Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Marine 69-71 3


 * This user's previous failed request for adminship, which ended on November 2, 2004, can be found here.

Marine 69-71
final (34/4/3) ending 20:25 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Marine 69-71, or as we are used to calling him, Tony the Marine, is a wonderful editor. Selfless, honest, and not opinionated, Tony has worked on a LOT of articles concerning Puerto Rico, and just recently gotten Military history of Puerto Rico up to Featured Article status. A little over five thousand edits, a considerable amount of time in the 'pedia and a great reputation, Tony is fully deserving of admin status. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:25, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I accept my nomination Tony the Marine

Support
 * 1) Support. I'm honored to be the first to support. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support; Tony is a great editor, and would probably make a great admin as well. Everyking 20:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Very busy wikipedian, to say the least. Antonio King of the Wiki-Jungle Martin 14:24, 24 May, 2005 (MST)
 * 4) * I am afraid to say that this vote might have a conflict of interest as AntonioMarin is Marine 69-71's son. But I'm still supporting him in my note. SYSS Mouse 13:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) ** I don't see any problem with that. Besides, I don't think one vote at this point is going to change the outcome :-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 11:57, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. A very dedicated user, he has created over 250 articles including writing the vast majority of a Featured Article. Adminship should be no big deal, I trust him to use the special things wisely. Rje 22:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Sure. – ugen64 23:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Absolutely -- mav 02:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. (See comments.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support; good editor, mature and civil, and I expect he would use admin powers wisely. Antandrus (talk)  04:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Has been patient and a good contributor since his previous nominations. His disagreements date back to when he was new to Wikipedia and didn't understand how things worked. He knows how to get along now and I'm confident he can be trusted. --Michael Snow 04:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Tony has contributed well-researched and comprehensive articles and engages in friendly, productive discussion.  Acegikmo1 04:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Agree with comments by Mindspillage (below).  SWAdair | Talk  05:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) El_C 07:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I voted for Marine last time, and I have no reason to change my vote this time. Marine is a high-quality editor whose articles on Puerto Rico are a huge asset to Wikipedia.  This user's promotion is long, long overdue. David Cannon 11:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 12:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Quite. &mdash; Dan | Talk 15:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support; I have read other people's comments, and I believe everyone can get better at what they do, I think Tony has done a great job in wikipedia, and I am sure he will do a great job as an admin.Cjrs 79 15:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, but I suggest you sign posts with ~ if you're to be an admin. Andre ( talk ) 19:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Grutness...  wha?  21:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support of course. Neutralitytalk 22:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. He's a great user, and has contributed a lot to articles. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  00:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) support. this user has grown and developed into a hard working, fair editor. Kingturtle 02:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Ambi 08:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support As for temper, there are many fine tempermental admins. I trust that Marine won't abuse his admin powers. Sjakkalle 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. --JuntungWu 15:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Neutral.  Some people I trust are voting in support and I would like to as well.  However, the information presented by the opponents leads me to vote neutral.  PedanticallySpeaking 19:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Was neutral, but I've reconsidered.  PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Give this man a mop! FreplySpang (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Great knowledge, should be a great editor. <> 21:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Edit summaries may be used more. Pavel Vozenilek 23:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. –Hajor 00:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, I actually intended to nominate him myself by now if I hadn't fallen off a bit in my Wikipedia activity. &mdash;Stormie 10:43, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support SYSS Mouse 13:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support -- Stereotek 08:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Suppport. utcursch | talk 13:08, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) To quote myself from last October - "Admin candidates need a balance of work, to show they understand policy and the community."  I see no change after I gave this advice, since his participation in the Wikipedia: space is still quite limited. Show us you're going to help with the important tasks that admins are needed for. -- Netoholic @ 21:20, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
 * 2) Unequivocally. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 21:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely not.  There's no doubt that Marine is a valuable contributor just by the sheer volume of his additions alone.  However, I don't think he has the temperment to be an admin here, frankly.  His interactions with other users leave a lot to be desired, such as when he accused me of being a racist and a vandal over a minor editing dispute.    I'm certainly not the only editor he's had a problem with.  His many biography articles are an important edition to the encyclopedia, but he's also added both parent and subcategories to every one of them, leaving a cluttered mess for someone else to clean up in hundreds of articles.  While I certainly don't expect every admin to be an encyclopedia of rules and policies - I know I'm certainly not - I do expect an admin candidate to be able to use something simple like categories properly and effectively. Gamaliel 04:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) * Hi Gamaliel, you know you are right! I used to get angry at first in the begining, when was that a year ago?  That was because I really didn't understand how Wiki worked.  Yes, I accept that I did call you a racist because I couldn't understand why you insisted in deleting the link "See also: List of Puerto Ricans" from the articles that I wrote and I accept that I was wrong.  When I realized my error I offered to bury the hachet but, you wouldn't settle for anything less then a public apology.  The only mess that you are referring to is that I continued to add the above mentioned link and that's all.  My offer to bury the hachet is still open.  Let bygones be bygones, lets get along like good Wikipedians.  I hope that we can be Wiki-friends.  Tony the Marine
 * 5) **I deleted the link from only one article (Modesto Cartagena), and I did not do it again after the conflict with you. At the time, you alleged that I was following you around removing the link from all the articles you wrote, and you're also doing it now and I don't know why you persist in making this false accusation.  In any case, I still think that the proper thing to have done in that case would have been to apologize for such a preposterous accusation, and I don't think it's too much to demand of administrators here that they be willing to own up to their mistakes. Honestly, what would you think if someone had accused you of being a racist and a vandal?  However, I do not hold any sort of grudge because of this incident and I hope we can get along in the future. I just don't think you would make a suitable admininstrator, sorry.  Gamaliel 17:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) *** I Apologize, I really didn't mean it. Tony the Marine
 * 7) What Gamaliel said. Well-meaning contributor, but not necessarily suitable for adminship. NoPuzzleStranger 13:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Comments
 * 1) When Tony first came on the project, we had a major disagreement that became very heated. Since then, he has settled down to be a good contributor, but I would rather not vote for now.  RickK 22:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I actually was leaning toward Oppose, but I'll wait to see how the evidence presents itself throughout the course of the nomination.  My first experiences with this editor were rather negative, he was extremely territorial about the contents of the List of Puerto Ricans and took any edits to it (namely removals) almost as insults to his national sense of pride.  I'm referring to Talk:List of Puerto Ricans, in which RickK asked a simple question, and Marine responded with a barrage of rhetoric and a demand that he "drop the issue".  I have not had a lot of dealing with the editor since then, so I will wait a little longer to make a support/oppose decision. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears that this was a while ago. Tony has improved a lot since then, and he's been very friendly and helpful towards a multitude of people, including myself. I think Tony has worked towards improving his image ever since those "newcomer gaffs", and I must say that he seems to have gained a lot of ground in that department. Linuxbeak | Desk 22:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to lay my other concerns out here, before I make a judgement either way. Tony's contributions seem very narrow in scope- he seems to exclusively edit articles related to Puerto Rico, and he does very little in the way of Wikipedia policy or community work.  The few edits I see to Wikipedia namespace involve a few random RFAs and the FAC for his article on the Military History of Puerto Rico.  The user seems to almost always take editing conflicts up directly with another editor instead of asking for community opinion on the talk page of the article, which I find to be a rather odd practice, and unsettling for two reasons: 1) in the realm of cyberspace, direct communication can seem a little hostile and 2) he should be asking about these potential changes to the community, not to a specific editor.  It also bothers me that the editor has been here for such a long time and still doesn't date his posts, which makes it that much more difficult to follow discussions.  As the user does not do any administrative work, such as deletion, etc, he obviously doesn't need admin rights for that; and I've gone through a few pages of this User's contributions to see if I think he would use rollback responsibly and effectively.  The narrow scope of the edits, again, makes it difficult for me to guage.  I certainly think that the user is a valuable contributor to the realm that he deals with, and I'm sure he will continue to do so; I just fail to see anything in his contribution history that requires admin rights of any sort.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Although the high level of industry inclines me to support, the low level of community involvement pulls the other way. I will abstain from this but would expect to support a future request. --Theo  (Talk) 13:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * According to kate's tool, Marine 69-71 has a total of 5167 edits. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Previous nominations in June 2004 and October 2004. --Michael Snow 21:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * For those wanting more edit count details: Articles 4508/36, User 200/337, Wikipedia 62/0, Template 1/5, Category 19/0. Kelly Martin 21:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony has relatively few contributions to Wikipedia space. But seeing him around the wiki it seems that he goes out of his way to treat others with respect and kindness, to contribute valuable information to the encyclopedia, and to learn from his mistakes with good grace. Thus, I support his request for adminship if he wants it, even if he only uses it once in a while; I believe from his interactions that he is familiar with policy even if he chooses not to shape it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:29, 25 May 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 would like to be more involved fighting vandals and solving disputes.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I have two, Puerto Ricans in NASA and the featured areticle Military history of Puerto Rico especially the latter,not because I created it but, because of the contributions made by other Wikipedians which exemplifies what Wikipedia is all about.
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A. All minor edit conflicts (A long time ago) were solved in a friendly and civilized manner (Through dialogue).