there. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 05:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I also know the user from :sl and I like his work. --IgorTrieste 08:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - edit count below my usual reuirements, but taken into account his work on Slovenian wikipedia it is acceptable. It is almost a dream to have somebody familiar with x-Yugoslavia but neutral enough to be acceptable by everybody abakharev 09:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Unlike my "imaginary", as my mom calls it, walrus, this is a nice user to users he hasn't even met.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --84.52.191.19 14:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anons are not allowed to vote in RfAs, striking out vote. Kimchi.sg 14:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day_Crusher of Hopes and Dreams 14:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support A wise person. Rama's Arrow 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support.Bharatveer 04:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. [Insert random RfA cliche] Has hung around too long not to be an admin. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Good contributor. Afonso Silva 17:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Sarge Baldy 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Jaranda wat's sup 20:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, experienced and trustworthy. No reasons to deny him the mop. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support--Jusjih 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Suppprt --Jay(Reply) 19:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per Buchanan-Hermit. Royboycrashfan 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support DGX 00:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, and good luck. haz (user talk) 08:03, 23 May 2006
  36. Support, based on the experience with Tone@slwiki, he'll make a good admin. Non-problematic for all, IMHO. --romanm (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. SupportJoshuaZ 02:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Merovingian {T C @} 00:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support polite, friendly, and also does physics! Regarding Tone apparently only having 21 notable edits, please see his userpage. Also, he has written a long physics article, and although he only got five edits for it, I can tell you from personal experience that I would weight these a lot more because you have to be dead precise with every word that you use for its technical meaning otherwise the article will not make sense. As a personal example, the physics article on Statistical mechanics called Vertex model which I created got me two edits, but it would have taken some 8 hours for technical correctness on a text editor, typesetting equations, also the pictures and captions. In that time, I could have done 500 small edits, as I have done at other periods in my presence here on wikipedia.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Watch your tone! :p Lets hope it's a good one. ;) --Shultz IV 07:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe, it's ok. --Tone 12:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. support Not every admin must be a vandal fighter. Some can be AFD closers (which is also a needed function). --Bachrach44 12:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: I know Tone from the WP:WPSG, and he's a prime candidate for adminship==>better wikipedia. support all the way. good stuff Tone. -- Alfakim --  talk  17:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Loads of new articles, lots of languages, lots of all round involvement, and 2750 is more than enough edits. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support for the same reasons as above. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Weekl Support seems like a good user, but sort'a low on experiance. Since theres no solid reason to Oppose, my default is support in this case. ---J.S (t|c) 17:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, shotgun approach to looking at articles. For example, consider [1]. Stated too many entries in bibliography (actually the second mention). Had a couple of responses, but didn't follow up. From a quick look at his namespace edits, they are mostly adding stub or cat or things of that type. I see a lot of User:Talk as welcomes. These are all great things to do, but just why does he need the admin tools? Ted 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'd like a bit more than: 'Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 17.73%' and 'Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 0.78% (21)' --Doc ask? 12:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mention, according to my log, I created around 150 new articles, I just didn't mark them as new so that would be the reason the tool does not recognize them as such. I agree that I did more janitorial work than adding new articles, though. --Tone 19:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral, seems like a good guy but the history of primarily minor edits doesn't represent great experience. --Nick Boalch\talk 23:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, not much to indicate familiarity with administrator activities. And, whilst I don't have anything against the pastime of stub-sorting (even though it's a task best suited to a mildly sapient bot), I would apply a higher edit count threshhold for an aspiring administrator with significant contributions to that area. A couple more months might be good. — May. 24, '06 [10:29] <freak|talk>
  3. Neutral, a little short of experience, particularly at AFD. I tend to have higher standards for self-noms as well. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username Tone
Total edits 2750
Distinct pages edited 2046
Average edits/page 1.344
First edit 05:46, May 13, 2005
 
(main) 1501
Talk 107
User 81
User talk 438
Image 38
Template 28
Template talk 9
Category 40
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 409
Wikipedia talk 54
Portal 44
 G.He 23:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All user's edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Tone (over the 2708 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 341 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 19, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 13, May, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 62.48% Minor edits: 83.29%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 29.55% Minor article edits: 80.84%
Average edits per day (current): 7.94
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 0.78% (21)
Unique pages edited: 1918 | Average edits per page: 1.41 | Edits on top: 25.7%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 17.73%
Minor edits (non-reverts): 68.54%
Marked reverts: 2.25%
Unmarked edits: 11.48%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 55.47% (1502) | Article talk: 3.88% (105)
User: 2.77% (75) | User talk: 15.99% (433)
Wikipedia: 14.07% (381) | Wikipedia talk: 1.88% (51)
Image: 1.44% (39)
Template: 1.03% (28)
Category: 1.48% (40)
Portal: 1.62% (44)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.37% (10)

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As stated above, I would mostly be active on XfD and deleting newly created nonsences, if they qualify for a speedy deletion. I have many experiences with vandal fighting but from Slovenian WP, where it is easier to monitor new changes. Nevertheless, I revert changes when I spot a vandal and the rollback button would be useful. Since I sometimes tag unsourced images, I could delete them after a week's time if no info is added. I have experiences with protecting pages and blocking users but this is again on Slovenian WP. To summarize, it would be XfD mostly.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have been involved in different janitorial actions and I think it this kind of work is important in order to keep Wikipedia readable and easy to navigate. I started Slovenia Portal but it doesn't seem to attract many audience. Might be improved. As a hobby, I am active at the Stargate project where I try to bring one of articles to the FA status. Dealing with fiction, my aim is not to have too many articles on not-so-important fictious things so I consider myself a mergist and so far my actions have been successful. Considering articles that I have written, some are still in a stubby shape but the others have developed really nicely with some team effort. I think the longest article I started is Russia at the 2006 Winter Olympics but it was Sue Anne who did the major part. By the way, I am really pleased she got promoted to an admin after my nomination.
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 got blocked by a bot last week while renaming TV episode articles to a same format. Although I got unblocked immediately afterwards, I will now always think twice before implementing Be bold principle. The proposal for renaming is still opened at the TV project. I don't think I have been involved in any other serious conflicts, I have been warned sometimes for making mistakes but this really is all. I guess I don't edit controversial articles too often.
The above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tone&oldid=1147963317"