Meta:Requests for adminship/AGK

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

AGK

Hello, Meta folks. I'd like to request temporary adminship, primarily for cleanup purposes: there's a tonne of system messages needing cleaned up (a lot are sitting in the state they come in with a default MediaWiki download, which is obviously not ideal with regards to new users). ~~I'd also be glad to close deletion discussions (I've dabbled there in the past on meta, when flying through between other projects, and I close large volumes of discussions extra-Meta)~~. I mainly base my request on a desire to assist at the spam blacklist.

I am acquainted with the Meta administrator policy, as well as the restrictions on temporary adminship (with regards to limiting oneself to areas of activity). Additionally, I am highly experience in the field of administrator duties, being an experienced administrator on the english wikipedia (where I also function as an arbitration clerk, member of the mediation committee, and observer on the cultural edit warring work group, amongst other roles).

In short, I'm experienced and (dare I blow my own trumpet?) trusted on other wikis, and I'd like to help out :) Anthøny 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment I strongly disagree to grant sysopship to some points referred on the above, including closing votes and Spam blacklist. They are not technical issues which we accept temporal sysops. --Aphaia 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your first concern (closing votes), I have removed that: I did not realise there would be an opposition to a temp. sysop doing that. With regards to your second concern: I was under the impression from this that you did? Anthøny 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week oppose~~: I reviewed your edits on English Wikipedia. Your edits in MediaWiki namespaces are less than 20 from the beginning. Also your reasons, specially temp admin for closing votes, don't convince me. I am not sure if you really need it for emergency and things you only can manage well, which is basically we grant temporal sysop access to people who need it. Also you don't show how long you need this temp access. --Aphaia 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- P.S. This vote was withdrawn and recast because of the clarification and discussion on the below. --09:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, I forgot to clarify this. One month, is the boundary of my request. Anthøny 17:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Aphaia, in that only regular admins should be closing deletion requests. I suggest you follow Werdna's recent promotion and stick with the spam blacklist. Majorly (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that a large part of your edits are to your user space as such your knowledge of Meta is likely to be limited. In practice I would love to see more helpers on the spam blacklist however those saying that they are going to help are tending to outweigh those who actually do help these days sadly --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I give my oath to chip in :) Anthøny 17:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughts. Help there would be very welcome - given the number of sysops Meta has it is not the most popular place to work. However I would echo Hillgentleman's & Kylu's comments - plenty can be done on that page without sysop status & that experience would be useful to you & the community - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about this quite a bit. In the end I will Oppose this. Generally you can see the folk who intend to put in an RfA here by watching recent changes - they get on with some basic helpful work. However this user does not seem inclined to actually do anything much despite the comments made by people. Help here in a number of areas would be appreciated - many of those do not require an RfA. Please stick around - do some of the grunt work & then we will get to know you, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You don't need to be a sysop to help out in the Spamblacklist. You can simply verify the requests and give your comments. That alone will greatly speed up the process. Much appreciated, Hillgentleman 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per this. Majorly (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly, The key point here is whether this candidate is capable and trusted to deal with the issues that he proposed to do. I haven't checked his contributions on wikipedia, but from what he said on this page: 1. system messages - probably; 2.spam blacklist - perhaps; 3. closing deletion requests - I don't think so. Hillgentleman 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is. We'll wait and see what AGK says. Perhaps limiting his adminship more would help. Majorly (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have dropped the deletion discussions section, per the above comments. If it helps, I maintain a number of mediawiki projects, and have bucketloads of experience with system messages; my edit count on enwiki in the MediaWiki:- space is as low as it is, solely because: 1/ I'm so busy with other things there; and 2/ the messages there are already, by-and-large, fine. Anthøny 13:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd have to agree with Aphaia. Temporary adminships are typically given to users who want to work on one specific project on Meta, such as the SBL/TBL, projects/committee work, and portal editing. If you'd like to add in more edits, I think you'd be ideal to help out on my pet project also. Personally, I'd suggest helping verify SBL/TBL requests and make a large to-do list of items you'd like to change in the mw namespace and use the opportunity to explore Meta a bit, then just request regular adminship. Temporary admins aren't "admin trainees", they're "specialty" admins confined to working only on specific pages. Even though they have the technical ability to, for instance, delete pages on WM:RFD, they shouldn't, as it's outside the scope of their position. Let me know if you'd like to know where to help out, though? ~Kylu (u|t) 05:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reset

Thanks for feedback. So now your reasonings for temp sysop are two on the below (and only):

MediaWiki message update
Help on Spam blacklist

Right? --Aphaia 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And adding to Aphaia's comment - from a BL perspective you have just three contribs to the en wp list with none to the requests page which gives me some cause for concern in terms of experience in that field. Please feel free to help out on the page here, it would be appreciated. However there is plenty there to do without sysop rights being needed. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have just promoted Werdna to admin to help in this area. He has a total of 0 edits on the enwp blacklist, and had no edits to the spam blacklist talk page here. Why not AGK? Majorly (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately all work on wikis is voluntary however in terms of help feel free to look at Werdna's contribution to the BL pages since his adminship. I stress this is no criticism however things need doing not talking about for those who are willing --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply for Aphaia: you have it correct, yes. Anthøny 17:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for MediaWiki update, Oppose for Blacklist as principle. As said by the others, helping BL can be done without adminship as clerks can help arbitration process without arbitratorship imo. --Aphaia 09:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; I believe AGK is extraordinarily power-hungry and invariably asks for almost every power that he thinks he can achieve. Ral315 (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather strong accusation. Any backup to the claim? Furthermore, as I've had that same claim lobbied at myself, can you show how his power-hunger has been abused (or, at the very least, a net-loss for a project)? EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'd like some evidence, particularly showing how he's abused his so-called "power". Majorly (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the length of this (feel free to move it to the talk page if necessary), and apologies if some of it sounds choppy. Parts of this summary were cobbled together from other pages and discussions. Below is a list of most of the requests that AGK's made over the course of his time on Wikipedia; I'm sure I've missed a couple (and if I missed any requests where he was granted a right/position, I apologize):

December 27, 2006: adds himself to the standby list for CheckUser clerks. At the time, not granted.
December 29, 2006: requests to join the mediation committee. Denied.
December 31, 2006: requests OTRS access. Not granted.
January 9, 2007: requests CheckUser access. Denied.
January 16, 2007: attempts to gain access to the Bot Approvals Group. Denied.
February 9, 2007: requests adminship on the English Wikipedia. Not granted.
March 3, 2007: requests to join the Mediation Committee again. Denied.
March 6, 2007: requests to become an administrator at the Simple English Wikipedia. Denied, and he leaves that wiki soon afterward, indicating that he was editing there for the sole purpose of gaining adminship (though has since made some edits under his current username, AGK).
March 9, 2007: Adds self as CheckUser clerk, shortly after the process is made more open (previously, checkusers -- primarily Essjay -- added users themselves). I recall a conversation with Essjay before he left the site in which he told me that he did not wish for Anthony to become a clerk; this is of course hearsay, and Essjay can't back this up. However, Essjay privately, and to a lesser extent publicly, complained that many of the positions that Anthony/AGK applied for were positions that Essjay held, or positions under Essjay (i.e. CheckUser clerk), and that the requests seemed to him as a form of stalking.
April 4, 2007: requests OTRS access again; request withdrawn.
April 19, 2007: requests to become a coordinator of the Mediation Cabal via e-mail. Not granted.
April 27, 2007: requests adminship on the English Wikipedia for a second time. Granted this time; I voted Neutral.
May 18, 2007: requests to join the Mediation Committee for a third time. Granted; I was unable to register my opinion on his nomination before it closed.
May 23, 2007: becomes a VandalProof moderator.
May 24, 2007: Just a day later, removed as moderator by AmiDaniel, "due to complaints from a variety of sources".
July 24, 2007: requests OTRS access for a third time. Denied.
December 27, 2007: Named an Arbitration Committee Clerk (at the time, a trainee; since then he's been named a full clerk)
February 6, 2008: Named as an observer to the Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.
February 11, 2008: requests OTRS access for a fourth time. Denied.
March 8, 2008: requests an account on the Foundation wiki. Request not yet acted upon.

AGK even admitted on March 5, 2007 that "I appeared power-hungry, and to an extent I was. Might I here point out that I have since eliminated all nominations from my mind - Adminship, etc.. - to concentrate on being permitted to formally mediate cases alongside a group of Wikipedians who I each hold in the highest respect, for one reason or another." The request to join MedCom was declined just hours later; he applied for adminship on the Simple English Wikipedia just a day afterward. I believe this speaks to AGK's hunger for power.

In response to Majorly and EVula, I have to admit that AGK has not abused these powers, though I feel that in some cases he's made poor judgments. As a fellow mediator (and a fairly unsuccess I don't feel comfortable judging his Mediation Committee actions, as a mediator emeritus, but I think AGK's handled some things rather poorly. For example, he was involved in a minor edit war with Daniel and I, regarding text on his userpage that was unquestionably copyrighted. He took offense that Daniel and I were involved, due to prior disputes we've had with him, and attacked us for that while acknowledging that we were right regarding the copyright status of the text. Moreover, he noted that he didn't have that great a grip on copyright issues, and "[had] not offered [himself] to OTRS for copyright queues". This is absolutely false; in July 2007, AGK's third OTRS request specifically notes that, at least initially "'I only wish to start helping out with permissions".

I feel that while he's a great contributor, he lacks the sensitivity to others to realize that some of his behavior can be extremely irritating, and in some cases can be interpreted as "wikistalking". Throughout Anthony/AGK's time on Wikipedia, he's seemed to follow in the footsteps of Essjay and Daniel. Both Essjay and Daniel have noted that AGK/Anthony has borrowed from their userpage design significantly; while it doesn't seem like the biggest concern, I can see where they could be concerned about confusion, and also how it could "weird them out".

More concerning, as noted above, is that many of the positions he's applied for were originally held by Essjay or Daniel. For example, in one of many coincidences, AGK first inquires about becoming a VandalProof moderator, just two days after Daniel becomes one. In early 2007, his requests to join the Mediation Committee, OTRS, CheckUser group, CheckUser clerk, and Bot Approvals Group were all presumably motivated by the fact that Essjay held each right. I wouldn't be worried about this, since it happened last year, except that it's still happening. Anthony asks for temporary Meta adminship less than four weeks after Daniel receives it for a different purpose -- another coincidence?

I guess to me, it's not a concern that AGK will do it wrong -- though he's had his troubles, I expect temporary adminship, to focus on MediaWiki messages only, is a task that is purely janitorial, and he should run into no trouble there. However, I find it troubling that it seems he treats these positions like trophies. I don't feel that encouraging this would be good for Wikimedia or for AGK, and I don't think that, given these concerns, the task he wishes to accomplish is that important that denying him adminship would adversely affect the Wikimedia mission. Ral315 (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Thanks for your thoughts Ral. I will admit that I find this somewhat, is frustrating the right word? If not, then slightly smile-raising. Some of the things you are citing are from >2 years ago, and to be honest, are very vaguely relevant. I'm going to pick out a few things, so apologies if this sounds a bit like a screed of quotes, with relevant counter-arguments, but it's probably the most efficient way. "AGK has not abused these powers, though I feel that in some cases he's made poor judgments." Wow, that's hurtful, Ral. My time on the MedCom has been one of the happiest I've ever spent on wikipedia, and even mentioning that I've abused them, as if you expect me to?, is somewhat out of order, in my book. I've received a huge number of compliments on my mediating in the past, and I really never expected, out of the fuel that you could pick, you'd pick that. Further to the point, what is temporary adminship, really? It's really, honestly no deal at all. It's a month, whereby I wander around and prettify an outdated mediawiki space, and then disappear again. I'm not using it as a "steeping stone" to permanent adminship, or any other "status", and, to clarify, once and for all, this request is not, in *any* way, related to the fact that Daniel has adminship here, on any other project, or on any site that's ever existed :/

"attacked us for that"; I think this is something of a misrepresentation of the facts. I really didn't attack anybody; in actual fact, I very specifically recall keeping a check on myself, to ensure that I did not say anything to you I'd regret: I know that would benefit nobody, and would probably simply be used by you in the future. It appears that's happened anyway.

"Named as an observer to the Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars."; again, I'd like to say I'm doing great work there. As it happens, I've been encouraged by others to increase my involvement with the workgroup. Surely that's a sign that, rather than wanting statuses to "show them off" as a trophy or anything of the sort, I'm actually in it to benefit everybody?

"that AGK/Anthony has borrowed from their userpage design"; I've often said this when you comment on various requests (although, I must admit, they are often more significant than this), but I think it's time for me to say it again. I don't think it's prudent for me to comment on this, simply because it will open just-healing wounds, and, no doubt, douse them with a load of salt whilst I'm at it. I appreciate that folks are looking for a response to this, but I think I'll bite my tongue on this one.

Oh well. Anthøny 09:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how any of that is related to Meta adminship. This just sounds like a grudge. You're not a particularly active editor here, and you somehow find out AGK is up for adminship, and you feel you must oppose for reasons completely irrelevant to being a Meta admin. I suggest you take your drama back to English Wikipedia, and get over this silly grudge against AGK. Majorly (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above - I don't often comment on such things, but some of the concerns ral315 noted were pointed out to me at the time the enwiki working group (which ral refers to) was being set up. Forcefully. I discussed them with AGK, and have been fairly aware of him since because of it. Some specific concerns that came up were, taking on multiple roles/more than he was able to do, and downplaying any gaps or limitations of knowhow/skill.

My experience in the two months since then has been that overall, he's acted well and has moved beyond what sounds like an earlier "try to be everywhere do everything" outlook. He did apply to the working group, but having joined it, he has in fact been a positive addition to the group, and understood the scope and purpose of his role well. When arbcom clerk confirmations came up last month I asked as an arbcom member for a recheck of those concerns again, "in case they were worth bearing in mind". The view that came back was that those involved were broadly happy to confirm his role based on actions and competence. That's not a trivial statement. These were people told "Concerns XYZ exist, please consider if they are an issue", who decided they weren't an issue.

I can't say if this specific role is a role he's right for or not, or if it's "yet another role" and a problem on that score. But I think the AGK of 2008 is a more measured and hence capable and useful user, than the AGK of 2007 might have been. On English Wikipedia at any rate, that's been my experience for what it's worth. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Majorly this would be better resolved in English Wikipedia and not greatly relevant to meta. However I admit I thought it a poor judgment to consider a temp sysop for "closing votes" and it may be sort of power hunger or just a poor jugement and lack of knowledge how meta works. --Aphaia 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Majorly: I find your insinuations very annoying. While I'm not a frequent Meta editor, I watch Meta closely, and have Meta RfA on my watchlist, with e-mail enabled, so I received an e-mail regarding AGK's adminship. That's why I came here.

In response to Anthony, I apologize if my comments may be misinterpreted. When I said that you hadn't abused powers on MedCom, I didn't mean to imply anything; I do not in any way think that you would abuse any powers, and if it's been read as such by anyone, I truly apologize.

The main reason I opposed this RfA is because I'm not necessarily convinced that AGK has changed as far as power-seeking goes, and I don't know if it's appropriate to grant AGK adminship as a result. If it's deemed that these concerns are irrelevant, or they're considered and rejected, please feel free to take them as you wish. While some of the events are old, they indicate to me a pattern that hasn't necessarily ended. I would be very happy to be convinced that this will not be a problem in the future, but I'm not sure I'm there yet. Ral315 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mention Essjay throughout your essay above, himself very power hungry, but you seem to indicate Essjay was right. Just because Essjay didn't want AGK working doesn't mean it was right. You seem to have made it your intention to never let AGK advance any further because of errors made months and months ago - clearly you hold a grudge. Get over it. You can't even produce any evidence of abuse - At All. What about your essay on English Wikipedia - why the hell not? I suppose that goes right out of the window here, right? I noticed you requested adminship once here. That must mean you are power hungry too. And I am also power hungry. Because I want to help more makes me power hungry. And so is the case with AGK. Get over your silly grudge and let him help out if he wants to. Unless you can bring up anything significant, I'll be ignoring this vote if I close this. You clearly have a petty conflict over this, and I think your continuous opposing of him for various positions is unfair and unnecessary. Majorly (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to argue a few points, but per Kylu, I think this should go elsewhere. Sending you an e-mail. Ral315 (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

("While some of the events are old, they indicate to me a pattern that hasn't necessarily ended..I'm not sure I'm there yet" -- a fair view for a person to take. My thought was to note that there is evidence of a difference. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure that this conversation is building towards improved inter-wiki cooperation and understanding. May I suggest, if AGK's interested in becoming an admin, withdrawing this nomination for temporary adminship, do more work here on Meta, and then reapplying when qualified for normal Meta adminship? ~Kylu (u|t) 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to moving the discussion to the talk page, but the problem I have with withdrawing this nomination, is that I'm not interested in permanent adminship, only temporary to tidy up the mediawiki space. Would withdrawing really help? Anthøny 02:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for / recommend for change on talk pages. It takes more time, but hopefully issues you are concerned about may not be urgent. If urgent, it should be immediately to go to the talk page (since you cannot edit them right now) or noticeboard. Anyway temporal adminship is generally given for tasks the person who requests needs for his own project or role, not for the general offer of assistance, though it is highly appreciated. --Aphaia 10:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have no qualms about AGK and I support his temp sysop status here on meta and i believe he won't abuse it since he ain't 'power-hungry' as pointed out above. Ral's opinions though justified can really be taken out of context and since this is a personal grudge, I'll stay out of it and tell them to solve this amicably instead of making a mountain out of a molehill.--Comet styles 02:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't see a particulary need to have temporary sysops performing general tasks. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask what you mean by this? I've defined which tasks I'm requesting temporary adminship: tidying up Meta system messages. I'm requesting for a maximum of one month, although (to be honest) I'll probably be done long before then. What do you mean by general tasks? Anthøny 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (and "not done", for now). After a five days discussion, your request appears to be quite confused, it seems that no need is felt and a clear consensus has not been reached. Would you please note that you have stated: «I mainly base my request on a desire to assist at the spam blacklist», while your last one year contributions do not show any involvment in blacklist related matters. --M/ 08:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]