Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger

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

[edit] TonyTheTiger

FINAL (4/15/9); Ended 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

CANDIDATE WITHDRAWS NOMINATION TonyTheTiger 01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) – TonyTheTiger is a calm and rational editor who started here 7 months ago. He has accumulated over 5500 edits and has numerous significant editorial and administrative accomplishments under his belt. He hopes the following convinces you to support his candidacy. TonyTheTiger 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As a self-nominee I respectfully submit and accept my own nomination. TonyTheTiger 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Optional Statement

My wikipedia role is depicted by my editing time allocation. In the top 15 mainspace time expenditures you will see 12 articles that I have created and 3 that I police for vandalism and contribute to as an editor (Donald Trump, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) and Taekwondo). They cover music/broadcasting, modern art, business biography, business history biography, sports biography, architecture, corporations, regional (Chicago) history, and urban planning. I have enjoyed contributing to the world’s resources when I stumble upon a topic that is not in this encyclopedia. However, I apologize because I edit at 1600x1200 resolution. I often include many images and this often causes malplaced text when viewed at low resolutions such as 800x600. 6 years ago nearly half of the viewers of my personal website had 800x600 resolution and about 5% do now. Therefore, I know that this problem is diminishing. However, if you prefer low resolution viewing, I apologize. I hope my contributions have been valuable nonetheless.

I am pro freedom of speech and expression. Unfortunately, the XfD process affects the hard work of contributors who post informative resources on controversial topics. Generally, people under report their own tax debts, marital infidelities, and masturbatory practices. People also underreport enjoyment/support for erotica resources like Playboy Online. As such I am of the unpopular opinion that Playboy Online has not been adequately represented on wikipedia. Playboy online generates $50 million annually on $8-20/month dues. Revenues are growing about 20-25%/year. It must be popular. However, Playboy Online supporters hesitate to speak up for fear of being viewed as socially depraved, immoral, amoral, and possibly heretical, if not downright looney. Thus, documented support is depressed. I have fought this moral oppression. My only content review involved the controversial Playboy Online and Playboy Cyber Club articles as well as numerous related articles and categories that had been successfully deleted numerous times. The successful article for undeletion resulted in successful conversion of a crufting black eye into a resource. I had Playboy Online, Playboy Cyber Club, Playboy Cyber Girl, and Cyber Girl of the Year restored. In the talk pages I have set a policy that will diminish future controversy. The seemingly unilateral talk pages incorporate previous AfD and undeletion considerations and thus are highly collaborative. I recognize that due to the controversial nature of these pages despite my efforts they could come under attack at any time and that if they do they are vulnerable due to human nature in which people underrepresent support of controversial sociopolitical topics, especially those with morality implications.

I believe my diversity of wikipedia experience and sensitivity to unusual circumstances outline in the paragraphs above document reasons why I would be a good administrator.

As an aside, I have been told that statistics are not available on prior English language wikipedia admin applicant demographics. There have been about 1000 wikipedian administrators from the information I have perused. Does anyone know any of color? If anyone has information on the previous English language wikipedia admin applicants that have been Black, of Afro-American heritage or of Latin-American descent, I’d be interested in learning about them.

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: I have been involved in CfD (mostly CfR), CFDS, AfD, and RM. I attempt to assist in fighting vandalism on a my watchlist. As wikipedia continues its rapid growth in pages and demand for administrative resources, I can contribute as a sysop in several ways. Furthermore, it is logical for me to pursue adminship to increase the efficiency with which I can assist. I anticipate providing greater assistance in XfD, PROD, AIV & CSD backlogs because these are closely related to my experience. 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.

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

A: Currently, I am proudest of my recent overhaul of Category:Families, which you can see most easily on the right side of User:TonyTheTiger#Categories Created. I hope my contribution of Families by religion, ancestry & profession become as useful as Families by nationality has been. However, the beauty of wikipedia is that one can continually take pride in new contributions. At first, I was proud to learn wikipedia sufficiently well to create my first page (List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry) a task that took two weeks and 95 edits (and lots of followup by more knowledgeable editors). I continue to be pleased to use my expertise in financial economics to contribute to wikipedia's business and business history articles and templates. Although wikipedia is quite strong in biographical articles of currently newsworthy individuals, their ancestors who put them in the position to be newsworthy have been underrepresented. I have contributed research on several important families as a result. Many of these families are located in the Categories American families and Business dynasties or subcategories thereof. I am also pleased to have been able to use my athletic avocations to contribute numerous sports articles and templates. I have also been able to contribute several valuable illustrative photographs using my digital camera. For example, as of today, all the photos in the Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) article and half the pictures in the gallery are mine. Also, Blackstone Library and Marquette Building (Chicago) both include only my photos. As one who fails to polish most of my work, even my most interesting articles such as the 2 aforementioned ones remain rough. However, my proudest mainspace contributions are my collaborative efforts that enabled me to couple my research skills with my interpersonal skills to set article specific policy. Five-tool player and Okinawan kobudo are articles where my talk page history footprint demonstrate that my thought process is a constructive asset to wikipedia.

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 minor controversies related to my inexperience with wikipedia in my first 2000-3000 edits. An example is the back and forth refinement of the Breaking page with JHunterJ. He got me straightened out eventually. My own bio (which I am not suppose to link to any mainspace articles, but that can be accessed in my userspace) served as an early lesson on notability and AfD. I also have gone through a routine AfD of Argo Tea which can be seen here. Aside from these early experiences and the Playboy debate, my most stressful situation started with this edit which lead to a very lengthy series of exchanges debating the notability of works of art in general and Portrait of Seymour H. Knox specifically. The full debate, which is almost summarized in this diff fell outside the parameters of structured administrative processes such as CfD or AfD. As an untrained art student, I was not sure what constituted a significant contribution for paintings. Basically, in order to prove to myself and Jerzy that artwork could be successfully incorporated I created Campbell's Soup Cans and Haystacks (Monet). Having done so I felt confident enough to add the less notable Warhol artwork article, which had been the original subject of artwork notability. The Haystacks article remains horribly incomplete, but a pleasing contribution nonetheless.

Another controversy was my effort to contribute to the encyclopedia of knowledge surrounding what we American sports fans call the four major sports. In the end, I created useful templates for Football, Basketball, Baseball, & Hockey. However, first my efforts to find a way to contribute caused much consternation to a few other hard working editors. Basically, I tried to add to an already existent Basketball template to make it more general [1]. Then, I added it to numerous pages. It was determined not to be useful for these pages. SportsMasterESPN had to revert all my edits to the template and then Mike Selinker had to remove the transclusion commands from the numerous pages I had added them to. I imagine they were both pretty annoyed with me. Since I really wanted to make a contribution to each of the four major sports, I asked the editors whose pages I had disturbed for feedback that helped me to make a template that became a meaningful contribution for basketball that has been transcluded extensively in many pages.

Optional question from Doug Bell (talk • contribs)

4. At the end of your statement above you ask:

There have been about 1000 wikipedian administrators from the information I have perused. Does anyone know any of color? If anyone has information on the previous English language wikipedia admin applicants that have been Black, of Afro-American heritage or of Latin-American descent, I’d be interested in learning about them.

What relevance do you think the answer to this question has to being an administrator?

A: You will note the words "As an aside," before the statement. I have an audience who is here to query me. I will query them while they are here. Wikipedia is a success because of two way discourse. The forum here provides you with information about me. During my 7 days, I will get a chance to get information from you as well such as feedback on how to be a better wikipedian. I was attempting to get some more information while the audience was there. TonyTheTiger 06:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from Swatjester (talk • contribs)

These questions are only for my benefit as I'm currently neutral, but would like to vote one way or another by the end of this RFA period.

5. What do you feel the single most critical task for an administrator is that requires the use of the administrative tools? Some possible answers could be CSD, closing AFDs, response to AN/I and AIV etc. etc.

A Just as on a hockey team, baseball team, basketball team or any other team no one position is most important, the most important position is that of the effective leader who helps the team succeed. Wikipedia succeeds because it is a collaborative effort of numerous dedicated, talented individuals with different skills, experiences, interests and knowledge. It has a strong decentralized power structure that keeps anyone from taking over control. No member is irreplaceable. All individual roles are important and the most important are those who get things done effectively by leaving those with whom they interact with the feeling that the they have done the best they can to take the encyclopedia forward. I personally consider all backlogs annoying. I am no less annoyed by a backlog at the help desk than one at AN, AFD, CFDS or anywhere else. Any role where someone processes backlog is an important one because it helps all collaborators get their collaborative efforts processed. Therefore, each task that requires administrative tools are important and the most important to an individual admin is the task that he performs effectively. I would likely begin with XfD. Thus, these tasks are most important. The single most important would be the one that I am performing most effectively. Based on my experience, I suspect that would be CSD or AFD would be most important for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

6. What project space pages and/or noticeboards do you check on a daily basis? (Note the emphasis)

A I have been here 7 months. Honestly, my first 6 months I just editted articles and monitored the articles I created and a few dozen others for vandalism daily. I think I have made some strong editorial contributions, but have not polished any articles for FA status. I have lately begun getting active in Template and Category spaces. Now, I have been involved in CFD, CFR, CFDS while overhauling Category:Family so I have been monitoring those pages. Since as you can see from my user page I have had articles in these various processes I have been checking these boards daily. I have been checking RFA lately. Because I am taking an active role in WP Chicago, I am checking that one daily, but only recently. TonyTheTiger 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Same question as above, but on at least a weekly basis (at least one browsing per week)?

A As above my administrative experiences are best summarized at User:TonyTheTiger#User_Info. They reflect recent increases in participation in these types of roles. Going forward, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago is something I would like to take an active role in. The question is only whether there is sufficient traffic and activity at this nexus. Whether elected or not, the next few months will likely see me explore new roles such as NPP, and BACK. I will certainly continue taking on more non-editorial responsibilities on a daily and weekly basis. TonyTheTiger 15:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

8. What do you feel are some major on-wiki policy issues facing Wikipedia? (I'm not interested in off-wiki issues)

A I do not know the term "on/off-wiki". Please clarify. Are you requesting a statement other than that I am pro freedom of speach as it relates to my essays TonyTheTiger 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By on wiki, I mean relating solely to this project, on this project. This would exclude external policy issues, like Foundation stuff, or legal things arising from outside En Wikipedia, or other critical sites, organized outside wikipedia vandalism and the like. By on-wiki, I'm referring to things like the current policies that are being debated, prospective policies that are proposed to be implemented, wikipedia policy mechanisms like arbcom and such, how RFAs are conducted, etc. I don't want to go into too much detail because I'd like to see what you think are the most critical policy issues facing wikipedia, without suggesting them to you. If anyone can state this better than my malformed attempt, please feel free to clarify my words a little better. (edit- I see a potential area of confusion here: When I say policy, I mean wikipedia's policies, not your personal policies).⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally have raised an issue on WP:MOSDAB about how to handle the see also section for human name disambiguation. Basically, I think that MOSDAB should make clear stylistic preferences as it pertains to inclusion of Surname and List of People by Name links. I prefer that these both be included. In this linked section I point to some dabs that I have produced. The shorter ones have lead to controversy do to lack of clearly stated policy on this matter.

As I have stated, there needs to be a minor adjustment in consideration of controversial topics in my opinion.

I am pro minimum edit count rules for RfA with the exception of affiliated members of wiktionary, wikinews or the like. I think less than 2500 or 3000 edit candidates should be required to wait unless they have relevant wiki experience elsewhere. I think the benefit of reducing the resources expended evaluating unlikely candidates is worth the risk of delayed invaluable service. Those 3 are all I can think of off the top of my head. TonyTheTiger 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See TonyTheTiger's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• "If anyone has information on the previous English language wikipedia admin applicants that have been Black, of Afro-American heritage or of Latin-American descent, I’d be interested in learning about them." You might want to ask Tariqabjotu about any questions you have, then? That's a very interesting and long nomination which I haven't had timt to read. I'll make a decision later, this is just to answer your question (although there may well be other minority American admins). – Chacor 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

I do not see why not, shall make a fine admin. — Seadog 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Changed to Neutral

Support Seems like a good candidate who will use the tools well. Cbrown1023 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Support passes my criteria and to TBC, why is vandal fighting so important to some people, we already have hundreds of people who do nothing but vandal fight, why is reverting naughty words and removing pictures of vaginas more important than doing constructive edits, creating articles or helping out other people †he Bread 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   I think it's relevant when the candidate says he'll use the tools to vandal-fight in Q1. – Chacor 02:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Support, very good editor who knows what he's doing. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, excellent editor with notable contributions to pages listed on his user page. It appears that he will use the tools well, especially for stopping vandals. Concerning his edit count by people opposing below, I would argue he knows his way around the projects and Wikipedia in general and these numbers should increase significantly by this user. --Nehrams2020 03:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, excellent contributions to Wikiprojects, a heap of edits (even excluding user edits) and nice reverting work. Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 05:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. I'd like to see more edits in the project namespace (over 300) as well as some more vandal fighting.--TBCΦtalk? 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   I assume you are talking about WikiProject work. I would counter that my creative contributions to wikipedia have benefitted numerous projects. I feel the leaders of any of the wikiprojects that I claim affiliation to on my user page would express respect for my contributions after making them familiar with my contributions. I have already volunteered for a more prominent role in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago and earlier today changed their collaberation of the week. WRT vandalism, I have done numerous reversions. The Donald Trump page that you see high on my edit list suffers from vandalism. About 3/4 of my edits on this page are vandalism reversions. On my userpage you can see my hidden watchlist. I monitor all pages not protected by almost daily.TonyTheTiger 02:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   He's not just referring to WikiProjects. When people use project-namespace, they're referring to your Wikipedia namespace edits. At the moment, you only have ~230, and TBC is saying he would like to see more participation in WikiProjects, RfA's, XfD's, AIV, etc. Nishkid64 02:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   Nishkid64 is correct; I'm referring to Wikipedia namespace edits and not WikiProject edits.--TBCΦtalk? 16:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Based on my dealings with him at Promontory Point (Chicago), I would say he has problems with NPOV and maybe somewhat OWN. This was the way the article, largely his work, looked before I tried to clean it up; he left this unsigned comment on my talk page suggesting I was an outsider and didn't know what I was talking about. (See also the talk page.) After my edits he still insisted on re-adding "spectacular view" to the article. I don't mean to suggest he wasn't courteous about the whole thing, but he just isn't acting like he's been around long enough to be an admin. He also seems like he has an axe to grind about the Playboy stuff, and I'm a bit dubious of his "aside". Why is he bringing that up here? —Chowbok ☠ 03:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   Rebut I have been inviting you to discuss the direction of the page and you have not responded. See for example my invitation (which seems to have a typo on my 9/1/00 arrival). I was not sure if you had had the same experiences with the point as me because you did not think the same things were important that I did about the point. That is why I questioned whether you were from the neighborhood. If you read the talk page on that I pointed to on Playboy you should understand I am trying to intercede between the moral majority that wants to dump the pages and the silent supporters who won't speak up. I have no ax to grind. See recent discussion on similar topic that I was able to at least hold to no resolution/consensus with fairly neutral opinion and commentary CGOM and CGOY. I hope you will look at how small a part of my editorial experience Playboy has been. Mainspace, Templatespace and Categoryspace edit counts show this to be a minor component, which is getting disproportionate attention in your consideration. TonyTheTiger 04:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   I didn't revisit the Promontory Point stuff because I have enough battles going on right now; I don't really see how my actions are relevant anyway. I didn't mean to suggest you were unwilling to discuss the matter or that you were rude in any way; it's just that the entire exchange left me with the impression of a well-intentioned but not-yet-acclimated newbie. I was very surprised to see your candidacy here. As for the Playboy stuff... well, you brought it up. We all have edit disagreements we lost on, or articles we felt should be kept deleted (or vice versa), but the fact that you went out of your way to mention it here (and that you expound on it further in your reply to me) suggests to me you're still kinda smarting about the whole thing. Overall, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and you seem like a nice enough fellow, but I don't think you're ready for adminship. —Chowbok ☠ 04:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   The point is that a successful undeletion regardless of the controversy is a statement about experience with process. I was pointing out my experience with process in that paragraph as much as I was raising an issue. My problem with our interaction is now I have a cloud over my candidacy because you did not return to debate. I have a good track record of keeping two way communication open on all issues until agreement is reached. To the best of my recollection your situation is the only one where I did not reach agreement and that is because you did not return to debate after I both posted on the article talk page and your user talk page. I want to get this article up to a higher level and you have opinions and perspective that are valuable. You can see your image is a valuable addition and much of your verbiage remains. I hope this week we can discuss any further problems you have with the direction of the page. TonyTheTiger 06:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Opppose seems like a good editor, but not ready for adminship; lots of small things that indicate relative lack of familiarity with Wikipedia culture and procedure. Seems to believe that the personal characteristics of contributors is important and/or that the admin ranks should be demographically representative in some way, and gives away his axe to grind on the Playboy issue while denying said axe above. Based on his statement and relative lack of XfD participation, I do not have confidence that he would deal with deletion debates in an unbiased way, without assuming the existence of invisible and inaudible 'morally oppressed' supporters of his personal position. Frankly, the whole statement sounds like 'I have an axe to grind'. Please spend more time participating in article-building and especially in deletion discussions in a neutral way. Opabinia regalis 04:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   I never implied any belief of personal characteristics or demographic optimality. I suppose you have looked at the XfD section on my user page which details my experience for this audience. My experience is what it is. I have not had that many controversies to resolve, but tend to err on the side asking for too much feedback when a controversy remains. WRT article-building, again, all I can do is point to my user page and say, I have built dozens of articles on a vast array of topics. I hope that the general population enjoys them and finds that they are good resources. I hope that wikipedians will find them worthy of their continued efforts at refinement.

   You seem to be a good editor. But see Chowbok and CrazyRussian's examples for what I mean by the qualifier "in a neutral way". Opabinia regalis 06:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Cannot support someone who appears to be taking the confrontational approach by responding to every single negative point made about them. – Chacor 06:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   I thought I was suppose to or at least it was allowed. As I state, my style is to manage through open two-way communication until the problem is resolved. See the examples in A3. TonyTheTiger 13:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose - RfA advertising [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (considering your question about it on the talk page, it seems you wanted to know the "line" for advertising. I think it should be zero.), and low Wikipedia-space edit percentage (mainly due to answer to User:TBC above). Your nomination statement was a little strange as well; it seemed to deal more with Playboy than with administrative qualifications. I commend you on your contributions, however; it looks like you've been working hard. -- Renesis (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Switch from neutral to oppose - crz crztalk 14:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   Uncomfortable with user over Argo Tea and its AfD, which resulted in no consensus solely because of the TL;DR factor. He very much OWNs the article, which should really be deleted as unverifiable and NN. (Also uncomfortable with the race question - what's the point?) - crz crztalk 05:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   You continue to be against Argo Tea as you were during the AfD. We sort of came to the agreement that if they continued to open new stores on pace with my sources we would keep the article. You may have dissented individually, but that was the consensus. They did open 2 additional stores after debate closed. I concede that with my current experience I would probably not initiate such an article, but geven it is out there I will defend its existence. TonyTheTiger 06:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   It actually closed "no consensus".--Kchase T 08:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   And that was generous. Behold Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argo Tea (2 nomination) - crz crztalk 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose Lack of wiki-space experience suggests an unfamiliarity with process. I'm a person of color and an admin, for whatever that is worth. Xoloz 16:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   I am a person of pallor. - crz crztalk 17:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose Tony seems to have no understanding of a vast area of Wikipedia policy concerning WP:CORP and beyond. This comment really worries me I concede that with my current experience I would probably not initiate such an article, but geven it is out there I will defend its existence.. To me, this is saying "Yes, I know the article shouldn't be on Wikipedia but because I wrote it, it should stay". This approach is too inconsistent for my liking, especially in an admin who can undelete work. The blurb about ethnic origin and such leaves me feeling uneasy too and just reinforces my opinion that this candidate isn't admin material at this time. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   The proper translation would be that "I would not expend resources creating it now" not "It shouldn't be in wikipedia.". TonyTheTiger 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   We're here to build an encyclopedia, if Argo Tea is indeed notable as you suggest, why wouldn't you create the article ? Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   I view them as the next Intelligentsia Coffee & Tea. It took Intelligentsia 5 years to start to gain notoriety. As an example, I was considering creating an article for Pockets at one time. I think that the threshold for creating an article should be higher than the threshold for deleting one. Argo is probably slightly below my threshold for creating at this time, but not for keeping. TonyTheTiger 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose - largely per the candidate's own optional statement. Quite a lot of stuff in this RFA that makes me feel uneasy. Moreschi 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose The nominee's comments and actions do not instill the confidence or trust that is requisite in being handed the tools. Agent 86 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose. You shouldn't feel inclined to respond to every person's non-support vote. I also see some testiness in your tone, and I frankly think you don't know how to handle yourself in such situations. An admin should be able to take criticism and handle it in an appropriate manner. Also, there will be times when people will say stuff you may not disagree with, and judging from your reactions to some people's comments on your RfA, I have gotten the impression that you will not handle yourself properly. Nishkid64 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose I will not support anyone who thinks they must respond to the majority of people voting against them. Scobell302 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per lack of essential knowledge of policy. Michael 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose As stated above, it is completely unnecessary to respond to every single oppose vote and draw it out into a long debate. Therefore I am voting oppose based on that and the candidates optional statement (particularly views regarding the deletion process).--Jersey Devil 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose. There is something to be said for walking the line between dismissing all oppose votes as irrelevant and asking how you can improve. Please think about this. --Deskana talk 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning support. I don't think he'd misuse the tools, and I believe he'd be a good editor. I've had good experiences with him so far. Project space edits are a little low, but not too low to oppose. I would like to see some sort of statement of intent to use AIV more often and become more active at XfDs as well as RFA. A wikiproject would be nice as well...perhaps WP:CLIMBING (wink) ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Update: After reviewing the candidates answers to my optional questions.....well I really want to support but I just don't think the candidate has a firm grasp of what I consider the major policy issues facing wikipedia: removing warnings, definition of vandalism, etc. Further, I'd like to see more interaction on AN/I . I do like the statement to use AIV more, and I understand why he hasn't used it much, due to not heavy levels of vandalism. I'm ok with that. I do not feel like I should oppose, however I don't feel that I can support at this time. If he applies again in say 3 months with broader experience across wikipedia, with more focus on project space, specifically administrator noticeboard and the sub pages, and does a little bit more vandal reverting, I'd vote support. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   I would certainly use AIV more often. In my experience, the only common vandalism targets among pages I watch are Donald Trump and Pop art (Taekwondo and Martial arts have low level vandalism). Thus, I have not had confrontational situations where AIV is appropriate. If you look at my user page you can see that of late I have become active in XFD. I have begun RFA voting. Also, as stated above I have volunteered for WikiProject Chicago. I am considering roles in WP Dab and WP Business and Econ. TonyTheTiger 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2. One of the things Tony wants to do is handle CAT:CSD. Tony mentions at the start of A1 that he has been involved in AFDs. Besides the two he mentions in A3, the only one I can find is his reasonable nomination of a vandal's parody. (Maybe my definition of "involved in" is just skewed by my own experience.) That said, this massive DRV submission is clearly a big drop in the bucket towards what I like to see involving XfD discussion. In any case, I think candidates ought to have more experience either discussing at AfD or new page patrolling (which isn't listed amongst his many contributions on his userpage), before they handle CSD. While I fear his inexperience might lead to mistakes in handling CAT:CSD, I don't have any worries that he'd abuse the bit. I also feel similarly to Swatjester above about some use of AIV before blocking. Neutral.--Kchase T 03:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   I had forgotten about Eric Trump. Most of my admin experiences are included on my user page. As you point out, human recollection is imperfect. The pages I generally watch for vandalism are at User:TonyTheTiger/Watch_related. I will have to refine my daily activities to get more involved in CSD and AIV. TonyTheTiger 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Chowbok raised enough questions/diffs to change my mind. Sorry.— Seadog 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak Neutral. bibliomaniac15 05:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   What's "weak neutral" mean?--Kchase T 08:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   On the brink of voting support. bibliomaniac15 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Neutral for now. This is an interesting candidate—not just another groomed edit-count, vandal-fighting candidate. This is a good thing, but some of the statements and responses, along with some of the concerns raised by the oppose votes have me concerned that there may be too much agenda in play here. The answer to my question was pretty much a non-answer—I don't necessarily have a problem with a non-answer, but for now I'm going to watch to see how this develops. I will most likely decide to support or oppose before this closes. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   It seems to be a non-answer your question was as relevant as my statement is to the consideration of my candidacy in my opinion. An aside should not lead to on point discussion or else it should not be classified as an aside. My problem with contestation based on agenda fear is that the aggregate of my work does not point to an agenda. I have produced no mainspace articles on Constitutional (freedoms) issues or on racial issues and off the top of my head have not contributed to any. Keep in mind that I thought it would be important to point to process knowledge by making a statement about a AfU, which is a rarity for admin applicants as far as I know. Before considering agenda arguments read the talk page on the Playboy articles that I pointed out in the answers above. They should make it clear that this is not an agenda. I believe I am keeping a resource out there that is under fire with little support. That is all. It is an incredibly tough stand that has put my candidacy in jeapardy. Maybe I should have let all the info waste away. TonyTheTiger 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Neutral because of the oppose issues brought up, also replying to every opposition is not what I look for. Of course it is allowed and you have remained civil which is good. It is indeed an interesting RfA. I may change my !vote depending on other issues brought up by other voters (or I may not) however for now neutral. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   No offense, but what's wrong with replying to oppositions if he feels he has a valid comment? None of his comments seem to be too reactionary. He's adequately answered questions brought up in the neutral and oppose votes. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Neutral. While I think this is a (bad pun alert) Grrrrreat editor, just not quite ready. After some more experience in the areas mentioned in other users' comments, I would give my unconditional support to RfA #2. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral I think you have a lot of potential, but you could probably use more experience. Best of luck.-- danntm ^T _C 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral Definately have some good admin-like qualities, but based upon all the above, I change my vote to neutral. Cbrown1023 00:02, 13 December 2006 (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.