Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyBallioni

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

TonyBallioni

Final (224/3/2); Closed as successful by — xaosflux ^Talk at 14:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) – I am pleased to nominate TonyBallioni for adminship. I've had the privilege of working with him over the past six months or so at various venues, and have grown to appreciate the collegial spirit, sound input and judgement that he brings to table. My primary interactions with him were surrounding new pages patrol, where he has in my opinion shown superb leadership. Especially in the weeks leading up to WP:ACTRIAL, he stood out to me as someone who passionately cared about the project in protecting his beliefs, but was willing to work with all parties in such a way as to not escalate tension, and even suppress it. In fact he and I don't always see eye to eye, but he always has a way of politely expressing his sentiments. Reviewing his talk page and participation at WT:NPR, it's easy to see that it is his kind, courteous and helpful demeanor that makes him such a pleasure to work with, especially with new users. This is the type of admin I'd like to see more of, but his qualifications go well-beyond composure and civility.

I invite the community to congratulate TonyBallioni on his decade-long tenure, a milestone that he reached on October 7. During this time he has had various periods of activity, but has shown continuous dedication to the project over the past 14 months. Credited with seven good articles and 15 DYKs, TonyBallioni has a lot of experience with content building, which I think plays into why he is such a model patroller. I also find his participation and accuracy at AfD to be impressive, with over 900 AfDs total, and of the past 200, 91% matching the result. For this reason I wouldn't hesitate to give him the delete button, though he nobly has expressed to me he does not have a particular interest in deletion, instead favouring second opinions.

One of the most admin-worthy areas of his focus is dealing with copyright violations. I feel this genre of work does not receive enough attention, so it seems only natural that he should be able to take appropriate action himself rather than offloading it to administrative backlogs. Should he become comfortable in doing so, I think he is fully qualified to handle G12's himself, as evidenced by his CSD log. He is also one of the top 10 users of CopyPatrol, further validating his dedication to this area.

Overall I think his positive influence, level-headedness, and well-defined administrative interests make him a great candidate. I look forward to hearing the community's opinion, and hope you will agree that giving TonyBallioni the tools would prove to be much more than a net-positive — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination by SoWhy

I’m happy to co-nominate a user who has shown that he is knowledgeable and possessing the right temperament for an admin and who is always friendly and helpful in any situation I have seen him in. Tony has proven time and time again that he is an extremely clueful editor whose patience and ability to focus on the matter at hand even when things get heated are virtually unmatched. Moreover, he is also a skilled content contributor and saver.

Some people might be surprised to see my name in this section. After all, when Tony and I participate in a discussion, we often find ourselves on different sides (example) and he holds some views that are radically opposed to mine which is often quite annoying. So why (no pun intended) am I co-nominating this user for adminship? Because despite all our differences, I honestly believe Tony will be a great asset as an admin for all the reasons I mentioned above and because I am convinced that he will not misuse the tools to further any agenda or use them to delete/block/protect against consensus, even if he (strongly) disagrees with it. So no matter the wikiphilosophy, I think we can all agree that this user - who merges content creation, new page patrolling and helpful discussion participation without any apparent effort - is a great candidate for the mop. Regards SoWhy 06:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'd like to thank MusikAnimal and SoWhy for their kind words. I accept their nomination. I'd also like to disclose that 10 years ago I had another account as a minor, which I abandoned for real life privacy reasons. This account has been disclosed to ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: The two areas I would probably be most active in as an administrator would be with text copyright violation revdels and with PERM requests. I come across a fair amount of copyright violations in my work with new pages and also some older longstanding violations. The ability to revision delete rather than using the template or requesting it directly from an admin would be helpful, and I'd also be able to work on pages others have tagged with the template. In working with new pages, I also deal with a fair amount of oversight requests, and having the ability to revision delete private information pending attention by an oversighter would help protect individuals.

I already do a lot of work answering questions from users who are new to using some of the unbundled rights, especially with my work at WT:NPR but also with the page mover right. I think I have a decent grasp on how the rights are used, and would be able to help process PERM requests. I believe unbundled permissions often help users feel a sense of ownership in the project and are helpful in areas where we need more help dealing with backlogs.

I'd also continue to help out with closing requested moves, and the ability to execute a move when an article has been move protected and to perform G6 deletions in some complicated cases would definitely come in handy there.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm proud of the work I've done improving the coverage of early modern papal conclaves: I have six GAs so far there, and am working towards turning the 17th century papal conclaves into a good topic. They're important historical events that are actually quite entertaining to read about (in my opinion), so working there has been a very enjoyable project.

I've also done a lot with NPP. I've worked to make the newsletter for that project, try to answer questions as best I can at WT:NPR, and participated heavily in the implementation of ACTRIAL, where I tried to do my best to work towards a positive outcome for everyone despite the tensions that existed between the WMF and the community.

My work in NPP also includes finding gems in the rough like Mariano Gagnon, which I worked with CaroleHenson to bring to GA status after finding it in the new pages feed like this, and articles like Tallinn Central Library, which I brought to DYK after it was A7ed. I believe very strongly in countering systemic biases on Wikipedia, and part of that comes with educating people new to NPP on what to look for in an article that suggests it might be notable even if it doesn't look so at the time.

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: I'm very involved in policy discussions and with my work in NPP have participated in a fair amount of contentious AfDs. I always try to assume good faith on the part of the other person, but also have the unfortunate tendency to be long-winded. I genuinely view every discussion on Wikipedia as that, a discussion, and think that the back and forth is important part of reaching consensus. At the same time, it is important to realize when you as a person are getting in the way of the actual discussion, and take a step back. I try to do this, but I'm sure there are times where I haven't followed my own advice.

One occasion that I remember was during the deletion discussion on Elijah Daniel, I opened an ANI report on the conduct of another user. It was resolved quickly, and we moved to the talk page to deal with a content dispute, where we were able to come to a compromise within 24 hours. In the future, I would be more likely to avoid ANI in a similar situations: AfDs and similar discussions are stressful, and I don't think I've ever seen an ANI or content dispute get resolved when one is ongoing.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Ivanvector

4. Please briefly explain whether any of these short unreferenced article fragments are making a credible claim of significance:

BLP note: names below were randomly generated; any similarity to real persons is unintended.

a) Remigio Kumar is the coolest guy! He won all the sports awards at my school.

b) My dog Pickles held the world record for the highest jump by a dog under 15kg, but then he lost it to our neighbour's dog Joe.

c) Route 1 is the longest paved road in Canada, that's why they called it Route 1. Route 2 is way shorter.

d) Lady Reagan Harley is the former mayor of Norton-on-Derwent, serving from 1996 to 2001.

A:

a) It depends on the context of the rest of the article. It could be a credible claim of significance if the school was a post-secondary institution. If it was a secondary institution it would also depend on what the claimed awards were: if these were national awards or some other major sports award for youth. On its own, I don't think the statement is a claim of significance, but I would likely do a search first before acting on anything, both as an admin and as a new page reviewer.

b) It is definitely a claim to significance because of the Wikilinks: one to Guinness Book of World Records and the link to Joe, who is a notable animal. Again, the context of the rest of the article would help to determine whether it was credible or not, but on its face this fragment is a credible claim of significance.

c) Yes. Highways are typically considered notable, and the claim to being the longest road in Canada is a claim to significance.

d) Yes. I am unsure for that specific area as to the status of its mayor, but I would consider being a mayor a claim to significance, not least of which because even if it was a ceremonial position there is likely to be coverage in reliable sources.

Additional question from Lourdes

5. As an admin, if you were given the task of re-closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pannonian Romance, how would you do it? Additionally, after you close the Afd, if an editor were to ignore your close – as happened in the particular Afd – and choose their own preferred redirect target, what would be the administrative action you would take, if any? (I've already supported you; the query is to simply understand your assessment skills). Thanks.

A: Reading it through, I would likely close as no consensus. There wasn't a consensus to delete the article, and the IP gave the best argument in terms of sourcing, so it became a question of whether it should have a full article or be redirected, with no clear redirect target amongst those who wanted to redirect. The AfD had already been relisted four times, so an additional relist would have been unlikely to help, and AfD is not needed for a merger conversation. I would have recommended that someone take the conversation to the article talk page if they felt a redirect or merge was needed. I'd personally have felt uncomfortable choosing a redirect target if I had closed it, but if I had, I wouldn't have objected to retargeting in that instance, especially if someone had contacted me and laid out a case for why I chose the wrong target based on the conversation.

Additional question from Aiken drum

6. Did you ever edit with another account or IP address prior to creating this account? Your earliest edits suggest you were highly knowledgeable about Wikipedia from the beginning.

A: Yes. Like I said in my acceptance, as a minor I had another account. I abandoned it due to concerns about real life privacy issues that I wasn't aware of when I first registered as a young teenager. The account is declared ArbCom.

Additional question from There'sNoTime

7. As a new administrator you receive a Wikipedia email from established editor "User:X" complaining that "User:Y" has been following their contributions and reverting some of them after they recently had a heated disagreement. Often these reverts have no edit summary, and "User:Y" doesn't respond to any talk page messages about it. How would you begin to deal with this?

A:Tricky situation. It would depend on the severity of the issue and if there were other factors in play. If I examined the edits, and didn't see much, I would say as much in reply, but would also point out that I'm not the one who felt like they were being hounded, and suggest that if they still felt that way they might ask another neutral user who they trusted their thoughts. If the situation seemed like it did have merit and didn't have any privacy issues, I would advise the user of the possible dispute resolution venues/noticeboards (notably AN and ANI if it rose to that level). If there were privacy concerns with the harassment, I would advise the user to email a functionary or the arbitration committee.

Additional question from Alex Shih

8. Hello Tony, this is a hypothetical question about WP:PERM. You have just assigned an established editor with user rights to (let's say, page mover). Several editors came to you immediately after and contests your decision. How would you respond to this situation?

A: Hi Alex, thanks for your question. As always, it depends on the circumstances (which people are going to get tired of hearing before the end of this RfA, but its true). Most of the unbundled rights have pretty clear revocation criteria. In the case of page movers it is at WP:PMRR. Page mover is one of the more sensitive rights because it de facto allows a user to perform G6 deletions, so any violation of those criteria so quickly after a new user was granted the right would be cause for concern. If it was just an inexperience problem and there wasn't a reason for revocation, I would take the criticism on board in the future, reach out to the user to make sure they were aware of the concerns, but would not revoke because the criteria were not met.

Additional question from BU Rob13

9. Suppose you are an admin. You notice a new page reviewer (NPR for short) has been making several mistakes lately, including incorrect CSD tagging, moving improper drafts to mainspace, and biting newcomers. You look on NPR's talk page and see that multiple editors have tried to address the issues with no success. NPR either brushes them off, argues with them, or explains away their actions as rare mistakes. What do you do?

A: If they were a new user without the NPR flag, I would likely leave them a note pointing other areas of the encyclopedia to try first in terms of maintenance such as working in the February 2009 orphan backlog or recent changes, and encouraging them to apply for the new page reviewer user permission after they have more experience. If they are a new page reviewer it would be a bit more complicated. I'm only aware of the right being revoked from an active user 5 times (though there could be more I am unaware of), and 4 of those 5 times it was eventually restored, and one of those times is currently part of the open ArbCom case.

Because of this, I would approach the situation cautiously at first and encourage the user to focus on areas in reviewing that they feel comfortable with by using tools such as the NPP Browser. At the same time, I'd make clear that if the reviewing was causing more disruption than it was helping, the right could be revoked to make it easier for other reviewers to check the work. If I did ever revoke the user right it would be based upon the criteria at WP:NPR and as a last resort. I would also make it clear that I would be open to restoring it if the user showed improvement. I think it is important for any admin action in this area to always be looking forward towards helping build a better encyclopedia, and that means working with users to grow in areas where they are currently having difficulties, even if it does require removing a technical right for a period of time.

Additional question from Smartyllama

10. Which of the following hypothetical articles, reproduced in their entirety, would qualify for speedy deletion, and on what grounds? What alternatives to deletion, if any, should be considered? Rather than use placeholder names which can cause issues with identifying certain speedy criteria, I'll redact the name in certain cases.

a) Bob Smith was King of England from 1271-1292 before being assassinated by the Romans.

b) The Binghampton Mets were a baseball team.

c) King Paulus XV was King of Saintland before he was assassinated and succeeded to the throne by his son, Paulus XX.

d) The doughnut gun is a gun that shoots doughnuts. I invented it. It is great.

e) [Possible BLP name Redacted] is a professor of mathematics at the University of Connecticut.

f) [Possible BLP name Redacted] is a professor of Cheese Studies at Northern Connecticut State University.

A: Thanks for the question. I'm unclear on some of the non-BLPs as to if you added placeholder names, so I'll explain my reasoning for each one, because I think that would be clearer:

a) Could be G3 as a hoax because we know with historical certainty that Henry III of England and Edward I of England were the English kings at that time. Otherwise, if its just a placeholder, being King of England is an obvious claim of significance. As a new page reviewer the best option would be to find a source and format it properly and leave a note on the user's talk page.

b) Doesn't make this clear if it is a professional, semi-professional, or amateur team, which would be important to determining if there was a credible claim of significance. Alternatives to deletion in this case would be to google to confirm the location/team status, and if not notable, consider a redirect to Binghamton, New York. The other option if it is likely to be developed into an article is to draftify it so the author can develop it without fear of it being tagged for deletion inappropriately.

c) Assuming these are hypothetical real places, being a monarch is an obvious claim of significance, and none of the other speedy criteria apply.

d) Only one that is clearly CSD worthy: CSD A11 would apply.

e) Being a professor at a research university is a clear claim of significance, especially if they hold the full professor rank (which this article implies). They would need assessment under WP:PROF, which would require either PROD or AfD, so CSD would not be applicable. This is also working on the assumption that the BLP is sourced. Otherwise, it would need to be tagged with BLP PROD or immediately referenced.

f) Not sure if the Cheese Studies (or the University) is something that you made up as a placeholder. Under the assumption that they are placeholders, and that the claim is a full professorship, see above. Full professors have a significant likelihood of passing PROF, so they should be evaluated at AfD if notability is in question.

Well, I did say they weren't placeholders. Is there a reason you wouldn't redirect the baseball article to Binghamton Rumble Ponies, the new name of the team formerly known as the Binghamton (note correct spelling) Mets? It's worth noting that the correctly spelled Binghamton Mets already redirects to the Rumble Ponies. Or were you just not aware of their existence? I'm somewhat concerned by this lack of research before acting, and hope that you would actually bother with a simple Google search in a real-world situation. Smartyllama (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it was unclear to me whether or not you were referencing non-placeholders outside of the BLP question, which is why I gave a longer explanation. In the case that the Mets example you gave above was an actual name and not a placeholder, then yes, absolutely, you are correct: redirecting it to the successor team would be the appropriate outcome, which would have been the result of the WP:BEFORE work I was describing in that answer, which includes a Google search and also looking at all the options available in WP:ATD. This would also likely be an appropriate redirect because it matches the redirect at Binghampton, which points to Binghamton, which makes me think it would be a plausible search term for the Rumble Ponies. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional questions from Northamerica1000

11a. Per your AfD stats results, I noticed that you tend to !vote for deletion in deletion discussions (in 73.5% out of 500 AfD discussions as of this post, and 1.9% for speedy deletion). Do you consider yourself to be a "deletionist"?

A: No. I think a lot of that number is due to my work at NPP where you are going to have a lot of AfD nominations, especially before ACTRIAL. On the flip side, I think that I've frustrated a lot of "deletionist"-minded editors because I am such a loud advocate for the importance of SNGs in determining notability at AfD, especially in cases where the subject is from a non-Anglophone region. The two articles I mentioned in Question 2 Mariano Gagnon and Tallinn Central Library I think are good examples of articles that would have been at risk for deletion (and one was deleted) because they were about subjects outside North America and the UK, but where I worked to get them up to standards so that they wouldn't be at risk.

11b. What is your opinion about WP:BEFORE?

A: I think it's the most important part of the deletion process. In my work at NPP I've had to encourage newer editors to spend more time doing it. I always perform a BEFORE search myself using multiple search terms and methods, and am key to remember guidelines such as WP:NPOSSIBLE, which is needed if you are dealing with a subject that from the claims seems to be notable but because of language issues you might not come up with sourcing you can understand outside of the article. Considering ATD is also a key part of BEFORE, and something I try to do every time.

Additional question from Lankiveil

12. How do you feel about this AFD discussion? Do you think that the "delete" closure was correct in this situation, or should the article have been retained?

A: I supported overturning to no consensus in the deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 17). I disagree with the idea that all Wikipedia policies and guidelines are clear: they are often in tension and the purpose of local consensus is to determine how to deal with these tensions in line with established policies and guidelines and the principles of the encyclopedia. In this case, I don't think a local consensus developed either way, and there were strong arguments on both sides that had basis in WP:N

If you are asking how I would have closed the AfD if I was an admin or how I would have voted, the answer is that I wouldn't have done either. As I mentioned above in my answer to Northamerica1000, I've been pretty vocal in my strong support for SNGs, and if I were to have closed that discussion it could have looked like I was abusing my position as an admin to further my view of what consensus should be. That would be inappropriate, because even if I did not have the intent of doing so, that appearance would undermine the trust the community would have put in me. In cases like this, I would much rather !vote and express my views than close with the possibility of being unduly influenced by them, but in this specific case, I wouldn't have because I wouldn't consider myself familiar enough with cricket to make an informed argument.

Additional question from Hawkeye7

13. In that case, how do you feel about this AFD discussion in which an article was deleted under WP:NOT? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A: I'd likely have commented suggesting either a redirect or merge per WP:ATD since I think that would have been a reasonable outcome and it wasn't brought up as much as it could have been. Like MusikAnimal briefly mentioned in his nomination statement, I don't have a strong desire to work in areas like AfD because generally I would prefer to comment to help clarify consensus.

Additional questions from George Ho

14. One requested move was closed by someone else as moved from "Amazon.com" to "Amazon (company)". How would you have closed the discussion?

A: I see a weak consensus to move, but a no consensus close also could have been justified. If this went to a move review, it would likely be endorsed as being within the closer's discretion. The closing rationale provided by the closer could reasonably be interpreted as saying that there was a general consensus for a move, but no specific consensus for a title, and that in those circumstances it falls on the closer to pick the title they feel most in line with the naming conventions and the move discussion (see WP:THREEOUTCOMES). If I were closing I would have made clear that it was a weak consensus for a move, but that I felt one did exist, and that it would be reasonable to continue the conversation after a few months if people were not satisfied with the title.

15. With ACTRIAL ongoing, a huge backlog of AfC submissions, and drama about articles involving current events, what is your current stance on article creation?

A: My position is that we should wait until the end of ACTRIAL in March 2018 before making any major systemic changes to the way Wikipedia handles the creation of new content. At that point we will the empirical data from 6 months of the trial and the 1 month off of the trial so we can make an informed decision on how we as a community want to handle new article creation moving forward.

Discussion

• Links for TonyBallioni: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for TonyBallioni can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Not a jerk, has clue. Superb work in helping to get ACTRIAL off the ground. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
2. About bloody time! For the benefit of doubt here's an extended rationale: AfD stats are almost immaculate, accurate work at NPP shows a good understanding of rules on tagging and speedy deletion and clearly a team player as evidenced by his work on ACTRIAL. No qualms whatsoever. DrStrauss talk 13:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support as co-nom. Regards SoWhy 12:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support - Support^support Fantastic candidate. Active absolutely everywhere, and an asset everywhere they're active. GMG^talk 13:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support. I was very pleased to see this one in the making, and I strongly support Tony for all the reasons covered by the nominators. I've found Tony to be very knowledgeable, very helpful, and of a most acceptable temperament. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support I know it's a cliché but I really did think he was one already. Clear net positive.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Support. Saw this get transcribed on my watchlist and was pleasantly surprised. I've seen Tony around quite a bit and I think he has the right temperament and clue to fit the role perfectly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
8. Weak Support I have some slight worries reguarding his AFDs otherwise good editor. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
9. Of course he should be an Admin. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
10. Support Clear Net positive started editing in 2007 experienced and well versed in policy good work in copyright investigation and AFD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
11. Support Tony's skillset would be an asset to the admin team. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
12. Support Long overdue. Reyk _YO! 13:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
13. Support precious. I understand that Tony doesn't to block much, and trust that if he would he'd talk before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
14. Support - FINALLY! Tony has a great temperament, and is already the unofficial coordinator of NPP, so this shouldn't be too big of a deal. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 13:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
15. Support. I am really pleased to see this and if I had known it would be coming I would probably have been up there as the nominator. I once mentioned jokingly to him not so long ago that he should be an admin - his reply was 'Nah! I have seen the incredible hard work Tony has been putting into some burning issues since he has had more time to dedicate to Wikipedia, especially how he stepped into NPP after my quasi retirement from it, picked up the pieces and became its new de facto coordinator. His extremely delicate manner of handling some contentious issues, particularly when taming contumacious newbies who begin their Wikicareer by Wikilawyering and harassing the old hands. His knowledge of most policies and guidelines is second to none, and a solid content contributor to boot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

    Like "contumacious" -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

    Like Learning new vocabularies everyday! Alex Shih^Talk 03:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

16. Support, based on review; good GA work, good DYK work; was basically inactive for a few years, but has come roaring back into the thick of things. Kierzek (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
17. Support - no issues. Patient Zero^talk 13:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
18. Support. Editing history suggests that he would not abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC) (And, yes, he looks like he'd make an excellent admin. But that's beside the point. Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC))
19. Support Had no idea Tony had such a wide array of experience. My review, the noms, Kudpung above, well, they're absolutely spot on. Lourdes 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
20. (edit conflict) – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
21. Support - Genuinely thought he was already an admin. Kosack (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
22. I thought he was one^TM bd2412 T 13:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
23. Support Solid work on every front - no hesitation in supporting. Cabayi (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
24. Strong support I have every confidence that this candidate knows what being an admin is all about, and that he would do the job well (I believe this called 'having a clue'). The candidate has solid experience with making viable content and solid experience in dealing with problems on AfD and I am glad someone managed to get him into an RfA. (I asked him myself recently and he was rather neutral on it, a good sign that he is not a 'grabby' hat collector, but a genuine useful contributor). He has worked on ACTRIAL, and with NPP where he an active contributor, showing clear knowledge and depth of ability. In short I would like to see TonyBalloni join the administration team, he would be a great net benefit. Dysklyver 14:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
25. Support An outstanding editor with lots of CLUE and good temperament. I have worked with Tony on a number of occasions and the experience always left me very impressed with this editor. I think we can break out the cigars... we have a winner here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
26. Support Tony has the right disposition for adminship, a thoughtful editor with good communication and technical skills. Thank you for running, Tony. Mduvekot (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

    I only had a brief, but lasting impression of Tony. I think he is safe to support. Samsara 14:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

    Withdrawn in disgust over yet another oppose !voter being bullied. This has to stop. Samsara 10:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

    But isn't that unfair to Tony?Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

27. Strong support: In my opinion TonyBallioni is a born administrator, in terms of both temperament and understanding of policy. I first became acquainted with him about six months ago, when I collaborated with him to create or rescue several articles. I was greatly impressed by his knowledge of WP policy (sometimes surpassing mine) and his pleasant, easy-to-work-with style. He understands deletion well and has experience in most admin areas. He meets all my criteria for RfA. I trust him with the tools and feel he would be an outstanding administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
28. Support Among the strongest candidates I have seen here. A superb diplomat – see his role in the discussions leading up to ACTRIAL. (Would he accept a nomination for British Foreign Secretary as well?): Noyster (talk), 14:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
29. Support Will be a useful addition to the admin corps.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
30. Support - Knowledgeable with policies, level-headed, No ref flags, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 14:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
31. Support Truly an "administrator without tools", TonyBallioni personifies the expectations we should hold of administrator candidates - they are kind and considerate, contribute greatly to both content and maintenance and has a serious dose of clue. I look forward to working with them -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
32. Support Good stuff. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
33. Support If MusikAnimal supports them, then I will gladly give a +1...TJH2018talk 15:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
34. Support Tony is the epitome of civility. The model administrator that we can all look up, intelligent and kind. Alex Shih^Talk 15:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
35. Support per nominators and Kudpung. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
36. Suport--Fantastic candidate.Is the epitome of civility and diplomacy in the project.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
37. Support. Tony is a great asset to WP:NPP, an area of the project which I think could use more attention from administrators. I'm happy to find out he is also an excellent all-round editor, so I have no qualms at all about supporting. – Joe (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
38. Strong Support - Tony has been a great asset to the community and can frequently be found at WP:NPP and helping other users. I've had many interactions with him and found him to be very competent, level headed and fair. He's experienced in content issues, dispute resolution, deletion protocol and he will make a great administrator. -- Dane ^talk 16:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
39. Support - Yes, please. Competent editor with a use for the sysop bit. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
40. Suport The most clueful candidate I've seen in a long time. That in itself should be enough, but I've also been impressed by Tony's maturity in debate and level-headedness. He'll be an excellent admin. --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
41. Support: TBH, I thought Tony was an admin already. I've noticed his username quite a lot recently, and every time it's because he has said something clueful, or done something which is clearly helpful. And his answers to the questions so far are sensible. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
42. Support - Excellent record. Will be an asset as an admin. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
43. Support with enthusiasm based on previous observations of the candidate. --joe decker^talk 16:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
44. Support, I've been impressed with the thoughtfulness and demeanor of the candidate, and believe they would make good use of the tools. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
45. (edit conflict)Support: Long overdue candidate for admin, and I thought he was in a year ago. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 16:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
46. Support - Absolutely exemplary candidate.- MrX 17:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
47. Support - I thought he already was an admin. I've worked with him extensively at NPP and at ACTRIAL, and Toni has always been level headed and very knowledgeable. A prime candidate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
48. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 17:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
49. Support A worthy candidate. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
50. Support per Kosack. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
51. Support. As a admin who specialises in the deliberative end of admin chores, I'm persuaded by the candidate's comments on deletion and permissions that he would be fit for the job. Deryck C. 17:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
52. Support Seems likely to make good use of the tools. Always a good idea to increase the number of quality active admins. Equineducklings (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
53. Support No issues that I can see. I've worked with him a few times on cleaning up vandalism, and he would make great use of the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
54. Support- Experienced editor with a good track record.  FITINDIA  18:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
55. Support. Strong candidate, answer to my question is strong. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
56. Support. Clueful editor. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
57. Support Strong nomination statements, strong candidate. I've had several interactions with him regarding UPEs and have found him to be clueful and discreet. He'll do a great job. Katie^talk 18:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

    Really? Who would vote against this? Good editor all around, definitely deserves a mop and bucket. Metmeganslay 18:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC) — Metmeganslay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rm !vote by confirmed sock — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

58. Support per noms and by reputation. Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
59. Support I always assumed Tony wouldnt want this or else I would have nominated him myself. He is the unofficial, de-facto co-ordiantor of NPP/R. Like Ritchie mentioned, he also worked hard along with Kudpung regarding ACTRIAL. I regularly come across his contributions. No issues at all. Strongest support. Also per user:Patient Zero, #9, 12, 20, 21, 22, 27, 33, 46, 47, 49, and 50. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
60. Support more admins is always a good thing; also per noms. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
61. Support Seems like a chill dude. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
62. Support No good reason to oppose. Excellent candidate ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
63. Support Oh hell yeah! Tony will make an excellent admin. No doubt whatsoever. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 19:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
64. Support. I have seen his work before. Inatan (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
65. Support, no issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
66. Support Great work in NPP. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
67. Support - will do a great job. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
68. Yep. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
69. Support. The only negative I can find against the candidate is that it took too long to come here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
70. Support I'm with SoWhy. Reasonable editor even if I tend to be in disagreement a lot. Hobit (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
71. Support a clear net positive. Lepricavark (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
72. Support. Glrx (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
73. Support - no concerns. Level headed, well qualified, and a very prominent good faith editor. I also thought he had more user rights than he actually does. 65HCA7 21:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
74. Support - I've only had a few interactions with Tony, but they were positive and professional. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
75. Support, he's an ideal candidate with a demonstrated need for the tools. I'd also like to point out Tony's work at SPI combating paid editing - I think he'd be a valuable asset at WP:COIN, too. GAB^gab 21:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
76. Support I couldn't be happier to support this candidate. As a member of my "wasn't he already an admin" list, few editors have matched his depth and reach. Every pot he dips his hand into gets sweeter and each effort he leads makes this crazy project a better place. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
77. Support I have seen Tony around quite a lot of project areas, which is a plus for an admin candidate, as it indicates a versatility in roles and developing expertise. From my observations he is always clueful and seems a diamond geezer. His work in taking much of the strain from Kudpung's shoulders in the NPP area is notable and selfless. Clear need for the tools and no evidence of any potential for misuse. Good luck Tony. Irondome (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
78. Support: No issues found; excellent candidate. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 21:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
79. Support Good judgment, particularly in what is encyclopaedically notable; excellent candidate. – SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
80. Support well qualified, conditioned and seasoned for the tools.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
81. Support I've come across his great work at copyvio cleanup and NPP. Years of experience, and a good temperament. He'll make a solid admin. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
82. Support Seems an ok guy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
83. Support. Literally until yesterday was under the impression he had the mop already so I'm pleased to see this here today. I 100% trust Tony's judgement in pretty much whatever he chooses to get up to. Thank you for your work getting ACTRIAL going :D ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
84. Support. (Is this the place to say "oppose as over-qualified?") Seriously, I've seen this editor around many times, and they have always shown every characteristic I would want in an admin – I've particularly noticed the attention to detail. I knew I would support as soon as I logged in and saw the RfA, but just to be sure, I took a quick look at the AfD cited in the oppose section, and there is nothing there to change my mind. As many have said above, an extraordinarily well-qualified candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
85. Support: Tony is a fantastic editor who shows extreme patience in trying situations. Encouragement is always given to those who find themselves lacking motivation. His presence consistently helps to diffuse situations, allowing all parties to cool off. An excellent candidate for adminship. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 23:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
86. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 23:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
87. Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
88. Support I've interacted with this editor a few times and have seen nothing that would make me think his access to more buttons would hurt the project. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
89. Strong Support per personal experience w/ candidate.--v/r - TP 01:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
90. Support Level-headed experienced editor who strives to improve the encyclopedia at all times. Loopy30 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
91. Support per the more-than-adequate response to Q10, as well as the many reasons mentioned above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
92. Support generally positive experiences. feminist 04:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
93. Support no concerns. Stikkyy t/c 05:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
94. Support Why ever not? Double sharp (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
95. Support-I guess this is one of the times when you feel a compulsion to vote support. Tony Ballioni helps keep discussions going with his levelheaded approach to both freind and stranger alike .His contribution to ACTRAIL and other areas relating to NPP and Afc are more than just noteworthy.-Forceradical (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
96. Support; no issues. Jc86035 (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
97. Support. My thoughts align with all those before me. Mz7 (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
98. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 07:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
99. —Kusma (t·c) 08:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
100. Support I've seen Tony around a lot; he always appears competent and level-headed. No reason he shouldn't have the toolset. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
101. Support - Per above. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
102. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
103. AbsolutelyDlohcierekim (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
104. Support Sounds good to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
105. Support Good work at NPP. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
106. Support per noms. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
107. Support. Absolutely. Should have happened earlier! Malinaccier (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
108. Support per strong nominations and obviously has "clue" as demonstrated by track record and good answers to questions here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
109. Support About time. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
110. Very Strong support' , for excellent judgment in general, despite my disagreement about the answers to 4a, 4b , which I consider classical examples of non-credible claims to importance -- and even if 10a were not a placeholder, an article about a previously unknown King of England is obvious nonsense & if it were one of the actual Kings it would be A10 duplicate. If the place & name in 10c were real, it too would almost certainly be an A10 duplicate. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
111. Support As I had stated in the General Comments of this page, I reaffirm my support for Tony Ballioni to be administrator. I appreciated his response at the Patrick Nair talk page-thank you-RFD (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
112. Support - I think I had been under the impression that Tony was already an administrator. No reason to oppose. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
113. Support, and it's well about time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
114. Support, very good content creation, hard work at NPP, ten years of experience Atlantic306 (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
115. Support, a no-brainer. Tony is actually not fulla bologne - he's a thinker, a doer, knowledgeable about so many different things, the "go to" for answers about reviewing, patrolling, article creation, and so much more. I can't say enough about this candidate's qualifications. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
116. Support - Great editor, very helpful and humorous on IRC. He can clearly be trusted. Hope you get the tools Tony! Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 17:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
117. Support – I've seen Tony's work in a couple of areas and believe he will use the mop responsibly. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
118. Support No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO 17:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
119. Support Good attitude toward other editors, understanding of policies, demonstrated need of admin tools. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
120. Support per nom and great answers to questions. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
121. Support per the nominators and above. Great answers to questions as well. Would most likely be of net benefit to the project. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
122. Support because Kudpung used a word I haven't heard before in his. Oh, and because he has way more experience and qualifications than me and I made it through just fine! Good luck out there, ansh666 18:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
123. Support per nom. Choard1895 (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
124. Support no reason not to. Banedon (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
125. Support - Good contributions, can make good use of tools, feel he can be trusted with adminship.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
126. Support Unreserved support; just yesterday I was thinking to suggest that TonyBallioni do an RfA.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
127. Support - Experienced editor with a balanced head. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
128. Support – Having observed Tony's work in various parts of the encyclopedia, I am confident that he will make a capable administrator. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
129. Support - Excellent candidate! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
130. Support The candidate's content work is very good, and their work on NPP and ACTRIAL is highly commendable. Fully qualified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
131. Support with no concerns and per noms. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
132. Support surprised he wasn't already.ClubOranje^T 22:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
133. Support Per noms and thoughtful answers. No problems I can see. Gap9551 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
134. Support -- excellent track record, in-depth knowledge of wiki policies, and suitable temperament. Thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
135. Support - I don't think I have ever said this before but I really was under the impression that TB already had the mop. Sound, considered judgement and a decent knowledge of the weird world that is WP. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
136. Support Excellent candidate. Just assumed they were already an admin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
137. Support – Calm, cool, collected and knowledgeable about various guidelines and policies, can't foresee TonyBallioni misusing the admin toolset, and I am impressed with their answers to my questions for the candidate. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
138. Support I'll be honest, I don't think I agree with you on much, and I specifically think the way that new-article management has evolved over the last year or so has been a wrong turn. But I have no doubt you'd do a good job, and we need diversity in how admins approach things. Opabinia externa (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
139. Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 05:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
140. Support very clueful answers to questions, also clueful at AfD. Calm and straightforward. I was actually quite confused when I saw this, as I had wrongly assumed TB had the mop already. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
141. Support wholeheartedly. Most of my encounters with TonyBallioni have been at Requested Moves and I continue to be highly impressed by the thoughtfulness and humanity of his closures. He and Megalibrarygirl are invaluable assets to Wikipedia and both will be among our finest admins. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
142. Support: Based on the answers above, and links I've followed, I believe Tony will use the tools wisely and in a manner that will benefit the encyclopedia. I have no concerns about possible abuse. All the best, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
143. Support - Based on his answers and the comments above, seems to be the sort of sensible, well-balanced person we need as an admin. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
144. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
145. Support - I see no issues. Deb (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
146. Support WP:NPP, WP:AFD, and WP:RM are areas we need admins like him. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
147. Support Only had positive interactions with this user. Vanamonde (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
148. Support Tony has extensive knowledge of policies and isn't afraid to actually have them enforced. I generally agree with him but if there ever was a time I did not, it was not due to competence.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
149. Support When I saw the user's name something made me instinctively think I would oppose but I can't remember why - although I have seen them at DRV a bit and perhaps its the tension between SNG/GNG thing mentioned in the oppose. The thing is the relationship between SNG & GNGs is contentious so there is space for different opinions and having been through the AFD in oppose 1 I find a clueful and policy knowledgeable user who probably does not approach SNGs the way I do but still understands the difference between a technical GNG pass and a BLP1E. On that basis it would be wrong to oppose and we can always use another admin who properly understands about BLPs and notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
150. Support Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
151. Support - No red flags, lots of good work (Esp on the NPP stuff). Seems very well suited. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

     Support Quinton Feldberg (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

152. Support. And good luck :) — sparklism ^hey! 18:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
153. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 19:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
154. Support kind and levelheaded --Eurodyne (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
155. Support there are a lot of positives here. The only negative I can see is that the candidates has strong opinions about things (SNGs for example). That's not a problem for an admin as long as they don't allow those opinions to influence their admin actions. The answer to Q12 indicates that they both recognise that they've got strong opinions and that they won't allow them to influence admin actions, so I'm happy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
156. Support No problems to note of here, and I trust that MusikAnimal has picked a suitable candidate for the mop. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
157. Support-Per K6KA. Will be a net positive. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 02:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
158. Support per all of the above. Congratulations and thank you for serving! CThomas³ (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
159. Support. Somehow the 'I like papal conclaves' didn't tip me off that I recognised this guy. Seems helpful and competent for the job. ~ Maltrópa ^loquace 05:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
160. Support – Always helpful, neutral, and a great communicator. — JFG ^talk 07:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
161. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
162. Support Ditto, the above reasons. SethWhales ^talk 11:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
163. Support per, uh, *rolls dice*, Tryptofish. Honestly, I'm not sure why I waited until today to drop this here, it's been a clear support from the get-go. FWIW I don't entirely agree with the responses to my Q4 and the related Q10, but the candidate's responses are well-reasoned and show a conservative approach to speedy deletion, which is preferable to the alternative and far less bitey. Good to see in an admin candidate. I've seen them around SPI a bunch too, their reports are always very thorough and paint a clear case that's easy to clerk through; I appreciate that, and it bodes well for their performance with the mop. Good luck! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
164. Support Sounds fit to be an administrator. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
165. Support - Does a lot of good for the project, will have the opportunity to do even more as an administrator. —PaleoNeonate – 16:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
166. Support Is Tony trustworthy? Yes, I think so. Let’s give him the mop. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
167. Support. Tony is a conscientious editor and I am confident they will make a fine administrator. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
168. Support. Good candidate.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC))
169. Late-to-the-party pile-on Support. Bishonen | talk 19:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC).
170. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
171. Support. Though I disagree with a few of your responses—namely, 4(a), 4(b), 10(e) and 10(f)—I agree with User:DGG that you display good judgment in general and do not doubt that you will make good use of the tools. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
172. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The oppose below based on disagreement as to the outcome of one AfD, or even one group of AfDs, is unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
173. Support - Good editor will likely make a good admin. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
174. Support: Qualified and has a use for adminship. Esquivalience (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
175. Support by default because I totally disagree with the oppose argument about WP:SNGs. Also, I can't find anything negative to say. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
176. Support. Outstanding candidate. -- œ^™ 23:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
177. Support - trustworthy editor. The opposes are unpersuasive. PhilKnight (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
178. Support. Tony didn't break Wikipedia is trustworthy and qualified enough. epicgenius (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
179. Support. I've participated in several XFD discussions with Tony, and found the candidate to be knowledgeable and thoughtful. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
180. Support A review of my interactions with this editor indicate that he has generally solid judgement and is good at the much-needed wikignoming tasks that require the mop. Polite and thoughtful in his responses. Montanabw^(talk) 03:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
181. Support No concerns. Mkdw ^talk 04:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
182. Support Great edit history. Codyorb (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
183. Support Has done good work, we need more admins who understand copyright issues! Tornado chaser (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
184. Support I know it sounds like a cliché by now, but I really thought he was an admin already :) –FlyingAce^✈hello 13:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
185. Support per Ritchie333. Harrias ^talk 15:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
186. Support- Another solid candidate. No issues here at all.   Aloha27  talk  15:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
187. Support, appears to have sufficient clue. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
188. Support I have run into many of his contributions, all positive, I see no issues, only benefits from giving him the tools. Thank you for accepting. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
189. Support Looks good. -- ferret (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
190. Pile-on support. Jonathunder (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
191. Unhesitating support for this courteous and thoughtful editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
192. Support: A great candidate! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
193. Support Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
194. Support Does good work, clueful answers to all the questions above, great attitude; what's not to like? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
195. Support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
196. Keep-thanks a lot, y'all, for telling me about this; I really wanted to be higher up on this list. Tony has judgment and seems to keep cool under pressure. Good editor, good addition to the admin corps. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
197. Support, plenty of experience and I've seen nothing but good work from this editor. Will make a fine admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
198. Support - no brainer. Good work, good temperament, overall net positive to project. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
199. Support WP:200! Excellent nominator — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

     Why, thank you very much! Regards SoWhy 06:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

200. Support- I don't normally vote at RfAs but after seeing Tony's nomination, I was urged to vote. Deserves to be an admin, if he doesn't then who does. :) Hitro talk 12:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
201. Support as (wannabe) nominator. No such user (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
202. Support A very competent, constructive and civil editor who will make an excellent admin. AusLondonder (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
203. Support Very good answers to the questions and I've had good interactions with the candidate. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
204. Support Am happy to support this nomination - should be a useful pair of hands. Mop please! Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 14:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
205. Support An admin who's an experienced editor, and calm and friendly with newcomers is just what we need. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
206. Support No concerns. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
207. Support Has clue and I've only had positive interactions with him. SmartSE (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
208. Support Definitely qualified for the job. ~Awilley (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
209. Strong Support Clear and concise answers from a Wikipedia beaver, who is always working. scope_creep (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
210. Support Hits all the check marks, great answers to questions, just overall net positives. - SanAnMan (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
211. Support – Seems like a skilled, level-headed user who is unlikely to abuse the tools. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
212. Support per nominator. Flipyap 13:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
213. Support All I have to say has already been said, so support per everyone else. --Joshualouie711^talk 13:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
214. Support - no concerns. Swarm ♠ 17:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
215. Support - Sufficient tenure and content contribution, clean block log, no indication of assholery. There are some rather huge gaps in the participation log since the creation of this account in 2007, I note, which perhaps would have been worthy of exploration early in this RFA. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

     Why? fish&karate 09:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

216. Support Obviously qualified, but more importantly, seems like one of the least-likely to let adminship go to his head. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
217. Support Per all the support rationales above. As an added bonus, I really like the wholesome Italian username. Dr. K. 22:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
218. Support per above Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
219. Support Use 'em wisely. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
220. Support Magioladitis (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
221. Support, mop not big deal, candidate seems fine fish&karate 09:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
222. Support Well qualified candidate. A trusted, long-time user. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
223. Support Tony is one of a handful of editors whose edits are worth following just for the educational value. Rentier (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
224. Support Clearly the only choice. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank User:SoWhy for introducing me to a genuinly new experience- actually finding myself in agreement with him  :) — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 13:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose I have observed this candidate recently at an AFD and I'm very disappointed that the editor seems to bend toward the popular "vote" of opinion rather than application of policies and guidelines--specifically WP:BLP1E. I'm sure I'll catch flak for my position, but I'm unwavering in it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the AfD discussion? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination)‎.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yikes! Sorry I asked. This is going to take a while to plow through. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry; WP:TLDR, it's the same thread where User:Paulmcdonald WP:BLUDGEONed the discussion (and not just every editor that !voted in a way he didn't like, but four or five of his own colleagues as well), to the extent that this administrator found himself taken to AN by another administrator for the badgering. So, no, Paul, you won't get flak :) just a request for WP:RECALL... — fortunavelut luna 23:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I've gone through as much of that as I care to and even taken a quick look at the previous AfD. At this point I have reached a few conclusions. First that was a very long and convoluted AfD with lot's of participation and vigorous debate. I think Tony was mostly correct, though I concede that there were some cogent arguments from the other side. One of the things that took me a while to learn on here is that in a community with a quarter of a million or so active participants, and many more who edit only occasionally, you are going to get situations where multiple editors look at the same facts, read the same guidelines and policies and end up in different places. Dogmatism is, in most cases, an unhelpful trait in this kind of environment. This is why we have CONSENSUS, which is itself imperfect. When judging another editor's reading of guidelines the question that needs to be asked is, was their interpretation out of bounds or unreasonable? In this case, I would suggest it was not given that enough editors substantively concurred to establish consensus. I can and do understand that you disagreed with that consensus. That doesn't make you wrong. It just means you were on the losing end of a discussion. Been there and done that more times than I care to remember. It happens. However, I'm having a tough time seeing justification for withholding support for an RfA based solely on the candidate taking a differing stand at a heated AfD. Especially when their view was (more or less) supported by the community. To be clear your !vote is your own. And I don't care for attempts to hound editors staking out a contrary position when a popular editor is up for RfA. But I would ask that you ask yourself if it is reasonable to oppose an RfA based solely on their being on the other side of a community discussion, where they prevailed. If you think it is then your vote should stand and I will not press the matter. But if that criteria were widely applied at RfA how many new admins do you think we would get? How many editors would even be willing to step forward in such circumstances? Is it not better to judge a candidate on the totality of their record rather than one or two specific instances where we may have disagreed with them? Remember we are not electing a Pope. Infallibility is not, nor should it be a criteria. Anyways thanks for entertaining my rambling response to your vote. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Paul, I am sad to say that this 2013 RfA was one that I supported. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought I was free to voice my opinion. Apparently I was wrong.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course you're free to voice your opinion. Just as you're free to badger everyone who disagrees with you into the ground. Fortunately, nobody is going to take either of those actions seriously. --RexxS (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The freedom to voice one's opinion is accompanied by the responsibility to accept the reaction to one's opinion; otherwise, that freedom is meaningless. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Oppose, reluctantly. Sorry to be "that guy", but I'm unsatisfied with the answer to Q12. I know this is going to pass and I'm sure you'll do okay, but at the same I don't want admins who put rote adherence to SNGs ahead of the requirement to have reliable, neutral, and substantial sources about the subjects of our BLP articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC).

   I have to observe that the candidate said they would not do that, and would have avoided being the closer to avoid any impression they were doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

2. 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)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

   Oppose I do not see any reason to support this user. Not enough experience. BlueJoshua300 (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

   Translation - "I don't want Tony to block me when he catches me vandalising Wikipedia" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose - I am a little worried about his posts at WP:VP(P) where he seems to misunderstand some basic concepts, and disparage AWB. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC).
   

Neutral

1. Neutral apparently will waver...--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

   Of course it's fine to voice your opinion, and that's why I didn't comment on the oppose. But to clarify, this was about not really having any evidence of "bend toward the popular vote" instead of "application of policies and guidelines". Rather it was a situation where there was disagreement between two sides over whether or not WP:BLP1E applies in that specific situation (which happens all the time, and they really depend on the context and the timing), and neither were in the wrong. I find the specific wordings of many policies and guidelines can be intentionally ambiguous at times, and that's why we have a discussion so that a consensus can be formed. Opposing someone based purely on having disagreed with your stance in one discussion, as Ad Orientem points out, when perhaps your stance were in the minority, is very disheartening. Sorry about my rambling as well. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 05:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

   Hi Paul. A willingness to keep an open mind and entertain other points of view is not a sign of weakness but rather character. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

2. Neutral For the record. -- Begoon 12:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• Just confirming that TonyBallioni has indeed declared a previous account to the Arbitration Committee, and that there are no concerns about that account to note here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

---

• Strong support 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Summoning a crat/clerk here! :) —usernamekiran(talk) 06:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I for some strange reaosns knew that RFA was a forbidden ground for IPs.My fault; anons can comment or even ask questions!Thay can't just !vote.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, hence why I placed my "non-!vote" down here. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup. I always knew they can ask questions/comment here; but was not sure about voting. Thats why I thought I should ask someone first. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: IP's are welcome to comment and ask questions, though they will not be considered toward numerical calculations. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Just pointing out that 142 is a static IP who is a regular contributor. Obviously neither they nor I are asking for their comment to count towards the numbers, but I don't want people to be suspicious of them. And that's the only non-question comment I intend to make. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Could you please preface such remarks with the customary (Non-administrator comment)... for the last time ever :D — fortunavelut luna 13:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• I dealt with 142.160.131.202 because of a change in the template for the Patrick Nair article. I felt the change in templates in the article was unnecessary. Then I just read a response that Tony Ballioni made on the Patrick Nair article. I still hope 142.160.131.202 will respond. However, I do want to thank Tony Ballioni for responding. Having said this I support Tony Ballioni for administrator. Please put myself down supporting his seeking being an administrator. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@RFD: I think you're allowed to do it yourself, aren't you? !Vote, I mean. — fortunavelut luna 15:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes-I am doing !Vote myself-Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Go for it! — fortunavelut luna 15:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

---

• Would someone please tell me the fullform if SNG? It is in the answer to to NorthAmerica's question. (11A) —usernamekiran(talk) (pings not coming in, not going through) 19:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Usernamekiran: Something like "Specific notability guidelines", compare WP:SNG. —Kusma (t·c) 20:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  ...Or "Subject-specific notability guidelines"; see the templated list of SNGs. Lourdes 23:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I always thought it was "secondary notability guideline". Whatever the answer, we should probably write it down somewhere. VQuakr (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression that Lourdes was: subject-specific guidelines, that is what the text of WP:N calls them A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

---

I'd just like to comment that TonyBallioni's AfD stats are much better even than they look, go look at his stats and check the 'wrong' results. Most incorrect results are false-positives, a result of the tool mistaking his !vote or comment for something other than what he actually !voted. Of the last 200, I could find only one legitimate red cell, so disregarding 'no consensus' results, his AfD percentage is close to 99.5%, wow. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:29, 17 October 2017 (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.