Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Apply/TonyTheTiger

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful Online Ambassador application.

Despite the negative behavior pointed out by The_ed17, there's nothing to indicate that Tony will be a bad mentor or bite newcomers as an ambassador. Overall level of support weighs in favor of admitting him.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Why do you want to be a Wikipedia Ambassador?
I have a lot of experience on wikipedia and have been encouraged to lend it in this way. I believe that I can be an asset in this role.
In three sentences or less, summarize your involvement with Wikimedia projects.
YOUR ANSWER (OPTIONAL)
Please indicate a few articles to which you have made significant content contributions. (e.g. DYK, GA, FA, major revisions/expansions/copyedits).
I am among the most productive wikipedians in the history of the project so naming a few articles would not really represent how I volunteer my time. However, if I was truly forced to answer the question, I would point to the Millennium Park WP:FT because that is the second most popular tourist attraction in Chicago and the article and topic serve as quite a resource. However, neither that single article nor the entire topic represents my contribution adequately, IMO.
How have you been involved with welcoming and helping new users on Wikipedia?
YOUR ANSWER (OPTIONAL)
What do you see as the most important ways we could welcome newcomers or help new users become active contributors?
YOUR ANSWER (OPTIONAL)
Have you had major conflicts with other editors? Blocks or bans? Involvement in arbitration? Feel free to offer context, if necessary.
I am a passionate contributor and have had some impassioned battles. However, I have never had anything rise to the point of needing arbitration, blocks or bans. In my five years on WP, the most controversial issue was probably my insistance on tagging Jon Corzine with a WP:CHICAGO tag to the chagrine of the regular editors of the page. This happened around 2008. Eventually, I ended up overhauling the page and having it promoted to WP:GAC.
How often do you edit Wikipedia and check in on ongoing discussions? Will you be available regularly for at least two hours per week, in your role as a mentor?
I edit daily and check in on my watchlist and user talk page several times a day. I am working on a TV script and hope to be spending more time writing for personal gain (to pay my bills) in the near future, but intend to stay involved in the articles I have worked on.
What else should we know about you that is relevant to being a Wikipedia Ambassador?
YOUR ANSWER (OPTIONAL)

Discussion

Support. :) --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support : Applicant has tons of experience editing articles, and seems to know his way around the policies. He'd make a very good mentor. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 14:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong Support very impressive contribution. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per past personal interactions with TTT – most notably at the WikiCup talk page during last year's competition, but in other places as well – I am going to strongly oppose. This has nothing to do with his content contributions, which are obviously exemplary, but rather his attitude and general demeanor, which I feel would be detrimental to the ambassador project as a whole. If anyone wants further reasoning, please email me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I should preface this by saying that while applicant and I have at times agreed, on our most significant interaction we had strongly divergent views (as to the infobox of a basketball player). That said, it may be--I decided after some significant discussion--that his view was the better one. He clearly sticks by his principles, and says what he thinks, without regard to whether it will make friends for him or not (which could explain Ed's comment above, perhaps). But he has no POV that I can discern other than what is best for the Project. And his views from what I've seen have always been rationale, and based on facts and his deep knowledge. Rather than "IDONTLIKEIT", ownership, and personal aggrandizement--flaws that we've all seen at the project in others (if not ourselves). Most importantly, he had the patience to talk through our differences with me, despite my (probably apparent) annoyance at first. So -- just the sort of candidate we should have in the program.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]