Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/TonyBallioni

Ooh :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI
Just as an FYI, I reverted a good faith post by another user at WT:NPR letting people know about this, because I don't want there to be anything that looks like canvassing. Just noting it here for the record. If someone thinks it'd be better on the general comments, feel free to move it there. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose #2
Discussion moved to talk page.
 * 1) Oppose The candidate unilaterally moves articles from mainspace to draft space. Due to WP:G13, this is likely to result in articles being deleted without proper consideration or discussion.  That's bad enough but notice how this works out in some recent examples – Leeds Freedom Bridge and Old Catholic Church in Poland.  In both cases, these pages have no sources.  In neither case, does the candidate find and add a source, even though this seems quite feasible.  Instead, in the first case, the page is consigned to the purgatory of draft space without any discussion.  The second case seems similar but, in this case, the notability tag is removed and the page is left in mainspace without sources.  The topic getting the more favourable treatment is a branch of the Catholic church – a particular interest of the candidate.  This does not seem to be the even-handed treatment one would expect from an admin. Andrew D. (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * notified the original author of, so it can hardly be said to be somehow exiling their efforts from the project. Furthermore,  managed to somehow find it and  , so describing draft space as purgatory is, at best, overblown hyperbole.  To pick out a mere two articles from a large body of new article reviews, ones where Tony appeared to go out of his way to retain the articles instead of immediately PROD'ing them or CSD'ing them even, is only evidence that anyone can take edits out of context and then mis-characterize them to support a preconception.  To call these edits evidence of bias is evidence-free fantabulizing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As usual, your fantasy-filled pseudo-troll-like !voting-ventures at RfA continues. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 07:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you discussed your concerns with, author of User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, which is the script Tony uses to prevent new articles from being prematurely deleted? Additionally, Old Catholic Church in Poland has never been in draft space; I can see no deleted page titled Draft:Old Catholic Church in Poland. "In neither case, does the candidate find and add a source, even though this seems quite feasible." and yet you failed to do so; I can find a source, but identifying where to place it to verify a fact in an article on a topic I know nothing about is a different matter. In any case, none of this has anything to do with being a Wikipedia administrator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) I know that Old Catholic Church in Poland was not moved to draft space. That was my point – to contrast what the candidate didn't do in that case with the treatment given to other, less-favoured topics, such as the gay bridge.  The fact that those other topics were given the bum's rush using a script doesn't make it any better.  Note that Ritchie's ping didn't work in this case; it seems be broken as I've noticed another ping failure elsewhere today.  The more complex we make Wikipedia, the less open and accessible it becomes and draft space is a complication that we don't need.  The candidate will be able to push this creep even harder as an admin and so this status is relevant. Andrew D. (talk) 07:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I was almost having bets with some people about when you would show up with one of your contrived oppose votes. Do you really think such a vote will make any difference at this stage even if it were legitimate. It's just a revenge vote about losing an argument with with the candidate. Are you even aware that the Old Catholic Church is a schismatic group and not a part of the Catholic Church? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are several schismatic groups by that name; it should really be a disambiguation page. Andrew D. (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've argued with Tony and other patrollers about this issue on several occasions, and did consider bringing it up here. I decided not to because at the end of the day there is a consensus at NPP that these moves to draft are appropriate and, as much as you or I might disagree with it, I do not think you can fault Tony for doing something that has become standard practice. If the community had expressed their objection to unilateral drafifying it would be another matter – but they haven't. Also, for the record, is one of the (few) other editors that have brought up this issue―starting an RfC about it―and yet he has co-nominated Tony for adminship. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Precicely Whatever my personal opinions about it, I cannot fault Tony for following consensus and that should not be a reason to oppose him. From all I have seen in the past, assuming that Tony did not look for sources before moving the article seems a far-fetched assumption. Andrew's problem seems not to be with the candidate but with the practice itself and while I, too, strongly disagree that draft space should become a limbo for anything someone deems unworthy, one has to accept that there is no consensus to change that. What many people - prominently and including Tony - have argued for is a guideline for such moves to draftspace to be created and I think this is what we should concentrate on. But this is hardly the right place to discuss it. Regards  So  Why  08:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Far-fetched? Not at all.  Consider  Wilhelmina van Idsinga, for example.  It's quite easy to find sources for this respectable artist.  And when the candidate unilaterally pushed this stub into draft space, it already contained a link to the equivalent article in the Dutch Wikipedia which listed several good sources such as this.  It seems apparent that the candidate was just using that script in a mechanical way without making any effort to understand or improve the content.  They didn't leave a redirect behind and so this was stealth deletion which seems quite unacceptable for such a topic.  The candidate's power to disrupt good-faith content should be restricted rather than enhanced. Andrew D. (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strange, I thought WP:CNR 1.5 is preferred when it comes to WP:R2. Wilhelmina van Idsinga was tagged by Reviewer #1 at 20:14, 28 September 2017, moved to draft space by Tony for incubation (the consensus method) on‎ 05:22, 30 September 2017‎, declined submission by Reviewer #2 at 15:01, before being accepted by Reviewer #3 back to mainspace at 21:25 all on the very same day. To distort an excellent example of article vetting process into "power to disrupt good-faith content" is beyond my comprehension. This reminds me of a famous Chinese proverb: If you want to find fault with someone, there is no need to worry about finding a suitable pretext. Alex ShihTalk 12:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Since Tony is not (yet) an admin, accusing him of "stealth deletion" is wide of the mark since he cannot do that. Go rag on the admins who unilaterally delete drafts per G13 without looking at them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not leaving a redirect behind makes it deletion. This then results in forks when the topic is recreated in main space, as in the case of the Google Pixelbook.  That's yet another notable topic – I'm thinking of buying one myself.  The candidate adds no value in such cases; just confusion. Andrew D. (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How is opposing his RfA going to stop him doing that? Perhaps you'd like to indef block him for disruptive editing? Anyway, I fixed up Google Pixelbook, added enough sources to make it pass WP:GNG and put it in mainspace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , You've been the resident opposer on RfA for years right back to your days as Colonel Warden. You appear to have have an agenda and it's nothing to  do with any  one particular admin.  I fail to understand why  you  seem to insist on maintaining RfA  as the uninviting venue Wales described as a horrible and broken process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "a horrible and broken process" was a reference to this RfA. Kudpung was one of the opposers then while I made no comment.  Jimmy Wales was therefore not talking about me in that case. Andrew D. (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you put yourself up for adminship, Andrew, or are you chicken? (This is a serious point; you do loads of good content work and have a firm grasp on policy, or at least understand why it's used, so why not give it a go?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , nobody said Wales was talking about you. It was about RfA in general and your systematic opposing of RfAs is part and parcel of the reason for his comment and why RfA still needs a lot of slum clearance today if we are to attract candidates of the right calibre. Yes I opposed 's RfA, but so did a lot of other admins, and mine was one of the more objective votes. Furthermore, it wasn't an RfA that was certain to pass that needed any contrived opposes to break the magic.  I encourage you to accept 's challenge and run yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The main point about the RfA for John Cline/MyStrat76 was surely that there were so many opposes that it was unsuccessful. The user took this badly, resigned and Jimmy Wales was trying to persuade him to stay.  The outcome was that he did stay and is still active.  In fact, notice that John Cline himself asked a controversial question at the recent RfA for Megalibrarygirl.  Now, such opposes and hostile questions wouldn't bother me as I am accustomed to being challenged and criticised.  The main reason I haven't stood at RfA is because no-one has nominated me.  I have always agreed with those who say that a wannabe userbox or self-nomination is poor form – a sign of immodest self-aggrandisement. Andrew D. (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is going to be my only comment in this whole thread, because I really didn't want to take part in the RfA drama, but I do think its worth making since the pixelbook and Wilhelmina van Idsinga are both good questions raised by Andrew, and I think its important for NPP people to be accountable for their decisions just like admins are.You'll notice on the Pixelbook that it was created the day it was announced with no sourcing. I moved to draft and notified the user of it because having an unsourced stub on an as of yet unreleased product that was literally announced in the hours before would better for draft space where they could develop it before it was PRODed by someone else. Wilhelmina van Idsinga I sent to draft space in a very specific case: the editor who had created it had been having some issues with the content they both accepted in NPP/AfC and content they had created. I was reviewing some of their work in an attempt to help them grow as an editor and immediately left a note letting them know that they did not need to use the AfC process . TonyBallioni (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ritchie has now rescued the Google Pixelbook page from draft space. He added sources and wikified the content so that the page is looking better.  That's the sort of constructive action which gets my support.  Megalibrarygirl does a lot of this and that's why I supported her recent RfA.   That was successful and it looks like TonyBallioni will be successful too.  But this is just the start – the real test is how they then discharge those admin duties.  Let's hope that goes well too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)