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

AGK[edit]

Final: (63/13/2) ended 18:27, 6 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 by Ryan Postlethwaite - 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 AGK (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]

Co-nomination by ^demon I must say in my time at Wikipedia, there have been very few editors in which I have seen such a huge improvement in than with Anthony. I have always gotten the impression from him as being a very kind and sincere user; however he always seemed just a tad too eager to jump in to things. That being said, he has vastly improved as a user and quite frankly goes beyond my standards by such a long shot that I felt compelled to not only support, but to offer my co-nomination as well. Anthony is, as I said, a very kind user, yet being kind is not the only thing required in an admin. You also must be able to keep a cool head (as he does very often), have a much stronger knowledge of policies and procedures (as he shows as well). His track record with MedCab is unprecedented as well, with successful cases numbering far beyond any other user that I know of personally. All this being said, I must offer my strongest support and endorsement, as I know Anthony's adminship will only benefit the Wikipedia Community as a whole. ^demon[omg plz] 05:35, 30 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[edit]

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.

Optional question from Doc glasgow:

5. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: An excellent question, and one that has been subject to some debate off-wiki (e.g., at the Adelaide meetup); Wikipedia, as a pioneering project that receives enormous interest from the press, is consistently under scrutiny. In recent times, one area could this be applied more so to than Biographies of Living Persons (BLP); editors that consistently add poorly sourced/uncited material to such articles are potentially putting the project in harms way, and therefore I would most likely approach such situations with an intention to fairly rigorously implement the policy of withdrawing editing privileges from users who violate this topically-important policy. That having being said, large numbers of contributors are unaware of our policies and guidelines, and therefore I'd seek to educate them before heading towards cautions and blocking.
Further response, with an angle at articles — I responded with a view of the Block button, as this is an RfA ;); well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such has a duty and responsibility to provide well-sourced, reliable and, above all, correct material. Incorrect material is potentially harmful the encyclopedia, which is fast becoming a leader in providing information on pretty much everything notability, and as such those whose edits repeatedly hinder this should have their editing privileges removed ~ Anthony 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Amarkov (talk · contribs)

6. Can you explain the circumstances behind your previous removals of access from AWB and VP? -Amarkov moo! 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: One of my most shameful moments; with regards to the AWB removal, that was quite simply inexperience with such a complex tool - I was not aware of the opinion over such actions at that time. Naturally, this was explained, I was given a quick run-down over such actions, and access was speedily resorted. Regarding the VandalProof actions; in this instance, I do not have a justification - I was wrong, end of ... and I'm willing to put my hands up and admit it - no matter how long ago; once again, access was speedily restored after a conversation with a moderator of VandalProof, in which he expressed his concern that access was removed by such a controversial editor. However, that is not the point - again, I reiterate ... I was wrong, and I promptly apologised; since then, I've successfully made edits a-plenty with AWB, and VandalProof, although I have since switched to manual Vandalism Patrolling.

Question copied from AGK's Editor Review

7. Copied over for common concerns over lower-than-average mainspace edits;
Do you believe experience in article and other non-project-space collaboration is important for administrators and administrator candidates? Why? If yes, do you feel you meet your own expectations in this field?
Ideally, article experience is important for all editors - including sysops (who are simply Wikipedians with a few extra tools) and sysops?. However, experience in these namespaces are equal, and on a par with, the other spaces - some editors are good with templates, others with images and yet more articles; judging candidates on the basis of their lack of ability to articles, should not be done - those who contribute to Templates help weave masterpieces of WikiCode to assist users of Wikipedia in browsing between related articles, thus improving Wikipedia; those who contribute to Images improve the appearance of an article, and often provide as much information than an article-writer's screeds of sourced facts - after all, a picture tells a thousand words - thus improving Wikipedia; and so on and so forth. So in answer to the specifics of your question, no I don't believe I've contributed sufficiently to the article space; but to Wikipedia? Certainly - simply in a different way.

Optional question from Daniel.Bryant (talk · contribs)

8. Why have you copied my (distinctive) RfA answer style (for Q1 and 3) without acknowledging it, in addition to the numerous (three, at least, at last count) attempts to do similar to my userpage design, and some of my "roles" (OTRS, MedCom, etc.)? "[I]ndeed, it's my aim to produce a Featured Portal within the next year if I'm promoted, in order to remain an article writer rather than a janitor" is nearly identical to my pledge during my RfA, in Q6. I find this, like people in your previous RfA who mentioned very similar things with regards to Essjay, quite disturbing behaviour. Administrators can see in the deleted history of User:AGK how, quite frequently within days of me having a fiddle with my userspace, yours changes to near-mirror it, both wording and design. The last time, it took you under a week to mirror my new design, and the time before that under a fortnight. Although it might seem minor and trivial, I find this quite strange, and I'd like a clarification before I can (hopefully) support.
A: Not at all - I'd be happy to give clarification. If you remember a relatively recent discussion on IRC, regarding RfA, during which we discussed RfA layouts; I was under the impression that you had no objections whatsoever to the RfA style. If it does make you happy, I can change it into a paragraphed style. Furthermore, I'd like to echo a fellow editor's comments that upon any objections to user page design, a reply that all content on Wikipedia is licenses under the GFDL, and thus available for re-use; user page designs (or WikiTable designs) are not "owned" by anybody, and they may be used by anybody else. However, you objected to my user page design and, whilst I was under no obligation whatsoever to comply, I wished to both remain on friendly terms with you, and keep the peace, and so I obliged and reverted to a previous version. Regarding roles - the OTRS request was up long before I interacted with you/you had OTRS, and claims that my requesting it because somebody else has it is unfounded and incorrect; the Mediation request is quite simply because I've had plenty of experience with the MedCabal, and I believed I could offer my services in another area; trust me, I'm not about to go around after you copying your every move - to be honest, I've got more valuable things to do ... we are writing an encylopedia here :-) my apologies for being quite to-the-point, but hopefully my opinion is respected - I most certainly respect yours.
Apologies, I left something out: regarding the "Essjay" behaviour - I don't believe I've being doing this to you, in fact quite the opposite - I rarely communicate with you (except concerning the FPO), and I've not being "stalking" any editors that I chat with much more/have being chatting with for longer, and they subscribe to many more roles than yourself (simply because they've been here longer :) finally, that (striving to get another portal up to FPO status) is simply an answer to the concerns voiced below that I am slipping away from the encyclopedia, and as such I simply formalised my intent over the next 1-2 years; incidentally, I am assuming we are discussing that call that you'd author a featured article for the next two years. Hopefully this clears things up ~ Anthony 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up optional question from Daniel.Bryant (talk · contribs)

9. Your answer to question eight provides a contrary interpretation to the GFDL than what I understand, and what is used in administrator merge-and-redirect closures. From your understanding, if you copy the text (or code) from another page, do you need to attribute where you copied it from, either in the edit summary or the page content itself, or is it just a free-for-all to copy and paste without attribution to the original author? A satisfactory response is needed, or else I fear you will not be capable of closing merge AfD debates, and I will oppose you strongly if you can't. Daniel Bryant 04:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: the GFDL contains attribution requirements, which with regards for Wikipedia's purposes a link to the history of the copied-from page is sufficient. Attribution originally took place at a User sub page, which also outlined links to where I get images for my user page (Commons, of course :) however, I submit to your argument - although your user page was in fact from the Australian Noticeboard, which was created by several editors and therefore contact with each individual was not required - attribution was good conduct, and I should have contacted you beforehand. If (although this is unlikely) I ever wish to use an aspect of your edits that you have contributed to, I'll be sure to request your explicit permission the next time. Once again, my interpretation of the GFDL: attribution is required where content is copied - it is not a free-for-all copy+paste! ~ Anthony 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up optional question from Spartaz (talk · contribs)

10. You changed your username on 24 April and here we are already at RFA. My question is what came first, the decision to re-run for admin or the decision to change your name? Secondly, do you think that it is ethical to seek access to the block button so soon after a name change when a lot of users who have previously interacted with you and may want to comment on your RFA won't recognise your new name from the list of those seeking adminship? Spartaz Humbug! 05:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: My personal style when browsing RfA is to examine each statement individually, and from there !vote where desired; therefore, an RfA under a new name does not seem inethcical to me, although if it does to other editors, I propose a move to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AGK (Anthony cfc) if that is satisfactory. Secondly, the decision to rename came first; however, since Adminship *isn't a big deal*, at the time of renaming I didn't actually have a nomination in mind (mainly because, I was nominated rather than self-nomming). Therefore, if I did have prior notice of the nomination, I would have happily put of a user rename until the RfA had run its course. Once again, I put forward an offer to move this RfA, with the intent of any potential nomination reviewers being able to instantly recognise the nomination name (although, strictly speaking, all nominations should probably be reviewed individually and then scrutinised ... but, we do have real lifes ;)) however, judging by the relative interest (compared to the last RfA) such a move isn't required ~ Anthony 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)
11. Sorry if this question seems a bit random, but what other Wikimedia projects do you contribute to?
A ;-) random - not at all, I'd be glad to answer. At the present, I don't actively contribute to any Wikimedia projects: to be honest, my heart's in Wikipedia! I do have accounts (for example) at Commons and MediaWiki ~ Anthony 12:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up optional question from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)
12. Given that on the two projects you mention above, your username is clearly Anthony cfc, could you reconcile this with your statement here - where you requested being renamed to AGK because you were "widely known as this across other Wikis - generalisation/standardisation."

General comments[edit]

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[edit]

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]
  15. Support - Excellent progress made since that RfA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I agree that you've made some problematic judgment calls in the past, but am supporting on the assumption that you will grow into the position, learn from mistakes, continue the progress you've shown, and be an overall benefit to the project. I believe you can do this. You've made a lot of very good contributions. --Shirahadasha 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Your mediation efforts in Jews for Jesus are appreciated and count for a lot. --Shirahadasha 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support The overall experience level is more than sufficient, and the dispute resolution success is a huge bonus. YechielMan 03:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support With the perfect answers to questions, the numerous accolades from esteemed editors and admins, how could I vote otherwise? Good luck! Jmlk17 05:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, I've had several interactions with Anthony, and in all occurrences he has been pleasant and helpful. He successfully mediated a very tough dispute on Jews for Jesus, leading to a resolution all parties left happy with, and in general is civil and pleasant to interact with. Not bothered by concerns about "taking shit" (anyone who doesn't withdraw from their RfA after 5 minutes can take some heat), nor by trying to work in a lot of areas or a bit of name indecision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. A very experienced editor. Sr13 (T|C) ER 11:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Very Strong Support - with 3 nominators and a very comprehensive candidate statement, this has to be the most impressive RfA I've seen recently. The candidate clearly has extensive experience in dispute resolution as well as a good record on deletions etc., and has demonstrated a definite need for the tools. As some users have pointed out, I tend to support most RfAs; however, I would support this one even if I were a tougher voter. Walton Need some help? 12:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support seems good enough for me. —Anas talk? 12:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Upon extensive review of your contributions (yes, a free Sunday afternoon... ), especially your MedCom activities, your interaction with other users, and your general healthy attitude towards the project, I will support. The oppose comments are valid and should not be ignored, but I trust that the community will assist Anthony with any 'shit' that he might have to face in his first steps as an admin. Besides, we all know that your skin grows a lot thicker after a few trolls :) Oh, and I find your habit of linking things cute : ) – Riana ऋ 13:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    :P why thank you ~ Anthony 17:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I find that I must support this editor for his willingness to close deletion discussions as delete (although I am disappointed that he knuckled under to intimidation on that issue). I see enough evidence of collaborative competency to waive my endorsement requirement in this case. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I've had nothing but positive experiences of this editor, and since I hold his three co-nominators in a high level of regard, no doubt he'll make a fine admin. Good luck! The Rambling Man 16:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support I wanted to co-nom... Experienced user, friendly, devoted and trustworthy. Will make an excellent admin.--Húsönd 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support This is definately a good nomination to support. Captain panda 18:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support good candidate --rogerd 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support He seems to be a good editor. Shalom:)--James, La gloria è a dio 20:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I'm not going to hold his enthusiasm against him.-- danntm T C 23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I think you'll be fine, good luck mate! Majorly (hot!) 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Hmm, enthusiastic, knowledgeable, willing to admit his own shortcomings. I think he'll do fine. Remember, he will not be unsupervised and is his enthusiasm overflows on occassion it can be checked. JodyB 02:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: he may be a little too enthusiastic, but I see no evidence that his enthusiasm would be at all harmful to the project, and on the contrary it shows dedication. A very experienced, friendly editor who will put the tools to good use. Krimpet (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Very strong nominator support ^demon[omg plz] 05:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support: Wow, you come with strong recommendations. I know the mop is going to be safe in your hands. --Valley2city₪‽ 05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --dario vet (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. It's kind of nice to see someone having closed slightly ambiguous XfD debates, if just for the purposes of examining their judgement. Apart from closing "delete" when that implies a need for further requests, the closes I've looked at were good; in particular, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonlance timeline where I reached the same conclusion independently, unaware that a non-admin close had previously taken place. Mangojuicetalk 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I've encountered this user a few times and not seen anything to concern me. Adambro 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Yup. Michaelas10 17:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. This editor has come a long way since his last RfA, and I have no qualms about supporting. He shows superb initiative and adaptability, traits that will be tremendous assets as Wikipedia begins a period of more rapid change. --Mus Musculus (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support: Go ahead buddy. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Good user, always had a good impression of him. · AndonicO Talk 18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - no problems here - Alison ☺ 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I have interacted with this editor, and I am certain that he will be a useful and helpful admin.--Anthony.bradbury 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I delayed participating in this RfA until the candidate had a chance to respond to the opposing and neutral comments made below, and I am more than satsified with how he handled them. The issue of improper formatting of RfD and TfD closes is a minor one that I don't think merits an oppose for a great editor. I believe the rule of thumb is: if each nomination has a separate page (AfD and MfD), note the result above the header; if nominations are listed in a daily log (CfD, RfD, StfD, TfD, and UcfD), note the result just below the header. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - I seem to be the only person who's interacted with him who's never had any kind of fight; even though we generally disagree, everything he's said has been valid. If any of these nightmare scenarios the Opposers are postulating did happen, so be it, I'm sure the project can survive. Besides, we need a few more railway-station-article-expanders. (Kelly, even though he's not a member of ours I'll throw in a voice of support on behalf of WP:Rail for him) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. My experience with Anthony has always been pleasant, he is a credit to the project, and I think his desire for positions of authority will be leeched away after a few accusations of admin abuse. I'm convinced by any of the oppose !votes, and can see no reason not to have the tools. Rockpocket 06:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Go Ahead! Booksworm Talk to me! 16:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Perhaps a bit over-zealous at times, but a fine editor nonetheless. One request: please consider spending a little more time doing content-driven article improvement. --Pastor David † (Review) 18:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Although I share Majorly's concern that you might be taking things up too fast (biting off more than you can chew, perhaps), I think you will still be an asset as an administrator on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. I'm impressed with the improvements since the previous RfA, as well as AGK's enthusiasm for the project. I think that's a good thing. I see no evidence the tools would be abused, and plenty that shows they would be used appropriately. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. I recently approached Anthony with a few modest advices, and his response was both humble and enthusiastic. Anthony has proven to possess the ability to learn from his mistakes, recognizing them and seeing them as an opportunity to improve. This is usually the best sign that someone's ready to use the buttons thoughtfully, so I'm glad to clear him for the mop. - Phaedriel - 06:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. -- DS1953 talk 20:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Yes, sure. PeaceNT 11:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Definate support, I see AGK's (and his previous user name) basicly everywhere on Wikia. I'm positive AGK won't abuse the tools, and has good reason to use them also. *Cremepuff222* 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Weak support To be entirely honest, whilst I think it likelier than not that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysopped should be positive, I'd intended, inasmuch as, in view of the issues adduced by Daniel.Bryant and the inestimable WJBScribe, which raise a few questions with respect to AGK's judgment and his fitness as a repository of community trust, I couldn't reach such conclusion with any real degree of confidence, to be neutral. I am, contra Doc, quite heartened, though, by Anthony's reply to question eight, which evidences an understanding of BLP as standing alongside, rather than above, other policies and suggest that the, qua admin, AGK will be mindful of the ministerial nature of adminship and of the need properly and deliberatively to apply policy consistent with community consensus. Joe 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support with my pants off: I thought he was one :p ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 15:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, see no problems. Plus with that many co-noms it's hard to not support.--Wizardman 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Joe I 18:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. As long as you use your administrator priveleges responsibly. — tz (Talk) (Contribs) Sat 19:19:04 2007-05-05
  64. Support Dude, w'sup?! w'sup, dude?! --Infrangible 01:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Terence 06:35, 6 May 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) Struck with apologies to Anthony [1]. I'm still behind my 'weak character' statement and still believe that some things he'd come across as an admin would 'get to him' so to speak. – Steel 13:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you say that? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anthony 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]
    "Please keep criticism constructive and polite." An oppose vote, like this one, is uncivil and preceding vote will be disqualified. ↔ tz (talk · contribs) 02:51:46, Sunday, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm glad you're the authority on this matter. – Steel 03:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what will happen if he can't take it? Wikipedia will shut down? This does not seem like the kind of guy who would 1) Go crazy and delete the Main Page 2) Be the object of a RFAr. So what's the problem? GracenotesT § 03:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Can't take the shit he'll receive"? "weak character"? The least you could do after remarks that fall so short of the civility standards we expect is to back up those claims so that we can understand how you arrived at that rather blunt view of the candidate. Pascal.Tesson 05:20, 29 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 [2]. 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]
    I am also moved to oppose by the fact that despite advice from Ral315 and others at his last RfA and since, Anthony has continued to court positions "of status" around Wikipedia. He made a second request to join WP:MEDCOM and seems to have pursued the idea of becoming a WP:MEDCAB coordinator by email [3]. Positions on Wikipedia, be they as an admin or otherwise, should be regarded as those of a humble functionnary by those who hold them. Anthony gives the impression that he seeks recognition and influence, which troubles me. WjBscribe 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because he's not like any other editor I've encountered on Wikipedia, I've been watching Anthony very closely. To say that he's ecentric is an understatement.  :) But once you get to know him, you will see that it isn't that he's seeking recognition nor influence. He is simply highly driven. He can't sit still while there are still areas of Wikipedia to explore and master. What really gets me is that Anthony and others are being chastised and berated here for showing initiative. That totally sucks. Let me go on the record: initiave is a good thing which should be applauded, encouraged, and not criticized. Way to go Anthony. Keep up the good work, and keep going for every position there is until you've mastered every nook and cranny of Wikipedia. The harder you try, the faster you'll learn. Woohooo! Yeaaaaah!!!!! The Transhumanist 20:47, 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: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. – Steel 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Ral315, etc...: the MedCom request was made as a result of my successful Mediation of a MedCom case; however, the committee decided they did not wish to endorse a non-Administrator at that time; also, the emails regarding "MedCab co-ordinator" - that was requests from a co-ordinator to take on board my ideas, and that discussion was not related to a request to be a co-ordinator, and therefore this area of "status-seeking" has been explained. Next, the indecisiveness over user pages; this can be explained simply through my long-running experimentation with my userpage - I've been complimented on all my designs, and I simply like to occasionally chop and change ... in fact, the actual designs I've kept can be viewed at my Archive - the rest are simply experiments, and in fairness belonged in the Sandbox. Username - that is being resolved with a discussion with a Crat; the change was originally over personal privacy concerns that only came to light after the change; very recently these have been resolved, hence the pull-out. MfDs closing - I fully accept all blame here; I inappropiately closed an MfD there, and I'm man enough to hold up my hands and admit it. I made full apologies to both users, and one - Daniel.Bryant, I later worked on Portal:Scotland with, which is almost a Featured Portal ... now that's good will for you ;) last, concerns over not being able to handle the shit Admins take; well, I've had plenty of abuse in my time at Wikipedia: the most recent example can be seen here; I've also taken plenty of nonsense during my Mediation, so with all due respect, I don't believe that particular area to be much of a concern. ~ Anthony 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can hardly call this abuse, really. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 11:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've lost of track how many user page designs Anthony has created. But it sure explains how's he's gotten so good at wiki-layout. Some see it as indecisiveness. I see it as 1) practice, and 2) a valuable library of wiki-code which others can use as the basis for their own user pages. Such code may also find uses in the Wikipedia and Portal namespaces. But the fact that Anthony is being criticised for experimenting on his user page is idiotic. Changing one's user page is harmless. HARMLESS. And it puts new designs right out there where others can notice them and thus make use of them. I think that's a lot better approach than hiding the designs in a sandbox. The fact that he's repeatedly overhauling his user page rather than overdoing it on pages in other namespaces shows good judgement. User pages are the perfect place for wiki-layout experimentation. I say keep up the good work. The Transhumanist 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per WjBscribe and also because I believe that he is using a depreciated method for formatting closure of RFDs and TFDs (and has even changed admin closure to the depreciated format). In my opinion, if a non-admin is going to close discussions, they should be sure to follow the instructions. --After Midnight 0001 11:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm rather confused by this post - I follow WP:DELPRO in all aspects of my Deletion Debate closure, and in addition the technical lay-out of debates closed by me do not appear to be out of the ordinary. Please do get back to me on this one - I'm particularly enthusiastic about XfD activity, as I see it as a key process on Wikipedia, and any feedback on my contributions in this area would be received with gratitude ~ Anthony 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, here are a recent RFD closure [10] and TFD closure [11]. I believe that the lay-out on these are incorrect. Let me know if you disagree. --After Midnight 0001 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Those were perfectly fine. Majorly (hot!) 01:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for the RFD one (never closed a debate there), but the TFD one is designed to go *just below* the header, not just above. It throws the formatting if you do the latter. Not that I see that as a reason to oppose, as I've seen that mistake many a time, and it's easy to do. ^demon[omg plz] 05:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I said, I was opposing for per WjBscribe and I tacked on the formatting as an additional item, that probably bothers me more than it should. Given the number of people that have commented on the fact that he has improved considerably, I'm withdrawing my opposition at this time. --After Midnight 0001 10:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose As a response to the question about contributions he is most proud of, the candidate mentions a template meant for userspace. I would like to see a candidate who is more interested in building an encyclopedia. —M (talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I enquire as to what template in the userspace you are referring to? Upon re-examining of my answer to Q2, I have not mentioned the user namespace at all ~ Anthony 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I meant the WP:WELCOMEing committe. But this is still an organization for welcoming new users. I'm not disparaging involvment in this organization (I am a listed) but I would like to see more article building in a more diverse area of subjects than railway stations. Far too many non-article writing editors become admins and become embroiled in wikipolitics. We have enough of these, thank you. —M (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I'd like to mirror my addition of the copied-from-my-ER question at the top: early on in Wikipedia, I realised I was not a natural article writer - frankly, I suck at it, so I got involved in building and improving thousands of related articles - i.e., I mucked in with some Portals. I believe this to be my contribution to the encyclopedia: one (hopefully, *touch wood*, soon to be two) Featured Portals is a fair achievement, and considering they are base camps for thousands of related articles, I think it's not far off the mark to say I've contributed to the encyclopedia ~ Anthony 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, I don't intend to become embroiled in WikiPolitics - indeed, it's my aim to produce a Featured Portal within the next year if I'm promoted, in order to remain an article writer rather than a janitor ~ Anthony 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I've only come across this editor with regards to his repeated renaming requests. He hide his requested renaming to Anthony for the duration of this rfa rather than remove it - presumably so he doesn't have to wait 7 days. I am minded not to do it since he seems incapable of making his mind up.. He withdrew the request on 24 April, re-requested on 25 April. On 29 April he hides the request using his sockpuppet User:Testcfc so that those who look at his contributions don't see it? User:Anthony cfc was a name previous to the one he was renamed to, ignoring the current on-off renaming request.. Secretlondon 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I did not intend to mislead anybody by editing it with a secondary account; it was simply a case of forgetting to log out of one account and log in as the next. My reasoning behind commenting the Request out was so that it did not appear I was "going on the rampage", as such - in fact, it was in the interests of transparency, so that active editors at WP:CHU/U would be able to monitor the case, rather than pull it from the edit history as a result of my deleting it at the slightest opposition (i.e., your question). On another note, could you clarify what "presumably so he doesn't have to wait 7 days means", when you get a moment? Cheers ~ Anthony 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what Secretlondon means is that by commenting out, you ensure it remains at the top of the list (as the Bot will only archive requests tagged ((done)) or ((not done))). When you uncomment it out, if a bureaucrat other than her visits the page, they will assume that it has been visible since the date of the header. Whereas had you withdrawn the request, you would have needed to request again under that day's header and wait 7 days after that request. WjBscribe 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right - got it now; thanks for clearing that up. Well in that case, nothing but my apologies goes out - I did not intend to re-request at any time. Again, my apologies, and I shall bear this advice on how the page in question works, in mind ~ Anthony 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Secretlondon (above) and per the concerns of Ral315 (in Anthony's previous RFA which I can't seem to find at the moment). — CharlotteWebb 21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony cfc ~ Anthony 22:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose You only changed your username on 25 April and here we are already at RFA. Most importantly in yout discussion with Majorly and WJBscribe about MEDCOM/MEDCAB roles you admit to not reading a diff and thereby completely misunderstand the issue being raised. That's not the kind of carelessness I'd expect to see from someone with the block button. --Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, for several reasons, including some voiced above. I guess my main concerns can be summed up as a lack of stability and reflection. Speed appears to be a very if not the most important quality for you (for instance, your answers to Q1, referring to 'backlogs' of several minutes), and while you're also quick to apologise for mistakes, it makes me very hesitant about you becoming an admin. You're very enthusiastic, which is good, but I don't think giving you the tools at this time is a good idea, not in the least because of your very recent username change. I'm also worried about your interpretation of GDFL (see Daniel's concerns in Q9). --JoanneB 07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak on BLP. More concerned with editors than subjects.--Docg 10:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I answered from a Block point of view, as this discussion does deal with the Block button. I've extended my answer, with an additional outlook on the encyclopedia ~ Anthony 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Using User:Testcfc and deletion to hide your userspace edit count is very shady. I think the solution is to simply stop editing your userspace. John Reaves (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reiteration of above: Testcfc is a proclaimed and open secondary account of myself, used for user space editing - for the exact purpose of keeping my main account's edits down. However, per the reaction of the recent deletion, I'm glad to request it be restored ~ Anthony 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who supports you in this RfA (and have no intention of changing my opinion), I would like to comment that I personally don't like it when users use socks to edit their userpage. The simple reason for this is that many of the anti-vandal tools highlight when an editor is altering someone else's userpage. Thus using a sock to edit your userpage can divert the attention of a number of recent changes patrollers. Of course, there is obviously no policy stopping you doing this, but I for one would prefer it if you edited your userpage with your main account in the future. As people have mentioned, you can always delete your userpage if you really want to keep your edit count down, but I don't really see why edit count matters anyway. Will (aka Wimt) 17:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments noted and acted on: Testcfc (talk · contribs · email) is now inactive, and has been tagged with ((Historical-User)). Hopefully this should put to rest any fears regarding my secondary account ~ Anthony 20:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, most especially per WjBscribe. I find user's behaviour too erratic at this time for adminship, although user is a great contributer. Cool Hand Luke 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I'd have loved to have supported, and think that you're a great editor, but havinmg read this whole RfA, I have some concerns which can only be reconciled by time, mainly those pointed out by WjBscribe, and some memories brought back by DB's comments. Martinp23 22:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - I'm not convinced this user understands the GFDL licence sufficently and this raises further questions on copyright issues. Sorry. -- Nick t 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per JoanneB. —freak(talk) 17:53, May. 6, 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Pending Q4 response Naconkantari 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending Anthony's response to the oppose concerns, and possibly neutral even after that. – Riana ऋ 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks Anthony! I'm still feeling a little neutral though, I'll probably just sit this one out for a little bit. Steel's concern, although I perhaps would have worded it differently, does concern me somewhat. I will not oppose - I respect your work far too much for that - but I will perform a more thorough assessment of your contributions before making a final decision. I hope you understand. – Riana ऋ 03:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Switching to support. – Riana ऋ 13:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was originally going to leave answering the comments, to avoid the appearance of pressuring, but per Riana's request, I've answered ~ Anthony 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - I understand fully; your opinion is respected and understandable. For the record, I'm off-wiki for a few hours, so questions posted won't be answered until such times ~ Anthony 03:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, you seem to have no archiving system for your talk page. I seem to remember one, though, so if you can point it out I'd be happy to withdraw this. Either way, I'm still watching, and this may end up changing. -Amarkov moo! 04:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I've re-added the link; for quickness, here it is again -> User:AGK/Archive <- Anthony 10:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support He seems to be a good editor. Shalom:)--James, La gloria è a dio 20:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, it appears this !vote has been accidentally placed at the bottom of the page, rather than at the bottom of the "Support" section; however, I'd rather not move a !vote of my own RfA, so I'll leave it to editors experienced in Sysopship discussions (e.g., Majorly) to sort it out ~ Anthony 20:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and moved it up, dropping a note on Sir james paul's talk. —AldeBaer 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As I opposed Anthony/AGK's last RFA, and have been outspoken in my worries about his suitability, I'll review his latest contribs and make up my mind tomorrow. Ral315 » 08:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm still not entirely convinced, but assuming good faith upon some of the things that have come up by the opposers, I will not join in opposing your candidacy. However, I'm still a little uncomfortable with the things brought up, and so I will not oppose but not support, either. I hope you understand. Daniel Bryant 04:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category