Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tonywalton


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

Tonywalton
[ Final] (38/0/2); Ended 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

– Tony spends a lot of time on NP patrol, often at the same time as me, and appears to be a conscientious and accurate editor/"speedy" lister. It would help the project if he had the sysop capabilities to act rather than list jimfbleak 15:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * I accept the nomination.

After some time on Wikipedia (since July 2005) I've been nominated for adminship by Jimfbleak. Thanks, Jim! I can't see adminship changing my life or, to be honest, the way I edit. As a wise man said, it's not a big deal - or shouldn't be. I hope that all adminship will change is giving me a few more tools to allow me to improve and maintain Wikipedia. That and I hope I can borrow the admin mop and broom occasionally to clean my kitchen floor. Seriously though, being an admin does bear with it more responsibility, both in the use of the tools an in the fact that an admin, in my view, has been around long enough and seen enough of Wikipedia (and Wikipedians) to act responsibly in applying policy (and common sense. I intend to act with that responsibility.

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A:
 * I've noticed WP:CSD backlogs lasting a very long time. While I realise that "speedy" deletion refers to the speediness of the deletion decsion process rather than the deletion itself, large backlogs like this do mean that potentially a large number of extremely poor quality articles, including spam and complete nonsense, are visible to casual readers. I would therefore help with reducing backlogs such as WP:CSD and WP:AIV. I'd also be able to block vandals (after appropriate warning) myself, rather than adding to the AIV backlog. Tonywalton | Talk 12:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A:
 * I tend to be a gnome-like figure. Rather than creating marvellous articles I tag speedyable pages, take part in AfD debates and so on, so it's hard to point to one contribution and say "I did that". I'm quite pleased with my refactoring of the articles referred to on Me Too!, where there was a rather confused situation which I (hopefully) made clearer for someone searching for the TV programme, though that's a very minor contribution in the face of some of the high-quality articles others have created. I'm also happy with the collaboration on Dave Follows worked out, though a cynic could retort that since this came after my nomination for adminship I was working extra hard in order to look good (not, in fact the case). Tonywalton | Talk 12:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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, I have. On almost all occasions I've found that conflicts are resolvable by referring to policy. By this I don't mean wikilawyering, I mean that I've found that when policy is presented and explained ("This is why the policy says XYZ" rather than "Policy says XYZ, so there"). Probably my worst response to a dispute was the situation leading up to this, where a well-timed reminder from DS made me re-think my response. In that case the appropriate response was to leave the matter alone and let someone previously uninvolved handle it. As for future disputes it's not easy to give an answer that covers all cases. Probably the general answer would be "act with less emotion and remember that my POV about a dispute is one POV, and is not necessarily "right". Tonywalton | Talk 12:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 4. Optional Question (posed by User:Ceyockey) A similar question to this was put to me recently: What does WP:IAR mean to you?  Also, could you say something about the distinction between policy and guideline?  The reason I ask is that you've stated "On almost all occasions I've found that conflicts are resolvable by referring to policy".  Thanks. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Ignore All Rules", (though policy) is a statement that if misinterpreted can potentially lead to Wikipedia getting a name as some sort of anarchy. I hope to apply IAR as the essay on common sense advises. Certainly the letter of IAR could be taken to mean "delete anything you want to", however to me it means "keep to the spirit of what Wikipedia is about". On some, reasonably rare, occasions ignoring a rule (even temporarily) can lead to improvement.
 * As for policy versus guidelines, "Policy" to me is something basic and nearly set in stone (I say "nearly" because all policies came from somewhere, so must have evolved over time). Probably if an apparent reason to break policy is good enough, and the argument against policy is strong enough, the policy needs looking at again for a general case. By "policy" here I'm talking about things like WP:NPA or WP:NOR. Pretty much the things that are enumerated in the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Guidelines are somewhat more flexible on a case-by-case basis. As an example take WP:RS. While verifiability is policy, what constitutes a reliable source is not inflexible. Guildelines on notability are notoriously difficult to define, as the WP:N talkpage shows! In a nutshell, policy sets the framework within which Wikipedia operates while guidelines give (as the name suggests) guidance which may, with suitable good reasons, be stepped outside. Tonywalton | Talk 12:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5 Follow-up: What is your opinion of WP:PRO? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * General comments


 * See Tonywalton's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Discussion



Support Oppose
 * 1) Support A very good and conscientous editor who will use the tools well.--Anthony.bradbury 12:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I have no problems in supporting this user. James086Talk 13:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Seen Tony around all over the place. Very good editor, with the right attitude for adminship, i.e. no big deal! Bubba hotep 13:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support has sufficient edits, reasonable enough answers, agree this is no big deal. Addhoc 13:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Supporthas good edits, and we need more backlogging admins it would seem. t  e  h   tennis  man  13:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Suport seems like a competent and trustworthy user who will make a great administrator. TSO1D 14:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support while your wikipedia talk edits are a little on the low side, I think you will be a great admin. &mdash; Seadog 14:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, seems to be a very experienced editor.-- TBC Φ  talk?  14:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak support per lack of WP talk edits. 1400 projectspace edits definitely helps with that. -Amarkov blahedits 14:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Right, I've voted - can I go off to the pub now, too? ;-) (aeropagitica) 16:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Is civil, clear, and consistent with newcomers as well as other editors...even those who become a tad huffy. -Kukini 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support A very good editor. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support looks alright to me.-- danntm T C 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Tizio 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Weak support not that many project talk edits, but that won't keep me from supporting! –The Gr e at Llamamoo? 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Not much project discussion going on, but editing at other talk namespaces makes up for that loss.  Nish kid 64  20:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support This guy will make a great admin... need I say any more?? --SunStar Nettalk 20:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support A good editor who deserves adminship. Sharkface217 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67)talk 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. A good editor with much experience. Rettetast 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support John254 03:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support per nom. Michael 05:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) - crz crztalk 05:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support no problems here, good candidate. ← A NAS  Talk? 12:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Knowledgeable, good communicator.   Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  13:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) I've spent quite a while reading through his past 1500 contribs, and I support. DS 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Fer sure. While I note and understand the concerns raised by Ceyockey below, I can also accept that "Policy to me..." simply refers back to the form of the initial question - "What does this mean to you?" As such it was perfectly understandable, especially since the main thrust of the question was dealing with the policy of IAR, a policy which seems to conflict with every other policy. From that point of view, I don't feel it is too great a problem. Grutness...wha?  11:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support always need more, experienced people at C:CSD. riana_dzasta 11:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Good answers to questions, good wiki-mentality, dedicated user. --Fang Aili talk 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) I think this user has decent common WP:SENSE and would be a good admin. ( Radiant ) 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support M&amp;NCenarius 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Great guy and good editor. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Ter e nce Ong 08:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. Not especially familiar with this editor, but the record looks OK from what I can tell. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 07:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support: No reason to oppose.  s d 3 1 4 1 5   final   exams!  01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Sarah Ewart 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Weak oppose Tonywalton's heart is in the right place and the intentions are good. However, I am concerned about the candidate's loose understanding of policy while noting that conflicts can often be resolved by referring to policy.  The response to my optional question included "By "policy" here I'm talking about things like WP:NPA or WP:NOR. Pretty much the things that are enumerated in the Five Pillars of Wikipedia."  Wikipedia policy isn't a quotatable commodity; it is sharp and delineated by  List of policies.  Yes there is much flexibility in the interpretation of policy and yes policy evolves as it should and must; however, it has a home and a specific definition that shouldn't yield to the interpretation '"Policy" to me is ...'. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony spent some time to speak to me on my talk page. He pointed out correctly that he responded to my question as I asked it and not as I imagined it in my mind - quite fair and thanks for pointing that out.  I'm shifting from 'weak oppose' to 'neutral' based on that as it was the crux of my opposition, the wording of the response and the interpretation I took from it.  Regards and good luck --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral pending answer to question 5. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.