Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tony Fox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Tony Fox

Final (44/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 12:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony Fox (talk · contribs) - Tony Fox has been editing Wikipedia for nearly two years, and has made around 8,400 edits, including 3,000 to mainspace. He is an experienced article writer, as a main editor of two DYK articles and the good article, Battle of the Plains of Abraham. His admin related work includes around 120 posts to WP:AN, 90 posts to WP:AN/I, 70 reports to WP:AIV, 10 requests for page protection and hundreds of speedy delete tags and contributions to XfD discussions. He is a very nice and polite user, and is even a member of WikiProject Furry. He is also very helpful and spends much time at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Tony Fox would make a very good and productive admin. Epbr123 (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honoured by this nomination, and gladly accept. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to Epbr123 for nominating me; I've been considering self-nomination for a while, but knowing that other editors feel I'd be a good admin is encouraging. Just to flesh out the nomination a little, here's a bit more information about me and what I like to do here: I've made a career of writing for and editing newspapers and magazines, and when I started at Wikipedia, I was hoping to bring those skills to improving what I feel could be a great collection of human knowledge as it develops. I've created a number of articles, starting with several on neighbourhoods of Vancouver (I've been a member of WikiProject Vancouver since early on), and moved into some biographical entries on media figures past and present. As mentioned, I re-wrote and sourced Battle of the Plains of Abraham, which is a good article and rated A-Class by WikiProject Military History. Much of my work involves vandal fighting, but I try to take the time to do some categorization, copyediting, offering opinions on deletions, and helping new users and others when necessary. I feel that as an administrator, I'd be able to expand on these efforts and continue to improve the encyclopedia. I look forward to answering any questions posed to me, and thank everyone who participates for their consideration. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I think I'd wind up being a generalist; most likely, I'd ideally start out helping with backlogs like the ever-present speedy deletion, closing AFDs, and maybe helping out with page protection and requested moves. As noted above, I already browse WP:AN and WP:ANI regularly, so I'd likely offer assistance where needed there when I can, and I'd monitor WP:AIV and assist with that aspect as well. One of my personal skills is being a reasonable mediator, something I think will help in admin duties, and I'd like to apply that when dealing with issues that crop up between editors (something I've done a little of already when the opportunity has arisen). As I learn and gain more experience with admin duties, I'd be happy to move into other areas. One area that I freely admit I need to learn more about is images and image policy; while I have the general idea with regards to fair use, it's something I need to work on more, so until I've got the idea, I will be avoiding any contentious image work.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Battle of the Plains of Abraham is my favourite piece thus far. I was pleased with the process of expanding that; the length is probably doubled, and where there were no sources, there are now more than 60 cites and a rather comprehensive bibliography. Long-term, I'd like to do this with more articles, but need to work it into my schedule. Along with that, I've enjoyed helping out where I can - on the help desk and editor assistance, offering comments on the admin noticeboards where I could, commenting on AFDs regularly (and saving a number of articles from deletion along the way)... essentially, I enjoy a lot of the work that can be done here, and try to do it when I can.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Mostly I've dealt with basic, garden-variety angry vandals who deface my userpages. Early in my time here, my page was linked to a YTMND-related forum and got a flurry of comments from anons who didn't like my delete opinion in an AFD; that was dealt with through simple page protection. I also sparred a bit with one fellow (pages now deleted) who was convinced his pizza joint had the right to be on Wikipedia because he'd won a court decision against someone else (and earned an indef-block for legal threats). In addition, I was caught up in a lengthy debate with regards to this AFD; I think my posts in the AFD and its surrounding articles, based on guidelines and policy, were pretty cool and collected despite the vehemency of the SPAs and sockpuppets arguing for the articles. That, I think, is my main style - I try to defuse situations rather than inflame them, and when it looks like something is headed for an argument, I have no problem at all with backing off a few steps and asking for outside views.
4. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia?
A: I have not used alternate accounts, and have no intentions of doing so in the future.
5. To what degree have you been involved in the furry WikiProject, and what is your opinion on Wikipedia coverage of what some might describe as the more unsavoury sexual aspects of that particular fandom? I notice on your contribs that you frequently contribute on AfD, do you feel that you could act as an impartial admin on the furcruft articles that frequently come up? Lankiveil (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
A: In all honesty, I could be more active with the project, and hope to have more free time in the late spring for more comprehensive work on articles. As for coverage, I think Wiki does a fairly good job of keeping a neutral view of furry fandom, and that's exactly what should happen. The article Furry fandom, for example, uses a range of media coverage to provide a good explanation of the fandom in general as well as providing a look at the criticism and coverage of the sexual aspects. Despite my personal views on the fandom, the articles here should continue to meet our guidelines for notability, and I've opined that way on AFD in the past - if an article has reliable sources to indicate it meets the guidelines, then I've suggested a keep (as in this AFD fairly early on in my time here where I sought out some sources and rewrote the article to remove the crufty bits, while also trying to keep the discussion from going to heck in a handcart); in other cases, like this more recent discussion, I've suggested other options - a merge, in the example, which was rather against the flow of the discussion. (I also defended the nominator, who it was suggested was making a point with the AFD.) I can't find other AFDs in the furry vein, but I know I've opined on several regarding webcomics that, while I like them, I opined towards delete on because they just didn't meet notability. Lots of verbiage here, but it boils down to: yes, I feel I could act impartially with regards to furry articles when the need arises. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A See question 4 above. =) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 01:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
A: I followed quite a bit of the discussion both before and during that arbitration, so yes, I did have an idea of the results and how they affect BLP issues. BLP is something that I feel we must keep a very close eye on - perhaps because of my career, where it's quite possible that something I print can have a substantial effect on the people involved. Wikipedia is no different; an article here can cause as much harm to the subject as a printed item anywhere else. In the arbitration, the principle set by the ArbCom states that undeletion of an article involving a living person should not be done without consensus, and emphasizes that anyone who wishes to do so must prove that it complies before undeleting. That, to me, suggests that there must be substantial discussion among people who are knowledgeable about the subject before anyone reaches for the undelete button - and the contentious nature of that arbitration proves why, really. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
8. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
A: Well, I sure as heck wouldn't undelete it randomly, that's for sure. I watch ArbCom proceedings regularly, and know just where that kind of approach leads to. In the case of any article of that kind that could prove contentious or problematic under BLP, I would first initiate discussion with the person who deleted it, and find out precisely what their reasoning was for the deletion. If, after discussing it with the original deleter, I still felt that there was a good reason for the undeletion, I would initiate a discussion among other knowledgeable people - quite probably, I'd start a deletion review and leave pointers to the review at the BLP noticeboard and administrators' noticeboard to draw more eyes to the conversation. After laying out my reasons for undeletion, I would debate the merits for and against in those fora, and attempt to form a consensus. If consensus is against the undeletion, then so be it. As mentioned above, consensus is a key part of such undeletions, as per the ArbCom; if there is no consensus, there should be no undeletion. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tony Fox before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support: plenty of edits, anti-vandalism work, no evidence of incivility or arbitrariness - what's not to like? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support like his answers to the questions. I feel like he can be trusted with the tools. Darkspots (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - when I've seen your edits I've always liked the civilness this user demonstrates. I've also been particularly impressed with their HD replies to, sometimes, the strangest of questions we get there. — Rudget Contributions 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Yes! He looks like a great candidate. Redrocketboy 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - why not? :) --VSimonian([talk]-[contribs]-[email]) 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Have seen his work around the place before, contributions check reveals a solid editor and his tone/manner are exactly how we'd expect someone with the mop to conduct themselves. Orderinchaos 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support: I've seen this editor around and been impressed with his maturity and attempts to defuse conflict. I don't see any concerns and I think he'll be an excellent admin. MastCell Talk 20:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Excellent mediator who will make good use of the mop. Master of Puppets Care to share? 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Daniel 22:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    Er, for the little it's worth, upping to strong support for his answer to Q8. Daniel 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Have good luck. Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support as strong editor and vandal-fighter, meeting all my standards. While I am not a "furry", despite my username, I do not hold that against him. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. bibliomaniac15 03:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. I'm Dlohcierekim, and I approve this message. Dlohcierekim —Preceding comment was added at 03:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Great temperament for an admin. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Largely per answer to optional Q5. We need admins to be disinterested, or when they are interested to be impartial. Plenty of the usual bits (XFD, Article Writing etc.), nice civil talk page, no concerns here at all. Pedro :  Chat  10:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Trustworthy for the mop Mbisanz (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. 20th support No concerns here, can be trusted with the admin tools. NHRHS2010 talk 18:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support, per answer to Question 1, and the nom. Great work at Battle of the Plains of Abraham, it's always a good thing to have more Admins who are familiar with what it takes to be a good solid content contributor. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
  22. Support, I am satisfied with the answer to Question 5. Lankiveil (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
  23. Support, I've seen this editors doing often anti-vandal contributions (i.e Quebec article) and Afd discussions, so certainly warrants the mop and bucket.--JForget 18:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support—no concerns; looks like an excellent editor; stays civil. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - No reason not to. -MBK004 02:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Seems fine. Acalamari 02:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support I've seen this fox all over the place, he really seems to know what he's doing and would make a great admin. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Wow I can't believe you aren't an admin Alexfusco5 17:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 22:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support I'm sure you'll do just fine. RMHED (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Seems a fantastic editor and I like his responses to the questions. Jhfireboy Talk 01:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support evidence of good 'pedia building. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Jmlk17 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Great editor! Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 03:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support, yep. No worries here. Neıl ☎ 11:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support - yes, a good set of contibs! Semms like a great Wikipedian. Lradrama 12:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Looks like a good choice. Lawrence Cohen 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Good temperament for an admin, I believe. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. Good, experienced contributor. utcursch | talk 15:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Secret account 20:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. support of course --.snoopy. 22:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support No problems with Tony, a fine candidate. Sarah 02:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Most excellent! Marlith T/C 05:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
[edit] Neutral

#Neutral leaning towards Support, pending answer to question #5 above. (changed to support) Lankiveil (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.