Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AGK

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steel (talk | contribs) at 01:19, 29 April 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AGK

Voice your opinion (14/2/0); Scheduled to end 21:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

AGK (talk · contribs) - Wow where do we start :). I am Arjun and I am nominating a great user for adminship AGK, now some of you may be unfamiliar with this name but he was formerly known as "Anthony cfc". Anthony had a past RFA that dreadfully failed (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony cfc). Now this RFA may seem rather strange since I was the first opposer at the rfa and since that oppose it somewhat snowballed :/. But that was the past and I think Anthony has greatly improved as a user since then, and I would even consider him a great wikifriend. He does great work over there at the Mediation Committee, he reports vandals (always a valid report), he even closes XFD's (and trust me that is very helpful), he can be seen all around Wikipedia since he is as busy as a bee, has done fantastic portal work (One featured portal and another one is a candidate), and to top that all off he is as civil as it gets! Now to me Anthony is the "ideal" candidate for adminship. And I do believe it is time. ~ Arjun 14:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination - It is with honour that I'm able to offer a co-nomination for Anthony cfc AGK. I have always been impressed by Anthony's effort in the Mediation Committee, he always keep a cool head, and I believe that this shows behaviour that it befitting of an admin. As an administrator, Anthony will be expected to deal with extremely delicate issues, and get involved with very heated arguments - he has already shown that he is more than able to handle himself in these situations. Anthony gained many opposes in his last RfA for lack of XfD experience; Anthony, acting like a true gent, has acknowledged this and has now done extremely good work down at AfD, always giving a very compelling comment. He's certainly a bright lad, and adminship will not change him, just give him a little more to do. I ask that you help me and Arjun mopify him! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by The Transhumanist (hey! You started without me!)  :-) - I've been AGK's admin coach for the past few months, and during that time, I've seen AGK grow into a formidable editor. I can safely say he is familar with Wikipedia's rules and procedures, especially so with mediation. He has endless energy and a deep affinity for Wikipedia. When he steps on toes, as we all do occasionally, he is quick to respond to complaints and to do whatever is necessary to end the dispute including reverting himself, apologizing, and walking away if necessary. He is also an adept graphics artist and has helped on projects such as the Welcoming committee (for which he overhauled its welcome page). He outgrew the Virtual classroom quickly (though I remember with fondness his question about barnstars), so I enlisted AGF (aka Anthony_cfc) as a co-coach to help me coach the other students there. I highly recommend AGK for adminship. The Transhumanist 21:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I humbly and graciously accept — Anthony 15:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My greatest thanks to my good friend, Arjun - your kind words are truly humbling ;) as Arjun said above, I've been around the encyclopedia for a good while now - around 1.3+ years - and I've been literally all over the place (see below); my main focus is on Dispute Resolution, where I've successfully closed over fifteen cases with the Mediation Cabal (with an additional few progressing to MedCom), one with the Mediation Committee (note: I am not a MedCom member) with another one in progress, and an additional two occasions catalysing an outcome. In addition, I'm a frequent vandal-hunter, with large amounts of WP:AIV reports (mostly for username violations or vandalism after final warning), and I also close Deletion Debates per WP:DELPRO#Non-Sysops closing discussions.

In addition, I've made contributions to the content of the encyclopedia - however, rather than improve the articles themselves, I improve the links between them - I've been involved in Portal:Trains, and alongside Daniel Bryant completely re-wrote Portal:Scotland, which is currently under a WP:FPOC that at the moment is looking like it's passing (*touch wood*).

Overall, I've made both Administrator-related contributions to key areas, as well as the actual encyclopedia; I'm frequently asked for assistance from new editors; and I assist in resolving disputes between editors. In general, the Administrator tools that I have demonstrated a justification to receive would simply allow me to help out around this wonderful project in more ways than I presently do.

With the Kindest Regards,
Anthony 15:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: Fear not - the "if any" part here is not a worry; I've already had considerable experience in Administrator areas:
Sysop-related area Prior experience Further notes
WP:AIV Large amounts of reports filed to date My experience here will allow me to hop straight to lending a hand here; I'm often online at times where sysops are thing on the ground, so my presence there would no doubt be valued by filing Wikipedians. In addition, I'm often left with tagging blocked editor's pages with {{UsernameBlocked}}, so this wouldn't be a worry for any blocks I would be require to undertake
WP:RM Considering this is a Administrator-only area, none; however, I have had experience in fixing malformed case page names during MedCab work. This area has a backlog, so I'd be more than happy to lend a hand here.
CAT:SPEEDY Large amounts of pages (most often created by new users) listed for deletion per WP:CSD. Once again, I often find that this page has a large backlog (particularly those pages that aren't immediately noticeable candidates - e.g., XYZ is a poop), so I'd be willing to lend a hand there with my Mop.
WP:XFD Closed a large volume of Debates as "Keep" - the Delete button would allow me to close Delete debates as well Despite almost always being first to MfD after the next round of discussions have expired (i.e., at 00:00 GMT), there is rarely more than one debate that has consensus expressed as "Keep", which means the backlog sitting there longer than it has too.
Special:Unwatchedpages None - this is an Administrator only area I'd be willing to keep an eye out here for the most vulnerable Wikipedia pages.
WP:RPP Several reports filed for pages under edit warring by parties in my MedCab cases, as well as a few blocked editors continuing the spree at their talk page - therefore, I'm very familiar with the layout. The wait time is often 10-15 minutes here (in my experience), so this is obviously an area that needs attention; once again, I'd be willing to drag my mop over there and lend a hand.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In pole position for this question is my personal re-vamp of WP:WELCOME; I single-handedly converted this resource from this to this, which a direct result of was the page being included on the "Help" NavBar on Wikipedia Assistance Pages - a sure sign of quality, and a reflection of dedication to assistance of new editors. In the article space, my love child is  B  Cambuslang railway station, which unfortunately failed a recent GAC; I've contributed to Paddington station, Portal:Trains,  B  OCD and Portal:UK Railways (FPOC).
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: Naturally, I've came into some small disagreements with editors - some were justified, some were note; in each case, I made a full apology (in some cases, simply to keep the peace and for the good of Wikipedia), and in other cases, I've became good friends with the editors...
Editor Nature From this I learned...
Xaosflux (talk · contribs) I inappropiately closed a MfD; later apologised both at the original thread and at his/her talk page. That non-administrators should never closed "Delete" discussions, even if tagging them for speedy deletion afterwards; I also extended my ability to respond civilly to other editors.
Daniel.Bryant (talk · contribs) Copied content from his userpage How to undertake actions in the sole interests of the efficient running of the encyclopedia (in this case, having a user subapge speedied.
Peter M Dodge (talk · contribs) Removal of content from my page Learned how to post an apology (even if not from the heart) in the interest of the running of the encyclopedia.
...I'm not a naturally stressed person, and thus none of the above "caused me stress", and technically shouldn't be included; however, I believe in transparency, so I'm going to include this record of disputes, regardless, for editors considering this statement to take into account.

Optional question from Naconkantari:

4. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: WP:IAR should be invoked when the letter of the law is not the most beneficial course of action, and following it would not benefit the encyclopedia; therefore, WP:IAR should be exercised when following a policy/guideline would not benefit the encyclopedia, and the intended course you wish to follow that involves ignoring said rule will benefit the project. Times when it should not be invoked - in essence, the counterpart of my previous point: when invoking the policy would prevent you from improving Wikipedia, don't do so.

General comments

Note — unregistered users are highly encouraged to participate in this discussion by leaving comments in this section; a large amount of my work involves working with anonymous editors, and their opinion is highly valued ~ Anthony

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/AGK before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support as co-nom, best of luck mate. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support i was considering nominating you myselfy, you are a great contributor to Wikipedia - all across the namespaces! Best of luck, you deserve the tools! Tellyaddict 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - A really nice chap, I have plenty of faith he'll do a fine job. He's put plenty of effort into his RfA. Good luck! Matthew 20:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support Nominator support :) ~ Arjun 20:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Very nice job with the box and the tables. I applaud you. bibliomaniac15 21:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Suport - A really good editor and he will make good use of the mop..--Cometstyles 21:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - as his admin coach and co-nom. I feel sorry for vandals now.  :-) The Transhumanist 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support without a doubt in mind. (although I think the yellow box is going overboard!) Pascal.Tesson 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to remove it if you want! Anthony 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't even think about it! The Transhumanist 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Naconkantari 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Sean William 23:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Absolutely support. Great answers to questions and demonstrates excellent policy knowledge, plus a yellow box to boot! Will (aka Wimt) 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support: Excellent edit summary usage, plenty of contributions and experience and also great answers to questions. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Looks good, and I am not convinced by the oposition. -Mschel 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per the candidate's strong overall record. I have considered the opposer's concern but don't quite understand it. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The second opposer's explanation is more clear. I will continue to follow the discussion. (I hope this potential indecisiveness doesn't make me a bad admin. :) ) Newyorkbrad 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Not convinced he can take the shit he'll receive as an admin. – Steel 21:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you say that? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comes across as having a very weak character. – Steel 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From this I assume you haven't received any emails from him.  :-) Trust me, AGK is an irresistible force. The Transhumanist 22:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Anthony means well, but everything I've seen of his recent attempts to dabble in Admin areas have been a disaster, especially his closing of MfDs as delete in clear violation of policy. See threads here and here. His sloppy close of the MfD for Sandbox Word Association lead to confusion as to what should be deleted and ultimately a DRV. The fact that he continued to close contentious XfDs despite concerns raised on his talkpage is a big issue. I am also worried by the recent indicisiveness he has shown over his username. Anthony requested a usurpation from "Anthony cfc" to "Anthony", he then changed his mind and decided to be renamed to "AGK" as he is known by this name on other projects. He then changed his mind again and requested the usurpation of "Anthony" again [1]. He has now withdrawn the usurpation request. This does not bode well for making decisions as an admin... WjBscribe 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Expanding a little on the indecisiveness over usernames, he gets through an awful lot of userpage designs in a very short space of time: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. – Steel 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Neutral

Pending Q4 response Naconkantari 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AGK&oldid=126755397"