The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

I've decided to go ahead and withdraw from this rfb a few days early, as opposition has been rising exponentially, and it's not reached the point where consensus has become clear: it's a no for now. :) I'd like to thank everybody who offered a comment, asked a question, and provided input in some way or another: it's appreciated.

I'll be getting to work on implementing remedies in my contributions to the concerns expressed; in particular, my recent lack of focus on the encyclopedia (that is, the article space) will be something I'll be trying to work on: I have been aware for a while now, that I've not been giving that side of my edits as large a focus as it warrants.

Most of the opposition has been from editors I respect, and their arguments have been logical and fair: a special thanks to them. Whilst a few of the expressed oppositions have not been totally robust, and indeed there has been some history between myself and some editors who opposed (I will neither name names, nor provide further information, except for a note that I've been an exceptionally busy administrator, and my willingness to get involved in difficult situations has gained me some enemies). Dwelling benefits nobody, however.

This has been an experience, both for good and bad. I must admit, this has left me feeling in pretty low standing: I had no idea so many people had some serious qualms about my activity here on Wikipedia. Once again, a necessity for thick skin is highlighted!

Thanks again to everybody; I'm sure I'll be back at rfb at some point, with yet another nomination (on that note, an extra-special thanks to Dweller, for showing enough faith in me to nominate!). ;) Status-seeking all the way! Yes, I am kidding.

Best regards, Anthøny 18:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGK[edit]

AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), aka Anthøny;
Final (44/21/7); Closed at 18:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Anthony has been an admin for a year now. While he doesn't perhaps have a string of FAs to his name, he's a useful contributor to mainspace, but he is a widely experienced and devoted contributor to dispute resolution and administration.

Anthony's recent contribs in bureaucratty areas caught my eye - this bunch of recent edits looked like a good idea to me, working well with (and proving he's read!) the instructions.

In terms of practical Crat stuff, Anthony's been active in WP:RFA, WP:RENAME and is also involved in WP:BAG activities.

In full disclosure (well, it's hardly hidden - this page ends with a "2") Anthony ran a brief RfB last year, withdrawing his nomination when it quickly became clear (tally was 3/5/0) that his short tenure as an admin was considered a major drawback.

I'd like to draw attention to Anthony's desire to be helpful and improve the quality of Wikipedia. This is manifest in his work soothing disputes (he's on the Mediation Committee and is an Arbcom Clerk). He generally takes a detached rational view of matters and will be a useful, hard-working addition to the ranks of Crats. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Paranomia: Looks like Dweller beat me to the nom—I've been thinking of nominating Anthony for some time now, so here's an opportunity. As mentioned by Dweller; Anthony has been active in 'cratty areas (RFA, CHU, and other 3-letter acronyms), as well as demonstrating excellent skills when solving disputes—for example, being a mediator with the mediation committee, being active at ANI, and clerking at Arbcom. In short, Anthony has demonstrated the neutral, consensus-gathering attitude required by bureaucrats, and would make an excellent addition those we have now. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 00:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, Dweller; I'd be pleased to accept. :) As in my last RfB, I'm simply offering myself up to help out with 'crat tasks (although, of course, last time the <1 year expired time since sysopship proved to be an non-ignorable factor); I've the time and experience available to serve. One or two more additions to the 'crat team would be helpful at the present time (EVula has, of course, already filled one of those slots); I would, of course, be a pro-active (and, I'd imagine, quite busy!) bureaucrat, and hopefully could provide some relief to the existing team.
In my time as a sysop (over a year now), I've been heavily involved in a bunch of activities that involve working with votes and comments, interpretation of consensus, and weighing actions against policies (eg., comparing arbitrator votes on /Proposed_decision pages to the 'majority' figure; closing afd discussions, and other xfds). I've been pretty heavily involved in some discussions related to 'bureaucrat areas', such as: SUL-related CHU procedures (I assisted with the initial clerking of Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL, before it was forked); the widely-varying topics on WT:RFA and WP:bureaucrats' noticeboard; nominating various candidates on WP:requests for adminship, and commenting on discussions beyond count; and occasionlly dipping my toe in BAG matters (eg., here; the requests for BAG membership); and so on.
Dweller has kindly offered to nominate me for RfB (thanks for the flattering statement ;), and that, coupled with the urgings of a fair few RfA regulars and non-regulars, as well as the recent increase in task load (the introduction of single user login, and the creation of RfBAGmembership), have been deciding factors in my deciding to accept. There is, of course, the additional reason that I will be a thoughtful, careful, and transparent bureaucrat if the community voices its support; that should, of course, speak for itself in a bureaucrat candidate.
I am willing to receive any variety of probing questions. It'll be a busy week, I expect. :)
Anthøny 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. I have both read and been involved in the discussions regarding when and when not to promote. My understanding of the current, general criterion for promotion are that the community has expressed a consensus that the candidate should be promoted to administrator status: the task of a bureaucrat is to review the discussion at requests for adminship, weigh the arguments and comments in both directions, and implement the consensus of the community. The community has, of course, developed numerical guidelines which act as a 'measuring stick' for this consensus: for an administrator candidate, a candidate whose discussion receives 70-80% community support will fall into the area of bureaucrat discretion, with anything exceeding that range passing, and below that, not passing. The upper boundary seems to be pre-empted by something of a glass ceiling, however, with 75% generally dictating that an RfA pass. The standards for a bureaucrat candidate are generally higher, with 80-90% seeming to be RfB's equivalent 'grey area', and again, with candidates over that passing, and under that, not passing.
Anthøny 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Largely taking my first rfb's answer here, with a few changes; things are by-and-large the same as then.
There are two additional options open to borderline Requests for Adminship: firstly, extending the RfA (which, hopefully, will allow more comments to be posted, which (again, hopefully) will allow a larger difference between conflicting arguments to emerge, allowing consensus to become clearer). My actions in extending the rfa, would be to amend using a notice on the top of the rfa (as well as tweaking the closure time, with a signature + explanatory note), and notifying the candidate. However, quite often this may not be the best option: if activity at the RfA was fairly low, then extension of the discussion may be fruitless.
The second option is the system of "Bureaucrat Chat" that has been seen on a few 'close-call'; I believe that such public discussion between Bureaucrats is the way forward for close call nominations (by that I mean in the "grey area"), and I'd have no worries about calling that in for an RfA. My actions when hosting a bureaucrat chat would be to suspend the request using the templates here (I created that table a few days ago), and notifying the active bureaucrats as to the discussion's presence. Alternatively, a discussion at the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard could also be used.
However, at the end of the day: if there is a consensus amongst the community (that is, general agreement between users, in that the majority of well-thought-out arguments) to promote, then I'll promote; if there is consensus not to promote, then I won't. An increase in likelihood of criticism heading my way should not skew my judgement, nor stand in the way of consensus: as an administrator and fairly high-profile contributor, I'm well-rehearsed in being transparent in the face of scrutiny over actions; I'd simply apply my existing ethos, to my bureaucrat actions.
Anthøny 22:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I'm going to be brief here, as I think actions speak louder than words for questions like this: essentially, I'd say my editing history and contributions talk for themselves. Briefly, I'm an administrator of over a year (I've kept to the more difficult tasks, such as handling difficult unblock requests; closing more complex deletion discussions; etc.) and I'd like to say I've earned the community's respect as a clued-up, thoughtful chap. I've also served on the mediation committee for almost as long, and operated as a mediator of the somewhat far-developed disputes that are presented in that group's workload. I'm also an arbitration clerk, and a member of the arbcom's working group on ethnic edit warring. In each of these roles, communication, fairness, and knowledge of policy are critical and essential, as it an ability to be impartial and thoughtful. I would strive to apply the same ethos I have there, to my bureaucrat tasks, and I will ensure I remain easily accessible (I've been using user:AGK/Contact to allow any individual to contact me, via email, IRC, or skype).
Anthøny 22:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. Absolutely. I already spend a substantial period of time on each of those pages (RFA or CHU the most, and less so the Bot Approvals Group, although I have contributed in discussions with reflective comments where I can), and it would simply be a case of adjusting my contributions there, with the +bureaucrat bit. In fact, I've had a little play around with the figures on how long I spend at each of those areas: superseding my current contributions with ones from a bureaucrat angle, I would absolutely be able to accommodate the time demands required. Should the community select me as a bureaucrat, inactivity will not be a problem.
Anthøny 22:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:MBisanz

5. One of of the crats elected in 2004 has yet to use any of the crat tools and others have used them very rarely. Do you think the crat position should have a minimum level of activity? Would you trust a crat who hasn't looked at RFA in four years to close one?
A. I do indeed believe that there should be something of a minimum level of activity for the project's Bureaucrats. The staff has always been small, and it seems it will be for the foreseeable future: there is not an abundance of bureaucrats who are active. Whilst I'm not sure if or how this stance could transfer over to a bureaucrat having the tools, or not having them, but I do think that there are problems posed by a bureaucrat suddenly entering into an activity he or she has been absent from for some time. My personal attitude is that some sort of 're-education' (a chat over IRC, a discussion in a subpage) between an active, experienced bureaucrat, and between a bureaucrat who is coming out of activity after (to use your hypothetical, MBiszanz) 4 years, to bring him or her 'up to speed' may be an effective remedy to a bureaucrat who wished to become active again. Should they still have the tools after such a lengthy hiatus? Probably not. It's something to be handled on a case-by-case basis: some bureaucrats retain an excellent ability of consensus-gauging despite a lack of closing actual discussions, some don't (so it depends on what you say by 'not looked at': have they not closed a discussion, or have they totally stayed away from the page?).
Generally (and I say this both as a summary, and on a non-specific note: different situations involving inactive bureaucrats are different), to give a summary answer to your respective questions: yes, I do think the position should have a minimum level of activity; to the second question, I would offer my assistance to a bureaucrat who had not closed an RFA in 4 years, and if it was declined, I would only hope he or she would have retained the consensus-gauging abilities that are so vital–otherwise, we have a problem on our hands. Anthøny 08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Recently the first Bot-RFC was filed. How do you reconcile this process with the WT:BRFA process? How would you as a crat interpret a Bot-RFC in deciding whether or not to involuntarily deflag a bot?
A. Excellent question. It's important to remember that the standard method of approving a bot is to seek it from the Bot Approvals Group; approval from the BAG is but one method of affirming consensus amongst the community, that the bot is to be ran (in theory, at least). Theoretically, if the RFC closed with community consensus as 'bot is not to run', then the course of action to that end should be to de-flag. I would suggest here, however, that inter-bureaucrat discussion may be required, just to check that it's the right way to head: it's certainly not the orthodox / standard course of action, and it's probably best to get some second opinions. :)
How would I interpret a Bot-RFC? Generally, by gauging and reading the consensus expressed: textbook answer, but it holds firm. The discussion is simply a forum for the community to express its consensus over whether a bot should continue to run in the project. The closing bureaucrat should gague that consensus appropriately, and implement the decision of the community. As a personal preference, I would use the same techniques used in closing rfa's: the subject matter has changed, but the backbone (a consensus-building discussion) is still there.
Summary: a Bot-RFC ties in with the existing approvals system very well; it is simply another forum for expression of community consensus, over whether or not a bot should continue to run, and I would treat it accordingly (how to treat? implement the community's consensus therein). How to interpret the discussion? Just as a bureaucrat would interpret any other discussion; by gauging consensus and weighing the comments and arguments presented. The lack of numerical guidelines that are provided to 'crats for closing rfa's won't be a problem: the role of a bureaucrat is to interpret the consensus, and that's done just as well in a bot-RFC without the measuring stick.
Anthøny 08:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Currently, no editor has ever passed RfB with a % less than 85%. At the same time, four of the six Arbcommers elected in December 2007 had support %s below 80%. Do you see any potential role for crats, with their high level of community trust, in the Dispute Resolution processes? Would you accept or feel it appropriate to ask the crats as a group to assist in DR?
A. I think that the bureaucrat user group may be a useful 'recruiting ground' for identifying editors with a high level of community trust, excellent communication skills, and an ethos of transparency. Many bureaucrats are very savvy individuals, who, if they don't already slot naturally into the DR side of the project, could be targeted for drafting into there.
Having said that, different bureaucrats are different: not all of them would be suited to the specific demands of dispute resolution (which is itself a tricky area: diffusing heated disputes isn't anybody's idea of an easy day), and it's not wise to draft them in wholesale into dispute resolution. So I think it would be appropriate to ask the bureaucrats generally, to offer themselves into the DR process if they find they would be helpful there; however, I wouldn't suggest that somehow making involvement in DR part of the bureaucrats' "task list" is a good idea. Anthøny 22:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Al Tally

8. How would you have closed this RfA, assuming it hadn't been withdrawn, and the final revision was the last before it was due to close? (PS bureaucrat chat is the likely answer, I'm mostly interested in your thought process. And if you voted in it, assume you didn't.)
A.
8a. Based on the above question, how would you have closed it at this point? (Same conditions as above; please don't say 'crat chat.) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A.

Optional questions from Syn

9. Assuming you are familiar with BOR: What are your thoughts about this category? Are you willing to add yourself upon this request being successful, and if no, why?
A: I am indeed familiar with the bureaucrats' recall category, having been briefly a party to the original discussion. I think it's a very good idea: bureaucrats require the community's trust in order to be able to implement their consensus, and the recall category facilitates continual assurance that they have that trust. I myself have recently became open to recall (see user:AGK/Recall) as an administrator; if my RfB is successful, I would be happy to become open to recall as a bureaucrat, and would build upon the existing sysop guideline there. I simply see it was a useful tool for ensuring that I remain trusted by the community, and that there is a mechanism in place to have me removed should I lose their trust. Anthøny 08:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. You've stated that you have nominated various candidates for adminship. Approximately how many do you think you have nominated and, more importantly, how many were successful?
A: I wouldn't like to put a number on how many I've nominated, but I'm not somebody who churns out countless nominations (I prefer to select a few, very good candidates :), so I'd say 10 or so in the course of my activity on RFA. The two most recent ones have been, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Canley (62/0/0, January 2008) and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VanTucky 2 (194/9/4, April 2008). More of my nominated candidates have been successful than unsuccessful; any that haven't been successful (for example) have been fairly 'close calls'. Anthøny 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11a. Can you briefly explain your reasons for various requests here on wikipedia, and other sister projects in the past? How have these shaped your opinions and contributions?
A: When making a request, my guiding principle has been 'can I make a difference by requesting?'. I doubt anybody makes a request if they can't make a positive difference; that is, after all, the only way one will pass. In each request, whether successful or unsuccessful, constructive feedback is received, at least to some degree. I would say that my contributions have been shaped in some way by all of my requests: for example, in any successful requests, some areas of one's edits are recognised as been of excellent quality; my response has been to endeavour in upholding that area contribution to the encyclopedia. In any areas where the community points out problems, I have adjusted my contributions for the better.
As for opinions? Well, any request is a bare-bones submission to what can be a pretty rough ride. My opinion after all the requests in my time has been the growing of pretty thick skin. :) Anthøny 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11b. What makes this request different than other requests you have made in the past?
A:

Question from User:Pedro

12 Why did you delete and then restore two days later your first RfB [1]? Why that edit summary? (please feel free to not answer the second part of my query if there's a personal reason you'd prefer not to go into) Pedro :  Chat  08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A:

Optional Question from User:PrestonH

13 How would you close your own RfB as of this diff? (Assume that diff is the last revision before it was due to close.) (I'm still going to support even if you don't answer this question. This is a serious question. :))
A:

General comments[edit]

RfBs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. As nom. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support MBisanz talk 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Where on earth do I begin with Anthony. I think being one of the most respected editors on Wikipedia pretty much covers it. An editor who has been active with the Mediation Committee as a mediator, a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, regularly clerks for checkuser, WP:USURP, WP:SSP. His comments are held in high regard due to his clarity and thoughtfulness put into any answer. His experience with mediation place him in a situation where is used to being in difficult situation with editors with opposing views as can happen at RfA. He is dedicated in everything he does on Wikipedia and I don't think that I could ever support someone so fully in something. He knows his stuff, has proven he is dedicated to this project and will be a fine asset to the team of crats this project has. Seddσn talk Editor Review 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support 3rd "2nd time the charm" Hopefully.... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: (Switch to neutral #7) Seddon pretty much nailed it. Good luck, Anthony. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. While I have not directly interacted with AGK, I have seen him around and have been impressed by his maturity and judgement skills. I would most definitely trust AGK with the extra buttons given to a 'crat, and I hope the community agrees. Best of luck, AGK—Malinaccier (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Displays thoughtfulness and discretion, two important traits for a 'crat. GlassCobra 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a quick note to the opposers: how is "too many hats" a bad thing? This doesn't really make sense to me; you're opposing because he wants to help out more and take on more responsibility? Where is the logic? GlassCobra 23:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - very thoughtful and knowledgeable editor and probably one of the most respected editors here. Will be a fine 'crat. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - AGK is a very thoughtful (ok, echoing Sephiroth unintentionally) administrator who has shown, in my opinion, excellent judgment in every situation where I have encountered him. Perhaps he is taking upon himself the mantle of the new NYB? :-P I'm happy to support him for bureaucrat, as I told him I would, and I'm sure that he will do a great job when this RfB has passed. AvruchT * ER 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strongly support: AGK knows what he's doing, and is experienced enough to become a bureaucrat. I supported his last RfB, which, I have to agree was pre-mature; but he has done well since then, and he has been great in his time as an administrator: I am happy to support this one. Acalamari 23:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support - I've gone to AGK many a time, when I needed counsel, and he's always been able to help me out. I respect AGK very highly, and I feel he would make an exceptional bureaucrat. I'm highly tempted to make a haggis joke here, but I think I'll refrain. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To the no-doubt confused voters, Steve is one of a many band of folks from IRC and Skype, who like to coo at my accent and make tartan/haggis jokes. Don't ask... :) Anthøny 23:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No reason not to. Sceptre (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. For being bold and raising his hand o/ when needed - --Cometstyles 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Seems to have common sense SQLQuery me! 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support as co-nom. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Anthony, you are one of the editors on here that I respect the most on the English Wikipedia, and you've also proven to be a good friend to me over on the Simple English Wikipedia. You definitely have executed your job as an administrator with dazzling light effects :). You definitely have a good grasp of all relevant policies and you are definitely the one for the job. Good luck! Razorflame 01:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I have encountered Anthony in a variety of areas during my time here, and I have been nothing but impressed. He handles situations with calm, intelligence and thoughtfulness. Just what I would like to see in a bureaucrat. Best of luck. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per Seddon and the fact that he participates in BRFA discussions. Soxred 93 05:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I don't see a problem with "wearing too many hats", as Naerii and JayHenry put it, as long as the person does good work, which AGK certainly does. Oh yes, and definitely per Seddon and more appropriately SQL. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 05:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Edited by GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 05:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  20. Support. He is a member of medcom, an arbcom clerk, a participant of the working group, and hangs around medcab. All are evidence to my eyes that he is a fair Wikipedian who in no small part keeps the project smoothly running. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support He is definitely trustworthy and he has done excellent work as an admin. Alexfusco5 11:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I take the view that holding a number of positions of skill and/or responsibility in wikipedia is a positive recommendation, being demonstrations of ability and commitment to the project. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. If this was an election for Arbitration Committee, or some other position involved in dispute resolution, I might agree with the "too many positions of power" agrument. But bureaucrats have nothing to do with dispute resolution, and try as I might I can't think of a serious or likely potential conflict of interest that could arise. He wants to help in another area, I trust him enough to do that carefully and wisely, and that's more than enough for me. --barneca (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. AGK is highly respected, highly qualified, and has volunteered for the job. Of course he doesn't have a lot of mainspace edits, he's rather busy volunteering his time making sure Wikipedia runs smoothly enough (in many areas) so that those that choose to volunteer in that manner have the freedom, environment, and support to do so. To claim that by acting administratively in Wiki-space he is somehow "not building the encyclopedia" is ludicrous. In other words, per Avruch (below in the oppose #4 commentary). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Article writing is directly correlated to encyclopedia building. I don't consider clerking at CheckUser or CHU as having a strong relation to encyclopedia building (what exactly are you building by telling someone that their CheckUser code is invalid?). It's like claiming someone with an Erdos number of a 3 actually collaborated with Paul Erdos on a paper. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to disagree Nishkid64. I respect your position, your longstanding tenure, and your solid reputation as a Wikipedian. I think we are semantically disagreeing, and not actually philosophically disagreeing at all though. When I say "build an encyclopedia", my mind includes every positive contribution to wikipedia. "Building" includes clerking, granting rollback rights, closing RFAs, mentoring, adding welcome templates to user talk, blocking vandalistic accounts, discussing policy. To you it seems, "building an encyclopedia" means explicitly and exclusively "add content to articles". Again, I agree philosophically that "adding content" is the end all. Some extremely intelligent and talented editors are here to do just that. Some extremely intelligent and talented editors aren't so good at it, or in some way or another decide to focus on other areas of Wikipedia. AGK has volunteered to clerk things, close things, rename things, protect things. That, to me, is "building the encyclopedia", and if he never has another single "content contribution" outside of those minor edits, or 4% or whatever, I still find him highly skilled, highly valuable, and highly qualified to be a bureaucrat. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - excellent interaction. We can't all write a featured article every week like some people. Different people have different interests on Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, but we aren't just an encyclopedia. Each bit of it helps our community (and anything that doesn't normally gets deleted). I can see no reason why AGK should be denied. The opposers have yet to come up with anything actually negative. Experience in CHU is a positive not a negative. This is not a request for editing articles. It's a request for bureaucratship, which really, doesn't have much to do with articles. Unless they can substantially say how he'll make a bad bureaucrat (other than "Not enough edits to articles" or "Too much power") then my vote is support. Al Tally talk 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. AGK has tremendous patience, is diligent and reliable. Bureaucrat material indeeed. Rudget (Help?) 18:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes, this is going to be a long one, so feel free to stop here if you wish. Since me unbanning in October (the 28th, if I remember correvtly,) AGK was there, and still is, if I never need it, to assist me. I agree that AGK may not have the highest number of mainspace contributions, but as Al Tally noted above, not everyone has it in them to write an FA (and I'm sure AGK is more than capable of it, albeit such content contributions do take some time.) It is my opinion that you cannot please anyone in life, no matter what decision you make, you will always be letting someone down (I mean Dihydrogen Monoxide was criticised for announcing all his FAs, yet people want Anthony to write them, so you can't really please everyone, although I must that if I had 10 FAs like DHMO does, I'd be bloody proud of myself and bragging too, not that DHMO does, in my opinion.) One does not need any FAs/GAs or anything to display on their userpage, as long as they know how to do perform basic article skills such as using the cite web, albeit I do copy the code sometimes due to my laziness, and I know for a fact AGK knows how to do such things, even though he might not always be putting them into action. AGK is by far one of the friendliest and most helpful editors around (not to mention his really amusing Scottish accent ;)) and is always there to help you or support you in your time of need; this was clearly evident when I returned after my unbanning, as him, Ryan Postlethwaite (talk) and Moreschi (talk) were the three whom I knew I could trust and rely on. AGK is reliable, and definitely bureaucrat material, and has never lost his temper (I don't know how, but its nothing short of remarkable,) and this encyclopedia could definitely benefit from him being a 'crat. His selflessness throughout his time here is truly remarkable, and him being a bureaucrat would make the world a better place. Best of luck, Qst (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support -- per the need for more 'crats and WP:Bureaucratship_no_big_deal = ) --Cameron (T|C) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Sim A bit of Luso input for a worthy candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Re the opposing comments below...I disagree with the idea that somone can have too many jobs. Having a job does not mean one can not do other things. Even if an admin or bcat uses their tools sparingly, that still helps us out. We need more admins and bcats--just look at all the backlogs we have. AGK is a fine wikian, fine admin, and will make a fine bcat. We need to stop being so hard on ourselves, then we may have more people running for admin and bcat; many qualified people don't run (esp for bcat) because it's such a brutal process all too often. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support a solid, reliable worker. Every individual finds his/her own niche and balance of priorities and work; others can't do it for them. Won't he be balancing the equation himself if he decides to slow down on mediation, etc. to absorb bureaucratic functions? Where's the harm in that, if all it does is help the project? Vishnava talk 21:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support He has the experience, and his answers to questions 1 through 4 match what I'm looking for. I acknowledge the fact raised in the oppose section that more article writing would be commendable for AGK, but somehow I don't think restricting his access level is going to encourage him to write more if he just doesn't want to do that, and in his capacity as an administrator he is doing a fine job. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, while I see evidence of "hat collecting" I don't really think it's a problem, and I do see potential for a hardworking bureaucrat. Many of us rose up the "wiki-ladder" in the same way, and AGK already has enough power to be able to do damage -- so I trust him not to abuse the bureaucrat powers. Andre (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Absolutely. AGK is one of the most hard-working admins we have here. I have always thought of him as level-headed and rational. I can't think of a better candidate. Trusilver 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Hardworking, spread out editor and admin. Would both benefit and help with the extra responsibility. (Also, is Scottish.) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. One of the most hard working users out there, like the unfortunately retired Newyorkbrad. bibliomaniac15 00:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support for the simple reason that I trust him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I've been impressed with him in the past and I trust him in the position. Though I do worry that his mainspace contributions will diminish even further were he promoted, I feel that the operations behind the scenes are often times just as important. And that's a place where I know he will serve well. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 03:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support While respecting the arguments made in the oppose section, the question to me is can we trust his judgement? I haven't seen anything to persuade me from the view that the user is a particularly mature and wise editor. Dean B (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per Dean B I think we can trust him. Opposing arguments were not convincing enough. Some seem to be saying "he does to much already"? Also, we did not say adminship is no big deal, he did. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I have no reason to oppose AGK's being granted bureaucratship. Great editor. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support You are a great admin AGK, and I've see you worked on the bereaucrat stuff. I couldn't care less on "seperations of power" listed in the oppose section. Although you maybe a bit argumentive, I still believe you will become a great b-crat. Best of luck. --PrestonH (t ♦ c) 01:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, trust Anthony completely. · AndonicO Engage. 10:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oh well, obviously I'm going to be all on my lonesome down here but I can't in good conscience support. Too much time spent filing paperwork, not enough time spent on the bits that matter. Oppose the promotion of people here to play the career ladder MMORPG. You're already an admin, a mediator, an arbcom clerk and seemingly part of this, as well as clerking at the checkuser and name changing requests boards. That's quite enough hats, seperation of powers and all that. I don't recall ever seeing you around RFA, although a review of your contribs indicates that you do vote here but usually not with anything much to say - not that there's anything wrong with that, at least half of my rfa contribs are me signing my name in a column, but I'm not seeing anything that makes me think "wow this guy would be a great crat" or even anything that indicates much of an interest in the process (though I guess that's not entirely a bad thing...). After reviewing your contribs I'm just thinking "why?" and cratship isn't a "why the hell not" process for me I'm afraid. I'm also a bit concerned by your support of "crat chats" which are usually either pointless or useless. I usually use AFD closures as a way of telling if a candidate can judge consensus well, but you haven't done much of that recently either so I'm at a bit of a loss - nearly all your time is spent in dispute resolution areas - I can't honestly believe you want this for any other reason than because it's the next "step" up the ladder. I'm a whiney bitch who assumes bad faith, I know. Sorry. You're obviously going to pass so good luck, don't be too shit with it, etc. Have a nice day. naerii - talk 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, I respect your oppose; thanks for commenting. Having just came out of an IRC discussion regarding the mainspace and how many administrators tend to forget about it when their rfa passes, I can relate to your view. I've often said, I'm no wordsmith: my edits are here-and-there, and generally one-edit rewrites to make the article more encyclopedic. I would consider it my weak spot, and, although it's obviously not related to my ability to be a bureaucrat, I am working on the matter. One mainspace for every three talk page edits is my goal; whether I'll reach it, is another matter. Incidentally, bureaucrat is something that I'd say to be a very unremarkable role; if it helps, it's something of a 'dead end' job. :) No career prospects lie at the end of a successful RfB: I simply know I can do a good job. Anthøny 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I could quote from the candidate statements of two prior successful RfBs

    I would like to request my bureaucratship. I have (hopefully) avoided annoying most of you, and... I guess that's it. Ugen64

    ...I'd like to request bureaucrat status so that I can help out if it ever becomes necessary. Pakaran

    Maybe we've all made RfB too big of a deal if we are opposing for the same reasons other people once passed. MBisanz talk 23:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two crats who rarely, if ever, use their abilities. The standards of 2004 are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia today; in 2004 we werent a top 10 website with over 2 million articles that appear as #1 in Google for a search of almost anything. naerii - talk 01:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually one isn't even a bureaucrat anymore. But how are your comments about how well Wikipedia ranks in Google anything to do with bureaucratship? Al Tally talk 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because adminship is now a BigDeal and it's almost impossible to get it revoked from someone who uses it badly. naerii - talk 01:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply to get as much constructive feedback from this discussion as possible, could you explain how that relates to my ability to carry out 'crat tasks, and how I could improve on those problems therein? Anthøny 07:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't necessarily, I was just responding to MBisanz's fanciful notion that we should somehow behave as though Wikipedia is what is was in 2004 and promote people willy nilly. The point I was trying to make (obviously very badly) is that I need to have 100% confidence in a crat because when they make decisions I don't like I have no recourse to reverse them - whereas when admins delete, block, etc, I have DRV and the various noticeboards to complain at. As I said above, you don't seem to have closed that many AFDs lately so I can't really judge your closing skills and I've never seen you get involved in any discussions about RFA so I have no idea what your stances are on most RFA hot topics. When I'm judging 'crat noms I only consider how they would deal with contentious rfas because all the other 'crat tasks are so boring and mundane I couldn't care less who does them. Yeah. That's all. This is really sidetracking o_O naerii - talk 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand your reservations. I think we all would like to have 100% or even 110% confidence in crats. Might I suggest asking AGK an optional question then? Perhaps one that asks him his stance on a number of issues you currently see as topic appropriate? — MaggotSyn 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    God no, no offence, but I don't trust anything anyone says whilst under the spotlight like this. naerii - talk 07:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With some regret (as I personally like AGK) I share Naerii's concerns. Wearing too many hats is both bad governance and bad fashion. When will we learn? A class of superusers has not served us well, and it's best to keep these things more compartmentalized than we currently do. "The reward for a job well done is three more jobs" is a philosophy that has served our community terribly, in my perspective. And while it's long in the past and I don't know if WJBscribe or Ral315 still feels this way, I actually still have concerns along the lines of those expressed in your second RFA about too much focus on pursuing "positions of status". --JayHenry (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, fair comments here too. As I observed above, 'crat is something of a dead-end job... I've accepted as I was nominated; I doubt I would be going for a self-nom. here. Anthøny 00:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a point of order - is this really correct? It's just I don't believe you'd have only run if you were nominated given this thread at WP:BN. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, that's correct: I wouldn't go in for another self-nom. The point of that thread was to test the waters outside of those who want to nominate me: a spread of opinions are essential, I think, and it's important to see what those outside think. Generally, people will approach and say 'you'll be a great bureaucrat' but not say 'you'd be rubbish'. :) Anthøny 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to repost the following as I don't think people understand the scope of what we're talking about here.
    • 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.
    • March 9, 2007: Adds self as CheckUser clerk.
    • 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.
    • May 18, 2007: requests to join the Mediation Committee for a third time.
    • 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
    • February 6, 2008: Named 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.
    • April 10, 2008: Requests adminship on Meta. Not granted.
    I find that the claim that this is going to be a dead-end job to strain credulity. This is 20 applications for positions of status in not even as many months. What would be the definition of a career WikiMandarin if not this? --JayHenry (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I'm understanding. You are opposing because he is a hard working who is not afraid to take on additional responsibility? Trusilver 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I do still have concerns about the positions that AGK has tried to attain over the last few years. It's certainly happening less often; however, AGK asked for temporary adminship on Meta just a few months ago, and withdrew. But in general, I look at the reasons expressed above, and they just don't convince me. I'd also echo concerns about too many roles, in general. Events over the last year or so have convinced me that separation of roles is a good thing. Ral315 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a general response to the three over the positions that AGK "holds" and although i assume you are all versed in their roles, i wanna go through them. Being a member of the mediation committee holds no power and is nothing special. Being a member of the mediation committee is almost recognition that you are good at solving disputes something which is something we should not be putting down. There is no limit to the people that can be on the committee you just need to be good at what you do and in this sense, WJBscribe is also on the committee as its chair so i see this as no problem. Now i shall discuss the clerking of the clerking at usurpations and checkuser and suspected sockpuppet. This is in fact an open area of which ANY admin can come in and clerk and especially in the usurpations instance this is an instance where is vital for a crat to have an understanding of the system. Being on the Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars is an extension of his abilities as a mediator. Being in this role is vital to wikipedia, just as being an article writer is another vital role. Are we suddenly going to started not accepting people as bureaucrats because they have written too many FA's and are too good a writer. In fact the only role which AGK has that has been "given" to him is as an ARBCOM clerk which is a role that can be easily left aside if and when it becomes a problem. I think we need to actually look at the facts and not generalize. Seddσn talk Editor Review 12:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Anthony is a great guy, but I too have an issue with the number of positions he holds here. His last 5,000 edits, dating back to January 3, 2008, include 1956 in the Wikipedia namespace, 1477 in user talk, 564 in userspace, 278 in template namespace, and just 201 in the mainspace. 4% of his edits in the last 5 months have been in the mainspace. To me, that shows that either he's deliberately not editing the mainspace or he's got too much on his plate to have any time for encyclopedia writing. Adding bureaucratship will essentially reduce AGK's encyclopedic contributions to nil. Some is better than none, IMO. If AGK could balance clerking, MedCom, adminship with encyclopedia writing, then I would have no problem supporting this RfB. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For comparison User:WJBscribe has made only 250 article edits since 5 January of which as you can see has pretty much been administrative work . Seddσn talk Editor Review 13:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, my contributions to the mainspace have taken a huge hit since I became a bureaucrat - one of the more selfish reasons I would like to see more bureaucrats being appointed is that it might free up some of time for editing. Anthony's mainspace edits are already very low before becoming a bureaucrat, so I think it is fair of Nishkid to ask where the extra time for performing bureaucrat tasks will come from... WjBscribe 13:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a fair question, and i also apologise for you using you as an example, there was nothing personal in that. It was just an example and having looked more into it, there are 6 other active bureaucrats who all made less than 150 edits since january and in one instance making only 8 article space edits. You must remember that AGK will not be clerking in the username change areas as he will be actually doing the name changes and we are all assuming that he wont change his editor pattern on wikipedia. As you have said yourself, the way you contributed to this project changed when you became a bureaucrat. I would hypothetically assume something similar would occur with AGK's editting. Prehaps a question should be asked how will his time on wikipedia adapt to becoming a 'crat. Seddσn talk Editor Review 14:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WJB's article contributions sharply decreased after he became a bureaucrat. Like AGK, he was involved in CHU clerking in his pre-bureuacrat days. As WJB stated, Anthony doesn't edit the encyclopedia much to begin with (remember, they account for only 4% of his last 5,000 edits). Regarding Dweller's comments on my talk page, I take an editor's mainspace editing very seriously. We should all be here to edit the encyclopedia. When you find most of your time on Wikipedia being spent replying to posts on WP talk pages or commenting on WP pages, then it's pretty evident that you're either involved in too many non-article related activities or you've totally lost focus of why we're here in the first place. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all editors are created equal. By that I mean that folks have different strengths, different interests. There are many functions that contribute to the encyclopedia that aren't writing text into articles. Developers, bot operators, ArbCom, folks performing other administrative tasks and, of course, bureaucrats. Crats perform a role that is widely recognized as important despite the fact that it isn't content editing, and I think the question of this request isn't "is AGK a good content writer?" - it is "Will AGK make a good bureaucrat? Can we trust him to perform its duties appropriately?" It's unfortunate that you question his understanding of "why we are here" because he chooses to spend his volunteer effort in ways that, while important in their own right, are different than what you appear to value most. Personally, I am happy to see that he volunteers readily in many areas and has roles that demonstrate how well he is trusted and how much we rely upon his contributions. Wikipedia isn't a government, "power" from various positions isn't cumulative, and volunteers shouldn't be chastised for volunteering in some areas but not others. AvruchT * ER 15:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My main concern with these opposes is that, while acknowledging that the candidate holds many positions, it is not acknowledged how he has handled them. While there is no doubt that mainspace contributions are the most important part of the project, I'm concerned that the folks behind the scenes may not be given their due credit. Good mediation requires knowledge of content policy, at least, and research and editing. A tremendous load of work is given to those who have taken the choice not to edit articles as much as others and have instead chosen to keep the edits coming through other means. Whether this is mediation, which can have a tremendous impact on the quality of an article; or checkuser, which has a tremendous impact on keeping those editors who've decided to use WP for less-than-noble purposes away from WP; to usurpations and name-changes, which help those who've made a career out of this happy and contented. And the bevy of other admin-related tasks. All of these contribute to the encyclopedia, and the record shows AGK has done that well; if he hasn't, that's what the majority of opposes would (should?) be about. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give you mediation, but I hardly think usurpation and checkuser clerking have such a big impact on the encyclopedia. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are tasks that have to be done somewhere along the line. Someone has to do it and if no one did it we would have chaos in the technical areas of wikipedia, of which without them there would be no encyclopedia for us to contribute to. It all adds up. Seddσn talk Editor Review 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) CU and usurp certainly are important to those being usurped/usurping, and those being CU'd. Losing/gaining editors has a huge impact on the encyclopedia, and we need trusted, dedicated volunteers to do that too. AGK is volunteering and is qualified. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is just clerking. You have to make quite a stretch to connect CheckUser and CHU to article editing (and it's a loose relationship).Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To turn the argument presented by Nishkid around, if AGK had 50% of his edits in the mainspace then there would be an argument that we would be losing enyclopedic contribution by asking him to take on other work. Fortunately, AGK has made slender contributions to the mainspace, so if that 5% dives to nothing at all then the net effect to the encyclopedia content is not particularly concerning. Pedro :  Chat  15:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing is editing. Every positive contribution helps build the encyclopedia. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand why this may be relevant at a RfA, but not at an RfB. With potential administrators they've got to know how to handle content disputes etc. Anthony has clearly demonstrated he can do that, and the 'toolset' that comes as a long as part of bureaucratship doesn't involve any additional editing abilities. AGK has some featured contributions which is more than some other successful admins and bureaucrats. Rudget (Help?) 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's relevant to me because I believe that people should engage in Wikipedia namespace activities as a side project to article editing. For Anthony, it seems he's only here to help out with Wikipedia-related tasks rather than editing. As I said in my oppose rationale, he's either got too much on his plate or he's lost focus of why we're here to begin with (seriously, no one comes to Wikipedia with the intent of clerking at WP:CHU). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one came here to open/close AFDs either (if I knew what an AFD was when I came here, I wouldn't be named "keeper"). Most of us came here in one way or another because we saw something valuable, or we saw something that needed fixin'. Some of us went right about adding FAs. Some of us went right about reverting vandalism. Some of us, after getting "hooked in" to the idea of Wikipedia, decided that the best place to be useful is by clerking at CHU. Again, AGK is volunteering to do this. The fact that he chooses 'cratship over content is not a detriment to him and is undeserving of an oppose. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, I share JayHenry and Ral315's concerns, which were a topic of discussion at Anthony's second RfA. This post by Ral315 at Anthony's unsuccessful Meta RfA should explain my point. My prior interactions with this user might cloud my judgment, but to me, this just looks like another request for a position. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the idea that somone can have too many jobs. Having a job does not mean one can not do other things. Even if an admin or bcat uses their tools sparingly, that still helps us out. We need more admins and bcats--just look at all the backlogs we have. AGK is a fine wikian, fine admin, and will make a fine bcat. We need to stop being so hard on ourselves, then we may have more people running for admin and bcat; many qualified people don't run (esp for bcat) because it's such a brutal process all too often. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above. — CharlotteWebb 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose It was a dark day when we started throwing adminship around like a barnstar, saying it's no big deal. Now we've moved on to chuck Crat-ship towards people, like its a "good-job Steve!" Becoming a Bureaucrat isn't a substitute for a pat on the back, or a Participation Trophy. It's a responsibility.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Koji. I don't believe I've had the pleasure of interacting you, so I'm Ryan - very pleased to meet you :-) Just a quick comment about your oppose. I respect that bureaucratship isn't a pat on the back, it's a big responsibility. I don't think Anthony is seeing this as a reward - he's been working hard in bureaucrat areas for a long time now, and I think he wants the tools to simply help the project because he can do more in the areas that he already participates in. Anyway, it's just something to think about. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I wanted to be able to say "support" but there were some worrisome issues already here on the page by the time I checked it today, so I started off reviewing AGK/Anthony by going back to his earliest edits, to find out what brought him here. Those first edits are to train-related articles, which to me is usually a good sign, as I tend to like a lot of the "train" editors; however, two weeks into his editorship, this is his 16th edit. AGK has been pursuing the path to "hall monitorship" pretty well since he started here. Less than 15% of his total edits are to the mainspace—only 4% in the past 5 months; even an hour a week of RC patrolling or wiki-gnoming would impress me more than these numbers, as at least he would be getting his hands into the meat of the project. But tonight he is working on a featured article candidate instead of answering the questions on this page. This raises questions about his ability to set priorities and to correctly interpret the community's needs and opinions. I share the concerns that JayHenry, Ral315, and naerii have raised, particularly the paucity of recent edits that would give us evidence of how Anthony interprets consensus. I don't think much of the response to Question #2: I want to know how Anthony would address these situations, not how he expects the community to assume his responsibility (by extending a contentious RfA—a horrifying idea for any candidate to face) or how the bureaucrats as a group will make a difficult decision (by 'crat chats). Granting adminship is a bigger deal than being granted adminship, but only a small number of RfAs require any real decision-making. We !elect bureaucrats who are willing and able to make difficult but well-reasoned decisions and who have the personal credibility for the community to accept those decisions. I'm just not seeing the evidence for Anthony being able to pull that off, based on what he's done to date. Risker (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there Risker. If you aren't convinced by my ability to weigh community opinions and arguments, and assess the presence of a basic consensus in a discussion, then there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise: my years on Wikipedia, and >1year as an administrator, would, I hope, speak for themselves in my ability to weigh up contentious decisions. I've certainly plunged into my fair share of them. I recognise that you want a response on how to assess the decision made in 'crat chats: to be very brief, the same way as one would close any discussion with a reasonably small participation. In any contentious case, a rationale of the factors taken into consideration when performing the close is expected: the factors for each case could be any number of things: strength of comment, "strong"/"weak" oppose, and whether the comments have ever been downgraded (strong oppose => oppose); previous involvement as an administrator, which may attract some ill-feelings; the list goes on. The same strategy will be applied to inter-bureaucrat consensus: weighing up the different opinions on either side of the fence, comparing the traits amongst the community consensus, and factoring in relevant influences. I suppose the most effective way of demonstrating that ability is really in being able to carry out such decisions: if you can think of any other ways I can convince you, please do let me know. Thanks for your comments, Anthøny 10:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per above. miranda 02:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opppose per JayHenry. I appreciate AGK's work in dispute resolution, but I don't think expanding into (or formally accruing tools from) other areas is the right way to go. Nothing personal here, just a "not too many hats" principle. Instead of people holding all these tools and positions at once, a system of working in one area for a bit, then moving on, and eventually returning a few months or a year later, would seem better to me. Anything beyond being an editor and an admin should be handled this way, I feel. Sequential work and formally resigning various roles (or officially going inactive as, say, arbcom clerk), rather than a few people doing too much and individuals spreading themselves too thin, would be a better approach. Sorry for opposing on a philosophical point of principle. Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I agree with Naerii's and Ral315's concerns over the candidate's scaling of the ladder of WikiMandarinship (well put and computed by JayHenry), and balancing a whole hat shop on the top of his head. I also have a comment on the tone of this page (that part is in no way the candidate's fault, but I still want to say it). How about letting the opposers express their opinions—opinions which have been extremely civil, reasoned, and peaceable, mind you—without all the argufying? Each of you candidature enthusiasts may, separately, be justified in threading protests beneath the Opposes, but the collected weight of your posts is getting quite disagreeable. Even intimidating. Let the people oppose! Please! Bishonen | talk 14:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  11. Oppose essentially per Naerii. I don't see the nom and candidate's statement as adequate explanation why the candidate deserves bureaucratship, and I don't recall seeing the user exercising his discretion and good judgement in terribly difficult circumstances on English Wikipedia, either. Cannot support at this time, sorry.--PeaceNT (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, that's definitely not the case, if I may be so brash. :) Firstly, it's really a case of being able to help out as a bureaucrat, rather than "deserving it": it's an extra responsibility / duty, not a trophy. Secondly, I've been active in a rather large spread of bureaucrat activities over my time on Wikipedia: I absolutely have the experience necessary, if that's your concern. Lastly, I really don't think it's the case, that I rarely use good judgement or discretion on Wikipedia: I'm a very active administrator, and regularly tackle some pretty difficult decisions. It's simply not the case for either of your points, I'm afraid; I do, however, respect your opinion. Anthøny 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you're brash :), and actually I believe we may have closer viewpoints than we sound. I certainly do not consider bureaucratship a trophy, either; it is precisely an extra duty, but a high duty where one must show their exceptional ability to be deserving of such job. This leads us to your second and third point; I have no doubt that you are a respected admin with wonderful experience in various areas, but perhaps you missed the last part of my sentence, I want you to show your good judgement and discretion in "terribly difficult circumstances". I don't think admins (even active ones) encounter tough enough circumstances everyday that show true character and prove them suited for bureaucratship. (To draw an anology, having wonderful article writing skills as an editor does not necessarily make a user excellent as an admin. Some decisions made by admins, no matter how difficult, are not relevant to bureaucratship, there are other factors involved.) And to expand upon what I think is relevant, I'd say I prefer to see admins with (already demonstrated) ability to give an accepted verdict in consensus-building discussions. This ability can be shown before one becomes a bureaucrat; there are discussions at XfDs and noticeboards and talk pages etc everyday! :) That said, considering that I have limited knowledge, would you convince me by citing incidents where you feel you have closed a difficult debate and exercised your ability to judge consensus? --PeaceNT (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out your talk page. ;) Anthøny 17:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Wikipedia is not a hierarchy, bureaucracy or mandarin. This user appears to think oppositely. Per JayHenry and Naeri. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose as per lack of featured content experience and concerns about "mandarinship" by previous posters. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I've thought about this a long while, and decided I really do have to oppose, per JayHenry. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per JayHenry. Additionally, in my experience, the candidate does not display the level of dispassion and circumspection that I expect in b'crats. He is much too likely to engage in partisan activity (a failing I also possess, and which also disqualifies me -- by my admission -- from the b'cratship.) Xoloz (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per JayHenry. Prodego talk 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Naerii and JayHenry, as well as per R.Baley comments in the Neutral section. Nsk92 (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Personally I like AGK but I find his approach to be to mechanistic and perhaps too process bound to match my ideal profile for a 'crat. And before anyone asks I'm not going to provide diffs because its my impression. Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting concern, Spartaz, and one that has never came up before. Thanks for raising this; I'll try and bear it in mind in the future. Anthøny 19:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Although I highly regard the admin, Rlevse's opinion in general, I can't share his supporting comment for AGK at this time. Wikipedia needs more admins, but I also see many problems regarding the urge. Wiki has a lot of retired or semi-retired editors from their admin position, however, they do not retired from Wikipedia though. I'm not saying that AGK has been lazy at one time, but he often was absent and had a lot of break. Besides, he already has a lot of jobs in his hand, so I also doubt whether he can handle all of things with his promotion. I have a higher expectation toward bureaucrats than admins but to me, AGK is just OKay as an admin. He seems to do good at his clerking for ArbCom, but the answers above doesn't sound like he could be humble. The beaurocrat template is really good (I think his ability as a Wiki designer is good), but it is like a planed preparation for his election campaign. Any of the answers do not give a deep impact on me. Especially, his mention of RFA regular/non-regulars is like "RFB is not really a big deal.--Appletrees (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose unfortunately per many of the concerns above. krimpet✽ 05:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. There are many concerns raised here that are enough to give one pause, but I think that Xoloz's comment comes closest to my experience - I'm not sure that Anthony can exercise the right level of dispassion and detachment that the job requires. Guettarda (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I have concerns at the moment. While they are not enough to make me want to oppose, I don't feel I can support at this moment, at least not until giving this further thought. My primary concerns are after looking at your contributions breakdown as compared to my own, and then looking at the "promises" you made on your RfA.
    1. You wrote quite a lot about planning to help with WP:AIV. According to your edit stats, you have made only 55 edits to that page (I've made 158, and I only really pay attention to that page when poked at it in IRC). Considering that this includes edits from before you were an admin, I tend to think something is afoot.
      1. A: I suppose the only explanation of why there the number of edits are somewhat lacking on AIV is that the robot now clears blocked users. The only edits required to that pages are minor tidy-ups, and removing of requests that do not warrant a block. As most posts to that page do require further administrator action, I've not had to make hundreds of edits there. I would like to say, however, that I've lived up to that promise there. Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. You noted that you wished to help out at WP:RM, due to a backlog. You have made 107 moves, compared to my 99, and I have hardly been involved at that page. A few of these indeed seem to have been part of your "Operation Capatalise All My SubPages", back in Feb 2007. The backlog at WP:RM still exists by the way.
      1. A: it seems this has been somewhat missed out from my post-RfA contributions. In fact, until your comment here, Martin, I hadn't given it any thought. The majority of my mainspace moves have been further to deletion discussion moves, so it is fair to say here that I've not followed through on my willingness to help out at WP:RM. Point taken on board, with no objections. Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3. CAT:CSD rarely reaches the levels of backlog that we saw in the past, but it still needs a helping hand. That said, you have made 1251 deletions altogether. Looking at your RfA nom I think I'd expect this to be much higher, given that you express a great desire to help at XfD and in the "speedy arena". naerii notes that you have made very few XfD closures. I don't know what to say.
      1. A: with some responsibilities elsewhere, I believe that XfD has not received as much of my attention as it has in the past. I don't make any apologies for that, as different editors are required in different areas, but I do now realise that this has reduced the material reviewers of this RfB have with regards to my ability to gauge consensus. I am willing to undertake a refocus there; in fact, I feel that would be warranted. Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    4. You also make a deal of wanting to cut the wait times at WP:RFPP down from 10-15 minutes. In a week where I've seen a user complaining about having to wait six hours for a protection via that page, an eyebrow is raised. You have made 201 page protections.
      1. A: my contributions to RFPP have been quite useful, I'd suggest. Whilst I am no longer the 'regular' there that I once used to be (sort of!), I do handle requests there when I have time left over, and I'm well-rehearsed in the art of weighing recent activity on an article, against the effects of locking it down to non-vandalism contributions. I wouldn't say my page protections have been lacking, and they aren't going to stop at 201: I'm here to stay. Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Under question 6, you say "I've successfully made edits a-plenty with AWB", while the stats suggest you've made only one. Is this mistake yours or the tools? (even if you were running a bot account I'd expect higher than that!)
      1. A: I have shared your question here, since I noticed SQL's tool returned a hit of 1 on AWB when I ran it recently (results, here). I think it's a mistake on the tools: I previously used AWB a lot (before I made the migration over to Mac, a system which does not support the program). I'm not familiar with how the tool tallies edits in such a way, however, and can't offer any further explanation. Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Question 12 was left unanswered. I'm certainly interested as to what was going on there. It is with regards to you getting a rename (Anthony_cfc to AGK) days(?) before your RfA, claiming that it was for standarisation with your nicks across other projects, which seemed to be untrue given that on the projects you cited you were in fact using "Anthony_cfc".
    7. Now onto other stuff - you made 4 edits to your RfA after it closed... Why?! I'm slightly uncomfortable that you kept coming back to it when you should/could have been doing other, useful, things. One of those edits was to answer the question I asked above, regarding question 12. I shall leave the question to give you an opportunity to answer here if you so wish.
    8. Looking at your logs:
      1. I see masses of admin actions in the May you were promoted. Contributions were mixed - a little bit of everything.
      2. Then nothing in June - exams, I guess?
      3. In July, what jumps out at me is 3RR blocks and admin actions on some of your user subpages. There's an unremarkable amount of XfD work.
      4. More of the same in August, but I see a massive blitz against temporary user subpages. I'll note here that this number contributes to your deletions count (obviously), but that this means that your participation has been smaller in XfD and CSD than I originally thought.
      5. September nothing, but then that's commonly a busy time IRL.
      6. October reminds me of May.
      7. November: nice load of CSD deletions, but quite a few of these were in your own userspace.
      8. December: activity levels high in various areas.
      9. This year, though there have been bursts of activity in various areas, I tend to feel that most of your admin work has been in your own "areas of specialty" - MedCom, ArbCom, Checkuser. Yes, this is to be expected, and I can't compare you to anyone because I'm much more guilty of this (but then I'm not in an RfB! :p). Backlogs still exist though.
      10. From my privileged position as being on the medcom list, I can see that you're active in mailings there and are generally very involved in the bureaucratic nonsense that can spring up there. However there's been little mediation from recently. I also get the feeling that you're after WJBscribe's job as chair of medcom, but this may be me seeing things that aren't there... (other medcommers - thoughts?).
        1. Absolutely not the case. Check out my response to Daniel, below. Anthøny 11:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      11. Recently, your energy seems to be quite focused on 'crat areas: CHU, etc. Very little that's insightful on RfA or with bots. You also still seem to have fairly high activity levels with Arbcom clerking duties and Checkuser, though little in terms of actual mediation with MedCom I feel (looking relatively over the past few months - I think CU edits have dropped off since then). I know that we users have different strengths, but an ability to know when you're doing too much, or when you should drop positions, is important.
    I shall now stop waffling and make my real concern clear. I fear that you will be active as a crat only until the next opportunity for "promotion" pops around, after which you will crank up activity in the relevant area(s) (eg around ArbCom, if you were to go for the next AC election). My real feeling is that, seeing as you're active and enthusiastic, you should be fulfilling your "RfA promises" to fight the backlogs before seeking another position. I think that although you could perhaps be a help with crat tools, your time is better spent elsewhere where there is a greater need. Thanks, Martinp23 01:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Martin, and concerns I have been holding since this question (asked on November 28, 2007), having only started expressing an interest one month prior. Rather than articulate my concerns, I'll allow others to join the dots which I believe connect to demonstrate what is becoming an evident pattern. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "However there's been little mediation from recently. I also get the feeling that you're after WJBscribe's job as chair of medcom, but this may be me seeing things that aren't there... (other medcommers - thoughts?)" — interesting comment. I'd like to hear AGK's thoughts. AGK, should a discussion regarding the position of Chair be initiated in the next month-or-so regarding the second half of 2008, would you nominate yourself for it? If yes, do you agree that this is further evidence to what Martin is suggesting? I'd prefer to get your direct input before going off on tangents discussing what could be a moot point. Daniel (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To offer a short answer: I won't be running for medcom chair in the coming elections, and don't ever plan to (I think there are folks more able to do it than myself). True, I've recently helped out at requests for mediation; that has simply been because of the recent backlog, and Will's busyness elsewhere (as a point of observation: he's a very active bureaucrat, and that's had at least some effect on his balance of time demands across the board; I have taken that into account, and factored it into my consideration of accepting Dweller's nomination). Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I want to support (my inbuilt desires to trust people unless something made me take a different view), but some of the comments and opinions are pushing me towards oppose. So I'll wait here for a few more answers. KTC (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral leaning oppose. In addition to the concerns expressed in the oppose section above, I am concerned about AGK's recent unblock of User:Bsrboy as discussed in this ANI thread. The unblock was based on conversations that occurred on IRC. These same arguments, "extensive and exhaustive" as they were, should have been made at ANI, so that everyone could have input on-wiki. Not only did the discussion take place off-wiki, but the result went against the apparent consensus at WP:ANI. R. Baley (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, my unblock was separate from the discussion at ANI, and wasn't based on a consensus anywhere (blocks and unblocks are technical measures, not bans) but rather my opinion as a reviewing administrator. Of course, I can't really offer any other explanation: the unblock has been working perfectly thus far (I've received no complaints as-yet), and furthermore, isn't directly related to my potential to be a productive bureaucrat. I appreciate your concern on the unblock, however, and am willing to discuss it with you in a more appropriate forum if you wish. Anthøny 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As with R. Baley, I was initially unhappy about the unilateral decision to unblock when a wider discussion was going on and the consensus was not to unblock. Upon seeing your reply here, I think it speaks of your judgement and consideration of other people's opinions; I'm not sure if you're bcrat material. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing: I wasn't aware of an unblock discussion. :) There was no notification on his talk page (if there was, I apologise: I didn't follow the link), and Bsrboy (perhaps incorrectly) didn't point me to it in our extensive discussions. Either way, the unblock appears to be working a charm: I'm not seeing anything that could be labelled questionable edits, and all his contributions since my unblock have been constructive. I have always been an approachable administrator who is open to extensive discussion, and I always will be. Anthøny 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. JayHenry makes great points, but you are an amazing editor, and I can't oppose. That being said, I see you months from now as an arbitrator or Medcom chair if WJB leaves it rather than a bureaucrat. I might end up supporting, but make sure you take both sides to heart if this is something you want to do. Wizardman 14:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As above; I won't be medcom chair, and I don't plan to be an arbitrator (especially not this year or next), either. I will, as you point out, endeavour to take on board the genuine concerns, so you can rest assured on that side of the boat. ;) Anthøny 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral: (From support): Sorry Anthony; but the things pointed out above are quite concerning. I think you do a great job with the stuff you're already doing, and I like to see the motivation you have to do more, but this seems rather extreme. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandable, Rjd; no problem. ;) As I said to Wizardman, this is definitely a learning experience (all 'requests' are), and I'll be taking the concerns on-board. Anthøny 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category