Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tony1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Tony1

Final (39/25/7) ending 23:16 October 31, 2005 (UTC)

Tony1 (talk • contribs • count) – Tony1 has been here since July 14, 2005. Three month threshold? Check. He has 2100 edits, so you editcountitus sufferers should be happy. He has 842 article edits, making him an asset to the wiki. He has 433 Talk: and 230 User talk: edits, so we know he interacts a lot, and he has 430 Wikipedia edits, so he's on the admin side of things too. He's always friendly and asks for help when he needs it, and will be bold when he knows what he's doing. I'll bet my reputation he'll make a great admin :) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I accept. Tony 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Extreme How-Dare-You vote before the nominator support. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Super strong omgwtfbbq lollergazm support. Absolutely. Linuxbeak | Talk 02:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support: Genuinely attempts to improve WP articles, and I like his attitude of attaining "featured article" status as his goal. Ramallite (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support! Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support -- Essjay · Talk 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, Christopher Parham (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    Support, he is a professional editor, and his contributions on FAC are indispensable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support --Kefalonia 08:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Though it seems a bit more edit summaries would be nice. The Minister of War 10:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Not fair! Not fair! Redwolf... arrrgh!!! I wanted to nominate Tony myself. User:Nichalp/sg 10:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, I welcomed him, and I knew I was gonna nominate him around the time he got his 1000th edit :P So I saw him first =P Redwolf24 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 11:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. I have been impressed by Tony's handling of a dispute at United States. I think he would make a fine admin. android79 12:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support A good lad, he'll go far--Xiphon 16:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    Support. Impressive contributions, and one of the most capable copyeditors on the site. He's likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC) No longer support. Oh well, I was wrong. 23:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 17:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. FAC work indicates a commitment to the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole. Chick Bowen 18:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    Support. Impressed with work at WP:FAC. Jkelly 19:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support, I have no reservations. Titoxd(?!?) 21:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 02:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Support, without a doubt. Tony´s a hard working and talented user, well rounded and serious. I'm positive we will all benefit by handing him the mop. Shauri smile! 09:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC) I'm truly sorry, but I must change my vote in the light of the latest events (see below)
  17. Support Wiki needs more comma's. Dlyons493 Talk 10:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Support Although I wouldn't usually support a candidate with less than 6 months on the Wiki, I know Tony to be a trustworthy contributor. And I must say, I am very impressed with his efforts to improve article quality, and, in particular, his work at FAC. I had been intending to commend him privately, but I'll take the opportunity to do so now. So, good work! --Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Now neutral.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Most certainly yes. Tony1 truly deserves being called an 'editor'; I've been impressed ever since he helped the wikidocs get Asthma featured. Does fabulous work—this guy is one of Wp's best copyeditors, and I think he saves a lot of our work from being painful embarrassments. Very good manner, good dispute resolution skills; X factor. Furthermore, in David Gerard's immortal words, "is not stupid or insane"; I'm sure that he'll take the trouble to learn up on those areas he's not currently familiar with before using any special buttons. Gets my strong support. encephalon 14:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support Johann Wolfgang 15:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support Molotov (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. FireFox 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support Sounds like a guy who does fabulous work :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Strong support for the Featured Guy! -- Svest 20:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
    Support, always seems very helpful about the place. I would like to know: when you replied to jossi below, you were smiling, right? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 22:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC) (Changed to neutral --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC))
    Strong Support. Tony's absolutely invaluable at FAC, and therefore (in my opinion at least) to Wikipedia as a whole. He has also shown real calm-headedness in the face of some ugly disagreements. Updated 03:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC): Still support, but Tony's difficult-to-understand response to Bishonen's questions in the comments section has given me some pause. I was a participant in the Sicilian Baroque FAC debate, and agreed 100% with Tony regarding what he said there, so that didn't worry me, but I expected a clearer response in the face of the question. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)I have to oppose now. I wish I didn't. See Comments in oppose section. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Support. El_C 03:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC) — Withdrawn until I can review a response to the concerns voiced by the opposition El_C 05:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Just Came Back from Hurricane Wilma Support Sure --JAranda | watz sup 06:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support of course. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support Good contrib's across namespaces, as nominator notes. No problems with this user. Marskell 14:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support--nixie 23:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support --Allen3 talk 23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Musician?? Well, support of course! :) Really, everything looks good for this editor. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC) No vote. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 15:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. The more prose-watchers we have on pedestals, the better WP becomes. PacknCanes | say something! 04:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support — Wackymacs 07:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support -- Tony has been helpful and courteous, and has a valuable contribution to make --dave souza 13:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. On articles I've worked at the same time as Tony, he has always explained his changes in edit comments and consulted on talk pages before making significant changes. Both important aspects many editors seem to ignore. (voting late to redress an earlier deliberate abstain - Tony doesn't deserve the dumping he's getting further down this page). --Scott Davis Talk 14:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. No brainer. His work on FAC has been indispensable, and I really like the fact that he explains even minor copy edits, often without being asked. We can all learn something from this user. Give the man those admin buttons. --BrianSmithson 14:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 20:00
  36. Support; Tony is excellent at what he does, and therefore asserts himself with confidence, which others can construe as impertinence or aggresion. A little more forebearance on his part might be beneficial, but this is a good editor with the project's best interests in mind. --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support Seems like a nice & capable editor... So I'll support. Spawn Man 01:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  38. Strong Support, and through this support express my STRONG OPPOSITION to the Trial by ordeal the Rfa process seems to be degenerating into. This is how we lose so many excellent, talented and thoughtful contributors. Are none of us entitled to express our strong opinions without running the risk of incurring a personal, political pile on?! Do we not have the right to defend ourselves when we feel we are under unfair attack?! Can we not even be bothered to FORGIVE some percieved slight?! Or to extend to our colleagues the benefit of the doubt rather than to doubt their benefits?! If one of my dear friends were to nominate me today, I would DECLINE rather than face running such a disgraceful gauntlet as that which unfolds below. I wonder how many of YOU would fare facing such a barrage of negativity. Would you be able to sit quietly and smile, while your honor, your integrity, your personal charachter is being smeared in the mud? I think those who would DO NOT deserve to be admins. Those are the very ones who merely want some small crumb of status/reward/power/influence. Who will use their position as a personal TOY rather than a TOOL to make our encycleopedia and community better. Tony, you may not win the vote this time, but you've kept your honor though you may have lost your temper, and you have my respect, Sir!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    Unfortunetely, it is very easy to troll around RfA's giving no votes with slanderous/innacurate statements/no explaination expecting the candidate to get irritated and defend him/herself and then get more oppose votes for his/her response. Still though, it a test of maturity.
    Speaking of "slanderous/innacurate statements/no explaination", on my RfA, one user said that I only made minor edits to a few article, even though I made major edits to (and created a few) dozens of articles, and other notable edits to another 230, and random minor edits(spelling/syntax to more articles). I made a very civil, neutral reponse, and he off course did not respond, but at least I didn't get angry. I did get 2 oppose votes for talking about Boothy443 on two user pages, so apparently I was not calm enough about that though.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 19:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah, it's a medieval trial without any of the basic protection that all participants would receive in a modern court of law. I knew nothing about this process of personal attack beforehand, and Jimbo's 'no big deal' now looks plain wrong. It's turned me from loyal and hard-working to hating. And it's made me so ill that I can't work. It's SO at odds with the NPOV policy. Tony 20:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. Tony is a great copyeditor who has helped me with several articles that I have been working on. From my personal experience, I have not had any unpleasant interactions with him. Pentawing 20:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeak Oppose, just doesn't seem right to me. I don't know, I just feel as though this person isn't ready, more time I feel is needed. Atleast another month or so. Private Butcher 20:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Weee...eeak Oppose II. Try again in a few months and you'll pass by a landslide. (vote by User:Kookykman)
    Thanks for the thought, but I think it's very plain from what I've written elsewhere here that I'm not at all interested. Tony 21:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Can be quite difficult to work with on occasion and shows a general unfamiliarity with some elements of policy. I can see him making a good admin in the future, but he's just not ready yet; see below for some reasons why. Ambi 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. At first I couched my doubts about Tony's readiness for adminship as a comment rather than an oppose, see below, to give him a chance to modify or distance himself from the tantrum I linked to, [1] but he emphasizes that he stands by every word. OK. Other things too about his response make me dubious about adminship at the present time. I'm sorry, I've never opposed an RFA before (that I can remember), but the way Tony dismisses my concern and refuses the information I ask for makes me wonder how he'll treat people who challenge him when/if he's an admin. I may well support at a later date, but I'd just like to see a little more absorption of the best sides of wikiculture first. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    You have opposed adminship at least twice before, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harro5 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kappa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    You actually went through and researched her oppose votes? What's the interest? Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Not really, I just remember some of the failed RFAs which I supported, and some of the people who opposed them. Apart from me disagreeing with the two opposes, I don't think there was anything wrong with either of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose: Possibly by Tony's supporters I am seen as the villain of the piece, which is why I have hesitated before voting. Let it be quite clear I do not oppose because his wild threats here [2] have been acted on anonymously here [3] I'm sure he would not be so stupid as to act anonymously, even if his behaviour inspires such actions in others. However, his behaviour does concern me. I was not too lazy, as he suggests, to integrate his changes, I had just spent nearly a full day attempting to do so, before deciding I just didn't like them. This is the crux of my objection oppose his views and see what happens. At best, it seems to me, his behaviour generally borders on the bombastic. Doubtless he has talents, but at the moment I feel it would not be wise for him to have powers, which could possibly be misused if he is crossed. Besides which he seems to attempt to run the FA page quite well without them. Giano | talk 09:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Does his "bombastic" behaviour extend beyond just this one situation in which grudges were formed? If so, I would reconsider my own vote. I've had my own quibbles with Tony in the past over style, but I am very confident that he would never misuse admin capabilities.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    I only speak of my own experience and that which is on the FAC page. In his reply to question 3 he lists two cases both unresolved which seem to have similarities to my experience, an editor walks out (I did that), and another accuses him of introducing inaccuracies, but that was medical, so architecture is less important, no one is going to die from confusing a staircase with a wall (well I suppose the could), but I felt he wanted to alter the balance, quality, and emphasis,of the page so perhaps there are similarities there. You must decide that for yourself. I have not stalked his edits, so really you'll have to form your own opinion, as to if he is bombastic, I certainly felt he was. Giano | talk 10:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    I hope you didn't feel I was attacking your vote. I respect your opinion. I was just hoping you might have been able to offer more information on the behaviour you think is inappropriate for an admin. I know Tony is fairly adament in his views on style (as am I, I suppose), but I haven't personally witnessed anything that might be described as "bombastic". I asked only because the objections have made me feel uncomfortable with my support, and I'm now leaning more towards neutrality - even though I congratulate Tony's efforts. I wanted to know, basically, if you think he is persistently "bombastic". Thank you anyway, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Side note: the FARC in question has been speedy-removed. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Yeah, I can't say I'm so confident that he won't throw a tantrum again while the editing is hot. Can't trust the admin powers to him; sorry. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Errrr. This really doesn't feel good - my gut says to vote yes, because he's a good editor, but my brain says to vote oppose, because he has a bit too much trouble with other editors. And my brain is the one that votes. Maybe if he can get through another three months without substantial conflict? DS 17:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I am not happy with what I see here. Editors who cannot handle conflict well are not admin candidates, and I am not even pleased with the way that Tony has handled the conflict of this RfA itself, let alone the conflicts he's been in over on FAC/FARC. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose without prejudice. Tony1 is a good editor and a valuable part of FAC, but I'm concerned about 1) time on project and edits in multiple spots so that we can see how he handles those who disagree, 2) a passion for correcting things that might override the need to be courteous and considerate. Much of the time, Tony1's criticisms of mistakes are legitimate, and some of the time they are preferences; such is the case with all of us. What worries me is that he doesn't allow enough for differences of opinion, for the legitimacy of others' views. None of this is to cast any doubts whatever about Tony1's value to the project. He's a first class contributor and editor, but I'm concerned that we don't yet know enough to assess what he'd do in a case of belligerant edits and serious differences of opinion. Geogre 18:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. I realize that both this and the featured article process can be stressful, but tantrums are not acceptable. With some more time and an opportunity to cool off, I trust that Tony1 will be able to earn my trust in the future. --Michael Snow 21:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Response: My response to Kelly Martin and others is that I do handle conflict well (and more broadly, personal politics), and avoid bothas far as possible. However, when I come under sustained attack that I think is unfair, by numerous people, I will defend myself.
    This process is the first time that has happened to me on WP, and I haven't been able to withdraw, as would be my first instinctive reaction elsewhere; here, I've had to stay and either endure attacks silently or respond to them; I've chosen the latter. Again, I must emphasise that, apart from the three instances that I originally listed below, I'm not known for being combative on WP; there doesn't seem to be any point to that stance in the normal run of things. So, Michael, it's not a matter of 'cooling off', although I'll be very grateful when this process has finished.
    I note that on this page, the strong personal language has emanated from other people, not from me, although I have asked once for the abusive language to stop. I'm only interested in critiquing articles and raising standards. I'm sorry if Kelly Martin regards my critiqueing on the FAC and FARC pages as tantrums; it's a surprising word to choose, which might have been picked up from an earlier critic here. I wonder how else the standard of FACs might be improved; some kind of oh-so-polite, passive technique, or the short, unsupported, laudatory statements I see continually on the FAC page will not do that. If putting my own case, and if delivering a strong critique of an article, are 'outbursts of petulance', then the cause of WP is utterly lost - it will languish in mediocrity, and we're kidding ourselves. I ask reviewers themselves to see the issue in the cold light of day, and consider the comments of the supporters above with respect to my handling of tension on WP. They saw me function in situations where I was not under sustained group attack. (I note at least one instance in which Giano has been issuing congratulations on the talk page of an oppose vote: 'brilliant', I think the word was. He is clearly very upset at having his writing criticised. I'm sorry about that; I was trying to make his writing good, and the benefit would have been his. As it is, the FA is an embarrassment.) Tony 00:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Tony1, you're not helping yourself with this. You may not be the only one at fault here, but you are the only one up for adminship. As for strong personal language, calling Giano lazy and now making comments about "huge egos" and "character assassination" might well qualify. -- Michael Snow 02:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    I'd like to point out that I did not use the word "tantrum" in my opposition. I don't know who that was, but I would consider the use of such language an inappropriate personal attack. I would encourage Tony1 to be more careful about the accusation he bandies about; this "error" reinforces my opposition to his candidacy. Admins should be careful and slow to act, and should avoid careless errors whenever possible. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    Dear Kelly:
    (1) please accept my apologies - my mistake;
    (2) Sorry to be brusque, but I just don't care about your opposition, not one smidgeon, nor anyone else's - the idea of banning people, deleting pages and patrolling for vandalism is most unappealling to me, and always has been. You see, I just abhor that kind of personal conflict; I only care about language. It was my unfamiliarity with the issues surrounding sysops' role and status that led to my accepting the kind nomination (and JW's 'it's no big deal' statement). Frankly, I'd be a poor sysop because I'm just not interested in that side. I couldn't care less about the vote; what concerns me now is the unfettered personal attacks and inappropriate judgements, and what I see as a flawed process. So, seeing the 'no' votes grow is kind of ... comforting, and is not the cause of my grief. OK?
    (3) Thanks for pointing out that 'tantrum', as used by quite a number of contributors here, is an 'inappropriate personal attack'.
    BTW, Redwolf probably feels awkward about this mess, but he shouldn't: he's a superb WPian, in my view, and was acting in good faith in nominating me. ... added at 04:22/04:38, 30 October 2005 by Tony1
  11. Oppose. Would like to see activity in vandalfighting, dispute resolution or other admin-related areas before supporting. If Tony1 wants to stick to editing and FACs - which is certainly valuable! - he doesn't need the mop & bucket. Also, being an admin makes it more likely that one will be "attacked" in various ways, which seems like a problem. Finally, I don't understand Tony1's explanation of why he cannot provide diffs or even article names for the conflicts he mentions in Question 3. Everything in Wikipedia is public, so there is no privacy issue, but if we don't know what article we're looking for, combing through months of his contribs is pointless. FreplySpang (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Err.. Those who "edit and and help in FAC process" are doing a job as valuable as vandal fighting. Once you gain adminship, you get a whole lot of new tools. That does not mean that you have to necessarily track and hunt down vandals all the time. For instance, an editor seeking adminship can also access main page sections, a privilege that may be useless to a person on vandalism patrol. User:Nichalp/sg 10:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, that's why I said that editing and FACs are valuable. No, of course becoming an admin doesn't commit you to constant RC patrol. But in Q1, Tony basically said that he intends to keep doing the same valuable things that he has been doing without admin powers. FreplySpang (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Week oppose. per many of the reasons above. Still needs a little more time and more edits. BlankVerse ∅ 03:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose and ask that you reconsider quitting the project when this RfA closes. I believe your contributions to FAC are valuable, just adminship isn't right for you right now. Borisblue 08:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Now that's a funny one: "oppose and, oh, please don't go, we need you". You've got a nerve, man, asking me to stay after this appalling process; why would I continue to be extremely generous with my time and skills in a system that puts my perceived character, maturity, and personality on trial, very publicly? This is a hopelessly flawed process that allows people to subsequently change their vote on the basis of other people's POV, and that has no guidelines on the scope and tone of comments. Tittle-tattle, POV, measured comments all in the wash, with or without justification. It's so contrary to the ethic of Wikipedia articles. All to receive a bucket and mop? It's way out of proportion, and here, has ended up being just plain destructive. Tony 09:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    "Why would I continue to be extremely generous with my time and skills....". Because, Tony, adminship is no big deal. You don't to be an admin to edit, and to leave because you don't become one would extend credence to your critics. You do great work, but you're not quite experienced enough for the responsibilities of an admin. Admittedly, there has been much un-necessary exaggeration here. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    At this stage, Cyberjunkie, changes of vote - this herd mentality in response to other POVs - are feeling like additional insults to the 'much unnecessary exaggeration'; don't you think it's just a little petty to change your vote at this stage? I'm really surprised that you'd bother. I haven't cared for some days about becoming an admin; it's become more personal than that. I've just sat back and watched this medieval trial process unfold without any mechanism for protecting me against distortion, misrepresentation and slander. And I've watched the herd instinct in action. I was totally unprepared for the character assassination, and had known that this would happen, there's no way I'd have agreed to the nomination.
    Before I leave, I'll be making a strongly worded official complaint about the RfA process. Maybe it's often OK, but here it has gone VERY wrong, and has, IMV, seriously failed to produce a balanced view. The irony is that without this trial, I'd be happily beavering away helping to improve articles and enjoying interacting with other Wikipedians, probably for the long term. But in just a few days, WP has turned from highly productive fun to utter misery for me; this process has succeeded in destroying a valuable Wikipedian. No doubt, Giano, Hoary and Bishonin, whatever she calls herself, will take delight at this; but it's very bad for WP. Having been very loyal, I now hate WP with a vengeance. It's all very sad. Tony 10:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    You have been welcome to withdraw your acceptance of this nomination at all times, and given your feelings, you should perhaps do so. I am sorry you felt insulted by my change to neutral - I did not mean to offend. I still hold you in high regard, but found your comments quite un-becoming for a potential administrator. I put this down to a general lack of experience, which is fine, given your short time here. After few more months, I would be more inclined to support. As for your disgruntlements about the RfA process, you are welcome to comment and make suggestions on the process at the talk page. I hope you don't decide to leave us, but that is a decision entirely for yourself. However, a good WikiBreak goes a long way to put things in perspective, so you might like to consider that instead. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose not ready quite yet, Tony please dont take everything as a personal attack. Hell i've failed 2 RFA's myself.  ALKIVAR™ 10:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah, I am offended, Cyberjunkie; it would have been better not to have voted in the first place if there was any chance of your being swayed by the goings on here. Wasn't your initial judgement good enough? Under the circumstances, injecting yet more negativity when I'm clearly at the end of the line ... despite your kind words, is just another dig. Alkivar, thanks too for your supporting words, but the vote changing is not appreciated.
    These comments that include 'not quite there yet' appear to assume that I'd hang around and put myself through another round of abuse. If you care at all, in my memory, why don't you lobby to do something about this appalling process. For a start, the herd mentality needs to be eliminated: it has the advantage of being transparent, but in its current unfettered form, carries too many dangers of snowballing, distortion, and offence. I do not appreciate attacks en masse. The first vote should be properly researched and fixed for good. Second, I think there's a need for more confidentiality to safeguard the privacy of the nominee and the reviewers. Thus, a greater role is required for a bureaucrat in sifting through the confidential information. Casting all opinions into the main square is a frightful way to do it. If Alkivar has had two traumatic experiences already, that's suggesting a change is urgently needed.
    I am so traumatised by this experience that I never want to have anything to do with Wikipedia again. Now I just need to find someone who'll trash my user page and image, which I regard as private, especially now. This is proving difficult. Tony 13:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    vote changing? I had not yet decided to vote, I posted on your talk page then RE-READ the posts here before deciding where to stand on this RFA.  ALKIVAR™ 14:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    You are taking this waay too hard. Not being elected admin doesn't mean that the community or the project hates you. Are you sure you want to be one then, if you can't deal with the stress here? Some admins get their user pages vandalized God-knows-how-many-times by POV warriors. Borisblue 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    My god man, quit reacting and read some of the criticism posted here with an open mind. No one is saying you are incapable of becoming an admin, merely that your taking criticism of your past actions way to seriously.  ALKIVAR™ 14:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Maybe I don't quite understand the process of RfA, but what is the problem? There are 38 votes for support, and only 13 for oppose. Doesn't this mean that you will become an administrator? — Wackymacs 14:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Wacky it generally requires a 70% or better percentage for approval... 13/38 = ~34% oppose. If he recieves no further oppose votes he still needs to gain 5 more supports to pass the minimum. (Assuming my math is correct)  ALKIVAR™ 14:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    I see, thanks for clarifying that for me. I am sure he will get a lot more support votes, its already climbed to 39 since I posted my question here. The RfA also has two more days to go, I'm sure he'll make it easily. By any chance he should, Tony deserves it. — Wackymacs 14:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Leaving aside my own vote, and your feelings about it, I'll re-iterate what I said above: If this process is insufferable for you, then you should consider withdrawing. If you intend to leave regardless of the result, then there is no point in allowing it to continue. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Reluctant oppose. From the endorsements above and what I've seen personally, Tony's clearly a great editor, and normally would be exactly the kind of person we need on the project. At the same time, I feel I have to vote oppose to anyone adds to their RfA that "I now hate WP with a vengeance." This statement's understandable; the candidate's been provoked and feels under serious pressure. At the same time, though, can we really give the admin buttons to somebody who currently hates the project? I'd join Cyberjunkie in urging Tony to withdraw his nomination until he's feeling better about things. He's clearly future admin material, just needs a little cooling off and a few cold ones. -- Dvyost 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - in complete agreement with Dvyost. I'm also afraid that Tony's little display here does indicate that he's not ready for adminship either. "Admins should be courteous and should exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others"... Kel-nage 15:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Reluctantly oppose: nothing personal, and I certainly do not want him to leave the project, but the above interactions show this user is not ready at this time. Jonathunder 16:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Strongly oppose. The outbursts in green above are thoroughly unbecoming of an admin, and the sentence somewhere below about "I hate conflict" just isn't going to make things work when the vandals and so on descend upon you. Then, when you face your first disagreement on AN/I, things will spiral out of control quickly. Anyone who threatens to leave WP over the outcome of an RfA simply isn't level-headed and cool-enough under fire to be an admin. Try again in a few more months if you can round off the rough edges. - Splashtalk 17:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose I am concerned with what he say in his answers in green. He sure seems to be a good contributor, but he must learn that good contribution alone(even though very important) is not the only skill that takes to be an Admin, and that those that opposes him do not put his perceived character, maturity, and personality on trial. Fadix 19:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    'Try again'? 'Not quite ready?' Dudes, did you read what I said above??
    I'll post the message that this Giano person has just put on my page:
    I've so far ignored your comments and lies about me, but when I saw this comment of yours I laughed out loud, [4], you really are just a kid in a play ground, if that's how you control your own group, I pray you never get any control here. I'm pasting this comment here so I'm not accused of trying to sway the "herd" instinct, bit unfair that term - not a ploy recommended to win them round really is it?
    On a far more important note, I'm taking with me two beautiful, full-track recordings that I'd arranged copyright release for. More were on the way. The owner of the recording company, a friend of mine, has announced that he has withdrawn permission for their use, and will sue WP unless they are removed immediately; he is serious. So I'll remove them now from the article on JS Bach that I've been putting a lot of work into. Someone else can disentangle the text in which they were nicely embedded. Tony 20:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: On the general view (I'm not going into this particular sound file), but once you release something to Wikipedia, isn't it licensed under the GFDL unless stated otherwise and cannot be retracted? Once permission is given to anything, can it then be retracted? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 20:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    A release under the GFDL is irrevocable. If they have already been released, then making legal threats is pointless since the lawyers wouldn't defend them. And of course, if Tony1 continues with such legal threats, he is likely to be blocked from editing until they are resolved. -Splashtalk 21:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Before anybody worries too much, it may be a good idea to check with the owner of the recording company first, and check his views, presumably he has email. Giano | talk 21:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Ah, read my text properly please, Splash. You're misrepresenting me just as others have on this page all too frequently. So practise a little level-headedness and coolness yourself, and shave off some of your own rough edges. Again, these highly personal comments are offensive now.
    It's not my legal threat. The problem is that I have the original email, and the files were wrongly tagged in the first place on the basis of that text. So it's not a matter of releasing and subsequently not being able to withdraw. There's no proof of release. If you eventually work out how to contact him (pretty difficult, I'd say), you won't get a very good hearing, I'm afraid. Just remember that these are taken from commercial CDs that are currently on sale. And as for blocking me, well, do you really think I care? The nasty drubbing that I'll be giving WP on the net, with my insider knowledge, will just start a few days earlier. Tony 23:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. This is painful. If we could go back in time and never nominate Tony1, we'd all be a lot better off. If we had something else we could nominate him for, like "outstanding and important contributer", we should have. Unfortunately, this RFA still has to be dealt with. And I have to change my vote based entirely on Tony1's edits to this RFA. This isn't "petty", it's responding to new data. Tony is showing a compliete inability to deal calmly with controversy, but worse, is interpreting virtually every negative comment as a personal attack. Viewing anybody's comments here as a personal attack seems like a heck of a stretch to me. This isn't admin temperment. — Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    specifically which comment? I merely saw this side before the rest of you, or was at least the first to mention ii publicly. Giano | talk 21:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Bunchofgrapes, yes, it's a fiasco, isn't it. I'm quite capable of taking on any demeanour that is required. But it's gone past that. At this stage, comments about my temperament are offensive to me, intrusive, and a violation of my privacy. It would have been better just to have changed your vote. A procedure that encourages unmoderated public comments of a personal nature is badly flawed.
    However, I appreciate the good intentions behind much of your statement; thank you for that. Tony 23:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Oppose would have been willing to support but for Tony's behaviour on this RfA ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 23:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. A look through his list of contributions shows that Tony has been an excellent editor. Admin status is self-evidently not required for this. It is required for such matters as the dispassionate application of rules. And for that, you need to demonstrate a certain coolness (perhaps even humor) when under stress, in addition of course to a pretty good understanding of what the rules are or at least an awareness that the rules might not be obvious and might need looking up. I don't see this demonstrated in the green text above. I don't think it's necessary to show this with examples, but if Tony insists, I'll reluctantly do this. However, two things that Tony writes in one of his edits (which, as I write, still stands) merit quick and simple response. He says: But in just a few days, WP has turned from highly productive fun to utter misery for me; this process has succeeded in destroying a valuable Wikipedian. No doubt, Giano, Hoary and Bishonin, whatever she calls herself, will take delight at this; but it's very bad for WP. Having been very loyal, I now hate WP with a vengeance. (1) No, I take no delight in any aspect of this RfA or Tony's described or promised reactions to it. (2) I'm not going to entrust the administrative mop, broom and kryptonite to anybody who says he or she "hate[s] WP with a vengeance". And lastly, I second Cyberjunkie's suggestion above, and hope that Tony rereads it and reconsiders it. -- Hoary 02:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Oppose, after viewing edits here at this RfA. Frustration over Sicilian baroque seemed entirely appropriate to me. The above doesn't. Jkelly 02:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Changing again, per: "The nasty drubbing that I'll be giving WP on the net, with my insider knowledge, will just start a few days earlier," along with the other complete overeactions exhibited. Sorry, Oppose. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    You think I care, Jeffrey? Tony 04:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. It is with regret that I oppose this nomination. I'm very sorry Tony but your comments on this very RfA are not up to admin standard. I do hope that you continue with this great project and I can support your nomination at a later stage. - Ianblair23 (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    You are kidding if you think I'd submit to this abuse again. And try to think of a less offensive way of justifying your decision that just 'not up to standard'. I have very high standards. I find the apology patronising. Tony 09:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral for now. I would want to know more about what sysop chores Tony1 will be inclined to contribute to. To correct prose, one does not need to be a sysop. Question: Is Tony1 willing to pick up the mop and bucket, or not? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    I answer your question with this one: Will having another potential janitor on staff harm the wiki, if he's proved he's to be trusted? I'm sure I'm not the only one who never expected to get too deeply into adminship, but proved himself wrong. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Jossi: Did you see the last sentence in my response to the first question? :-) Tony 01:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral withdrawing my support, but still enough goodwill left over to prevent me voting oppose. Tony's little tantrum on that linked FAC, and his reaction to the opinions proferred by User:Bishonen and User:Giano on this very RfA, do not inspire confidence. I'm aware that Giano threw his tantrum first, but it's my understanding that admins have to deal with that sort of thing a lot, and I'm no longer sure that Tony will deal with it properly when it happens. -- fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Tony does fine work as an editor, but I can't support for adminship, on a closer look at the below comments. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral: I stand by my earlier comments, but I can no longer support. It's clear that Tony isn't quite ready for adminship - three months is too short an experience, it would seem. I would support in a few months.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Your responses on this very RFA do not inspire confidence. Perhaps you should have a few more months of experience to redeem yourself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Vote changed to Neutral based on this RfA. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Changed to Neutral. I am extremely sorry that it has come to this, Tony. I really apreciatte your work, and we've had the chance to collaborate in a highly constructive way in the past, which makes all this the more painful. Just like you, I had a rough time at my own RfA, so I understand the Wikistress you must be going through right now. However, this has gone too far, and I saddens me a lot to see you in this state of mind, understandable as it may be. I am very disheartened by your last phrase, "the nasty drubbing that I'll be giving WP on the net, with my insider knowledge, will just start a few days earlier". I hope you stay with us and reapply in a while, and rest assured you'll eventually get to admin; but these outbursts and threats are more than I can take from anyone, Tony. This is truly difficult and painful, and I'm sorry, but for now, I cannot support you anymore. Shauri smile! 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    Well, as I've said above, I couldn't care less about no votes; that was a concern at the start of this hideous process, but now the noes are comforting. Someone find Cyberjunkie and tell him to change his 'neutral' to a 'no'. Sorry that it causes you difficulty and pain. ... added at 05:00, 30 October 2005 by Tony1
  7. Strong Decline. Your attitude is not up to admin standards. Unfortunately, your over-sensitivity to oppose votes is not something I would look for from someone who is looking for the power to delete pages and ban users at will. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)

Comments

  1. In your answer to the first of the generic questions for the candidate, you cite a particular Guardian article as support for your view that the quality of its prose is WP's weakest aspect. The comment within that Guardian article about Bob Dylan (as it then was) does indeed support you. As a whole, however, I don't think the articles says what you appear to claim it says: the contributors seem more worried about inaccuracies, glaring omissions, etc. Are you confusing this Guardian article with another? -- Hoary 05:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Response: That was the intended citation. Of the six WP articles briefly reviewed, problems that clearly fall within the ambit of copyediting were at issue in five.

    Dylan (“some of the writing might piss people off”).

    Steve Reich, from which a real bomb of a sentence was quoted: “’Reich is popularly regarded as repetitive and minimalist, but in some works deviates from a purely minimalist style, which shows some connection to Minimalism and the work of Reich's visual artist friends such as Sol Lewitt and Richard Serra.' Run that past me again?”

    Haute cuisine (“inaccurate and unclear”).

    Samuel Pepys, (prominent name misspelt, and lame conclusion).

    And

    Encyclopedia, from which these years were quoted: “175 [sic] to 1772”. I've had a look at these articles, and they need from light to heavy editing.

    Thanks for raising this issue. One of our valued contributors to the Composer's Project has already volunteered to rewrite the article on Reich. Tony 10:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    Judgements in the Guardian article of . . . Bob Dylan: I conceded at the start that you were right about that. Steve Reich: partial and inadequate as well as poorly written. Haute couture: the lack of clarity seems to be less a matter of style than of content. Samuel Pepys: inaccuracies and omissions rather than misspellings (the misspelling is something that would only be caught by a historian or particularly diligent copyeditor). Lame ending, yes: it could be improved as a matter of style. (An interesting allegation is And it is poor on the diary itself. There is no appreciation of its literary merits. [.... The ending] is hardly a worthy summary of the literary merits of one of our great literary works. Unfortunately or otherwise, any attempt to fix that would risk the charge of inserting PoV.) But look, this is a minor issue in the article, whose very title is "Can you trust Wikipedia?" and in which -- as I read it -- reliability is the main issue. You are of course free to argue that its prose is WP's weakest aspect, and you're right to say that poor prose is discussed in the Guardian article. However, if you were suggesting that the article agreed with you that prose is WP's weakest aspect, I must disagree with you. Further, I'd say that in potential conflicts between a desire for accuracy and a desire for readability, accuracy should be given priority: near-incomprehensibility can be dealt with by a reader (if only by rejection of the article and recourse to Britannica or whatever), while well-intentioned but mistaken "correction" of rocky prose can be harder to detect. -- Hoary 03:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Sure, accuracy is more important than readability, and you're right, their title suggests that accuracy was their point of departure and main overall concern was accuracy. However, prose is a much bigger problem in the sense that it occupies more space than the inaccuracies within it; I guess that looms large to me, as someone who passionately believes that WP should be accurate and that its prose should be smooth, easy, seemless (even beautiful, sometimes) to read. It's a jungle out there on the Internet, and WP needs to have high standards with respect to both aspects if it's to be authoritative.
    I think we're basically in agreement, don't you? Tony 05:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yes. I agree completely with much of your last comment, and what I don't completely agree with seems very reasonable. Thank you. -- Hoary 10:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Your snide comment utterly rejected. Tony 19:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Tony, could you please supply some diffs for the interactions you mention in your response to question 3, so we can see them more directly? (Diffs, please, as opposed to subsection links of the kind you provide elsewhere, since those don't work. If you right-click on a "last" button in the History tab and select "Copy this link location", you get a diff = a unique and durable link to a post.) In the recent Sicilian Baroque disagreement between you and Giano on FAC, you're IMO rather quick to be territorial about your stylistic edits, and to attack. In this retort—posted in installments—there's even a pre-emptive threat to list the article on FARC—Featured article removal canditates—if it should become Featured without your assistance, and several other statements that I think short on civility and forbearance. Even under some provocation, an admin should treat other contributors respectfully, and try to see their side of things. (Here's the post from Giano you were responding to). But I should disclose that I have a bias here, as the nominator of the article, so perhaps I'm blowing a single instance out of proportion; I hope others will take a look for themselves. I can tell from the Support votes above that you're a very fine editor and much appreciated by the community, especially for your FAC work; this is not about that, but a query about your demeanour in disagreement. Bishonen | talk 17:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    I think it's inappropriate to respond fully to your 'biased' query, as you put it, and yes, you may be blowing it 'out of proportion'. I stand by my reponse, linked above, unfairly I think, as 'retort'; I stand by every word I said there, and I think that you've misrepresented my stance ('without your assistance' - that's not what I said; my concern is the quality of the product, paraded as one of WP's best). With respect to 'diffing', there's a privacy issue involved with one person (the last-mentioned), and the second-mentioned is above in the list of supporters; in any case, everything I do is recoverable from my 'contributions'. If 'taking the mop' involves being taken advantage of in these circumstances, as I think you are doing, it's not worth it. I note that 'Hoary', who wrote the first query above, did not announce the fact that he cowrote the article in question. BTW, thanks for pointing out the diffing process, and the fact that the section links may be problem (they work on my computer) - I'll look into it. Tony 23:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    (Edit conflict, you sure do edit incrementally) I'm not sure I understand. You invite me to "recover" an interchange about an unnamed medical article, some time in the past three months, from your contributions? Is that it? Bishonen | talk 00:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    You say: I note that 'Hoary', who wrote the first query above, did not announce the fact that he cowrote the article in question. I'm puzzled. My query was about your answer to the first "generic" question below, and more specifically about your characterization of an article in the (London/Manchester) Guardian. I didn't write any part of either that or Bob Dylan, which I mentioned. I have been making very small contributions to Sicilian Baroque, which Bishonen refers to, but I didn't mention that article, whose relevance to my question was only tangential. -- Hoary 00:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Fair enough Tony 01:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    That was it for me, then? OK, I'm afraid I'm ready to oppose. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC
    Yep, that's it for you. Tony 14:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC))
    This series of comments and Bishonen's diff have left me somewhat non-plussed. Disagreements—strong ones, stated strongly—are regrettable; they are especially painful to see when they occur among colleagues liked and admired. My appreciation and regard for Tony are clear; no less, I've often felt that Giano, Bishonen, Geogre, Filioct and some other editors who do a lot of work on literary and classical themes are, very simply, a gift to WP, so beautiful are their creations.

    Looking at the Sicilian Baroque FAC page, it appears that in the heat of the intense editing that so often accompanies FA candidacies, tempers were frayed and patience lost. Giano felt that the copy-editing had altered "the essence of the page", and reverted to the pre-FAC version. As this occured after a lot of editing by FAC page regulars, they understandably felt some frustration. However, while Giano could probably have been more constructive in pointing out which edits in particular were problematic, your reply, Tony, was not, in my very humble opinion, helpful. A more constructive approach might have been to determine what precisely were the problems, and move from there. Figure out why the other guy is upset first; don't say anything before that is understood—most especially if you're the admin. The expert is often able to see subtleties in meaning that are not immediately apparent to the non-expert; equally, the expert virtually always improves from input from those outside his field. Their collaboration improves articles, but will not occur in the face of angry remarks.

    I'm not going to change my vote, Tony, as I'm confident you'll make a sound admin—everything I've seen of you suggests this was a rare intemperance. However, I do hope you might reconsider Bishonen's question in #2. encephalon 04:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


NEW STATEMENT BY TONY:

Encephalon, thanks for your support, and you're right, cool and calm is best; I hate conflict. However, since this process appears to have turned into a fiasco of snide attacks - even public character assassination - by users associated with the article Sicilian Baroque, I feel I must defend myself in relation to that article. Amazingly, it was promoted to FA status only a few days ago, with several comments about prose outstanding, among them, mine. No, I wasn’t the person to post it on FARC, since I know that can’t be done so soon, as Giano snidely acknowledges above (‘not so stupid as to’). I'd appreciate it if those people refrained from snide and insulting language, and, in the case of Bishonen, also misrepresenting what I have said.

I had written several flattering comments about the article on the FAC page, and because I wanted to see it promoted, I put considerable time and effort into fixing up what was appalling prose, inserting inline queries where I felt there were problems in the logical flow, and pointing out other problems that went beyond mere copyediting. I had worked on the first third, intending, slightly reluctantly given the size of the job at hand, to return to do the rest. Giano and I had a not unpleasant exchange on our talk pages, and it was clear that my efforts had triggered a flurry of activity on his part. The next day, I was gobsmacked to see that he had reverted my work with no specific explanation as to why, beyond that I had 'altered the essence' of the text. I seriously doubt that: almost all of my changes and comments were at the clause level. The first third IS now better than it was originally, despite the reversion, but still needs work to satisfy several FA criteria. The last two-thirds remains a significant problem.

Maybe my response was intemperate, but I was offended. I don't resile from my comment about FARC. Here are some examples of why this article should not be paraded as ‘exemplifying our very best work' (Criterion 1). Please note that they are merely a small sample, selected at random. Nearly every sentence in the article needs at least one change, and many need major surgery.

First, there’s POV (Criterion 2d). It’s clear that Giano is passionate about the subject, and a notable expert, but he gets carried away in places that diminish the authority of the article:

'However, much of the decay and ruinous state of preservation of so many palazzi must fall not just on owners unwilling to accept change, but the pollical [sic] agendas of successive socialist governments.'

The same goes for:

‘Any visiting foreigner, especially an Englishman, was regarded as a special trophy and added social prestige.’

Numerous statements are within his area of expertise, but make me a little uncomfortable for their sweeping assumptions. Here’s one:

'Church interiors, which until this date had been slightly pedestrian …'

I’m sure he can justify this, but while the statement might be OK in the context of an audio/visual presentation with supporting evidence, here it assumes too much. Another sentence exemplifying or detailing this assertion is required for the sake of credibility. As is, it's POV, and probably also fails Criterion 2c ('the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations').

Some statements are way out of line with an encyclopedic register, although they might be alright as a push in WikiTravel, e.g.,:

‘… today long shrouded salons and ballrooms are hosting corporate and public events. Some palazzi are offering a bed and breakfast service to paying guests, in this way once again providing impressive hospitality to visitors to Sicily,..’
‘The remaining members of the Sicilian aristocracy who still inhabit their ancestral palazzi have refrained from filling their gardens with wild animals to lure in the masses to view their homes (ironically unlike their English counterparts, who spurned Baroque as vulgar excess).’ Huh?

And here’s an odd mixture of hype and tourist brochure:

‘… its Corinthian columns supporting balconies of amazing wrought iron work, while supports of grotesques mock, shock or amuse the passer-by.’

The article fails miserably in terms of Criterion 2a (prose that is 'compelling, even brilliant'). There are conflicts of tense:

‘However, when a few years later the upper floor was added, the neoclassical French influence is very pronounced.’

And conflicts of number:

‘by the time they were completed Baroque has passed from fashion’

There are bumpety-bump commas that make the poor reader backtrack (I had to read it three times before I got it):

‘Revolts against the Bourbons in 1821, and 1848 divided the nobility, and liberalism was in the air.’

And no, we’re not talking about Bach’s Mass in B minor (I had provided a reasonable defining phrase for ‘Chiaroscuro’ at the top, but it now it’s mangled):

‘… providing Baroque masses of light and shade, or Chiaroscuro …’

Isn’t the style usually referred to as the Baroque, a key termin this topic?

‘As with all architectural styles, people eventually tired of Baroque. In some parts of Europe it metamorphosed into the rococo,’

Here’s a logical problem: why is an unbroken skyline unbaroque, or antithetical to the use of giant pilasters? It’s hard to work out the intended meaning:

‘The main facade, punctuated by giant pilasters, also had Baroque features, but the skyline was unbroken.’

The grammar is garbled:

‘Furniture … [was] … frequently with marble used for table tops … [and] … was transient within the house, frequently moved between rooms as required, while leaving other rooms unfurnished.

There are some long snakes that make the reader work very hard:

‘Vaccarini also exploited the local black lava stone as a decorative feature, rather than a general building material, using it intermittently with other materials, and spectacularly for an obelisk supported on the back of the Catanian heraldic elephant, for a fountain in the style of Bernini in front of the new Town hall.’

Yet amid this, the article contains just two or three beautiful sentences, such as:

‘Above the doorways and window apertures, pediments scroll and curve with a sense of freedom and movement which would have been unthinkable to those earlier architects inspired by Bernini and Borromini.’ Oh, give me more of that.

The article was unstable before, and has been since ('major chunk' I see in an edit summary today), which may touch on Criterion 2e (stability), and suggests that the promotion was hasty. I think Raul654 does a really good job, BTW, but on this occasion, I have to question his action.

Perhaps reviewers might now understand the intensity of work that I had put in, and was willing to continue investing to bring the article to FA standard, and (2) why the article should NOT have been promoted, and should eventually be listed as a FARC. I hope this puts into perspective some of the comments that have been bandied about on this page. Tony 14:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps others will now realise the weight of Tony's opinion bombing which befalls those who do not agree with it. This is the first time an article is promoted without Tony's input, whatever will happen when he has magical powers and it happens again, or will it never happen again? Even here any one who dares to express an opinion contrary to his own is making a " fiasco of snide attacks - even public character assassination" . I don't think there's much more I can say on the subject, people must form their own opinions. Giano | talk 15:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
A few observations on the Sicilian Baroque debate, from someone who is also probably one of the harder nuts to crack over featured articles. Material written by experts sometimes appears superficially non-neutral, because they take for granted knowledge that the layperson lacks. In the arts especially, providing a critical perspective of various works is actually essential to understanding them and their context. Generally, asking for references is better than rewriting in such cases. And in reality, I think many of the points here should ultimately be resolved by referring the reader to other Wikipedia articles to understand where these insights come from. At present, however, those other articles are likely inadequate to the task. In any case, considerable damage to the insights in the text can result if people with insufficient knowledge try to bluntly "NPOV" everything. At some point, a little forbearance may be necessary for the fact that not all of Wikipedia is likely to be feature-quality simultaneously. --Michael Snow 21:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Although I don't vote often, I read this page regularly. This particular request for administraton reminds me of a couple of others which have failed in the past; I believe one of them was Private Butcher, the other a chap called Gordon Watts. In both cases the barrage of negative votes had a detrimental effect on the sum total of human happiness, although in the latter case it seemed as if the rest of us suffered more than Watts. But still. Is there a better way? I understand that adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but the process of applying for administrator status reminds me of the process of selecting the Mercury Seven; your edit history, your edit frequency, your liver, your seed, everything about you is laid bare, examined, personal grievances are brought to the fore, rection, betrayal etc. It feels bad to lose. Either there needs to be a much stronger disclaimer somewhere - "Be warned that your edit history will be subject to intense scrutiny, and rejection may cause offence - or perhaps a secret panel of trusted people could vote, in secret, behind closed doors, like a Golf club, although I understand <deadpan>that this solution may not be entirely compatible with Wikipedia's aims</deadpan>. As a postscript, I am sure that Tony1 will recover and return to Wikipedia, but all of the comments above will be used against him in the future unless he is appropriately penitent. -Ashley Pomeroy 15:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Durin has proposed writing a guide to warn potential nominees about the dangers of RfA, to be mandatorily read before they accept the nom. It can be found in WP:GRFA. Borisblue 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • At the end of this process, I'd like to offer just a little more evidence of how damaging it is to WP. In replying to one of the contributors here, I discovered on his/her talkpage the following two messages from antagonists on this page, who had clearly been perusing my own talkpage. It's sad to see that the bad blood over this process now reaches beyond this page to embroil third parties who are Wikifriends—yet more reason that dramatic reform of RfA is required. No one, incuding me, wants to see working relationships damaged because of RfA. I've removed references to the recipient; people can easily find who it is, if they can be bothered, but her/his identity doesn't seem to matter here. Tony 20:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

==Civility or lack thereof==

Hi. Is there any particular point where you think me lacking in civility and walking away]? Bishonen | talk 16:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

== Wikilove? ==

We've been friends since I fist came here, so I have to say I was surprised and a little hurt by your comments. I have been completely vilified by that man, and a good few people on that RFA page to, and for what, realising Tony was not quite as nice as those who recommended him for FA thought he was. He has threatened Wikipedia with legal threats, thrown another of his former supporters out of some club/group he runs, taken back copyright music he uploaded, generally been completely foul to anyone who had the guts to oppose him. And now threatens to rubbish the whole project on the internet. You talk about Wikilove and walking away, where would we all be if Bishonen and I had walked away? - on the eve of Tony becoming an administrator that's where. Perhaps the next person he would have crossed would have been less able to defend themselves than me, where would your Wikilove be then. Yes you just think on that.

I have deliberately only mentioned this business on pages I regularly go and to people who know of the subject, as yet he has wrongly accused me, and Bishonen of whipping up opposition on other people's talk pages, You go through my recent edits and find one instance; and then check his. I only mention this to you now as you seem to be familiar, if in my opinion misinformed, on the subject.

While in spite of his disgraceful behaviour he has received numerous messages of support and pleas to stay. Bishonen and I have received no support from anyone. Let us not fall out, but please do try to be a little more considerate of other feelings. Giano | talk 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC) ::PS Hoary though has been very nice indeed. Giano | talk 17:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes I wrote that, and I wrote it here [5] and I stand by every single word of it.

However, this page has not been Wikipedia's finest moment. I think we probably all agree on that. Would the correct decision have been determined if a few admins had met secretly in the earliest days of the application? I'm sure a different outcome would have arisen. But... would it have been the correct decision for Wikipedia?

I keep noting Tony's further and, sadly, increasingly more erratic comments. It seems now that everyone is being attacked on all quarters by him. I think the kindliest thing is for us all to keep silent from this point on. I'm sure after a period of quiet reflection Tony will come to see the wise, and well meaning advice that has been offered to him here, and on his talk page. My shoulders are broad to these attacks, as are I'm sure are those of the many others he has attacked. Many stressful things have been said here, many of them by Tony, who I'm sure is already regretting them. So for Tony's sake let us say no more. If Tony chooses to act on his threats to rubbish Wikipedia on the internet, where, incidentally, he has to find an audience that would be a pity. As the father of four children (yes four! but I've found the cause now) all of whom use the Wiki for their home-work and assignments (it's just what google flashes up, no input from me) , I know, his attacks and words will not damage us, perhaps him, but not us. We have a great project here. So lets congratulate ourselves on that, and also wish Tony well wherever his future is destined to be. Giano | talk 21:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't regret my statements one bit. I would have a huge audience on the net, if I chose that course of action. I think people are probably wishing that you would say no more, for your own sake as well as ours. Tony 21:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I have to admit that patrolling to identify and revert vandalism is not my strongest point—others usually get there first, although I do it whenever I encounter vandalism. I'm just too taken up with reviewing FACs and helping contributors to bring them up to standard before and during nomination. Much of this task involves improving what I think is WP's weakest aspect, the quality of its prose (see the recent review in the UK publication The Guardian ([6])—ouch); it's a bottomless pit that keeps me from working on my own articles. However, I'm not averse to performing any admin task that is required of me.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've a list of articles that I'm trying to bring up to FAC standard, as my own projects, including those on JS Bach and iMac. I've written six shortish articles, including Geoffrey Miller (evolutionary psychologist), and, more importantly, I've helped numerous articles to achieve FA status. I've rewritten the criteria for FACs (User:Raul654 pulled me up on only one point) and I added a sixth point to the PR instructions to try to make the process more effective.
I'd like to see a greater use of WP's potential for lavishly and cogently illustrating musical topics with short musical excerpts; and I want composer articles to include more information on musical style, rather than being mainly biographical. To assist in these purposes, on the Wikiproject Composers page I've written guidelines for the use and copyright tagging of sound excerpts (Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Guidelines for using sound excerpts) and suggested points to be covered in the style section of composer articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Suggested points to be covered in the style section of composer articles). I've changed the wording on the copyright tag Template:Music sample so that it's easier to read, specifies an important point raised by Carmildo concerning the avoidance of multiple excerpts from the same track on WP, and now states correctly the duration of 'the track' rather than 'the work'.
I like the teamwork and community aspects of WP.
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. Yes. The main contributor to a highly technical medical article on the PR list accused me of introducing factual errors, and was overall rather aggressive towards me. I thought this was unfair and unproductive, since I'd significantly improved what had been seriously inadequate prose in the expectation that the contributors would check through for such errors, as usual. So we had a little stouch about that. I'm the one who called User:Cyberjunkie 'bossy' <blush> (see here). A contributor walked out of an article in which I'd delinked the low-value chronological items (as per WP policy). That upset me, and I tried to persuade her otherwise, unsuccessfully; very unfortunate. I usually have no problem with other contributors; in retrospect, it would have been better not to react to any of these three incidents. Tony 02:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
PS The edit count is inflated by my regrettable habit of saving the page, then identifying further improvements; on the other hand, sometimes I do massive edits in one go.
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.