Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Agateller

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Agateller

[edit]

Final (22/40/10) ended 17:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agateller (talk · contribs) – Self-nominated; I've edited and tidied up quite a few articles since October of last year; I've contributed some articles, photos, and diagrams as well. Agateller 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the nomination. Agateller 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Unless someone here can show me a damn good reason to remove it, here's mine. robchurch | talk 23:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone tried. And failed. Read the exchange on User_talk:Robchurch to see why. robchurch | talk 01:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yay! Someone with a reasonable number of edits, so I could actually go through the whole list realistically. Perfect! I found a large number of quite substantial edits, unlike many people who come to RFA with elevated edit counts (and unreadable contributions lists) due to vandalproof addiction and such. Discussion style during the one mentioned dispute was very solid, very calm, and basically what I'd expect from an expert. This editor will likely do very well, contributing many fine featured articles to wikipedia. If not promoted this time, I will gladly nominate again at a later date. (that, and I'll have more ammo for my position that RFA is broken ;-) .) Kim Bruning 01:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weakest possible support I'm inclined to agree with Rob's "analysis". Joe 06:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved from firm support to weakest possible support in view of Agateller's repeated failure to assume good faith infra. I'm convinced, though, that the candidate's indecorous handling of this RfA is not indicative of how he/she would conduct him/herself as an admin, and so, even as the user's intimation that the fact of certain users' opposing him/her is necessary demonstrative of the correctness of his/her understanding of angry young males is profoundly disconcerting, I'll continue to support. I do think that the user, in the case he/she should become an admin in the future, would do well to comment on the work of editors rather than on the editors themselves; it strikes me as less-than-constructive to impute puerile or malign motive to an entire group and to determine that membership in that group is a necessary and sufficient condition for one's being a vandal (FWIW, I'd say that I, a young male, despite my jovial personality, might be well be termed angry, and I'm surely not a vandal). Joe 05:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for not seeing how Agateller has lacked in assuming good faith. What I see is a deep appreciation of the truly good faith in which bands of editors gather around a PointOfView organized by spikes of honor in opposition to objectivity, facts, and reality. However, it seems that Agateller has an idea that, under some circumstances, people may think for themselves instead of yield to temptation. --Rednblu 06:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support (despite the growing oppose votes). I'm in agreement with what robchurch and Kim Bruning have to say. A lot of the "edit count", "edit summary", and contribution to the various spaces are useful criteria, but they ought not be inflexible. Despite the well reasoned oppose comments, I don't see why adminship is treated as such a big deal even though I keep reading that it isn't. This editor appears to have done good quality work and sets the foundation for good quality admin work. Agent 86 08:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Changed to Strong Support based on answer to Λυδαcιτγ's question. [1] This editor can be trusted to learn while on the job. FloNight talk 14:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Strongly support noms desire to be admin. : - ) Urge nom to read oppose and neutral comments closely and review other noms that recently passed and failed. Will contact nom by email (checked and is activated) to thoroughly discuss the pros and cons of continuing current nom. FloNight talk 08:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I have some concerns about the user's ability to remain calm in stressful situations given the answer to question 3, something we all, including I, have to watch. but per Robchurch, Agent 86 and Kim Bruning, the user has demonstrated enough knowledge of WP that a no big deal adminship is Supportable. I suggest that if this RfA fails or is withdrawn that the user continue to edit, continue to contribute, and try again later. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support This is who should be an admin. Mike (T C) 17:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. There are more than enough edits in the (main) and Talk: namespaces to show a civil, careful and conscienscious editor who can clearly trusted with the tools. As others have pointed out above, we need to think carefully about the RfA process: as Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#What RfA contributors look for says, we're looking for "evidence that [the candidate] can apply Wikipedia policies calmly, maturely and impartially", not evidence that they've already done a certain amount of work. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I particularly bring to your attention the quality of Agateller's interactions with other editors even when the bad guys won the turf battle. As I evaluated Agateller's record, I found myself disagreeing a lot on the substance, but appreciating Agateller's calmness, clarity, and wit, such as on this edit. Surely any of us learned a lot from reading that analysis. We need more people like Agateller interacting with the many zealous neophytes that have much to learn about what NPOV actually is. --Rednblu 00:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. One would be hard-pressed to find those who make contributions of substance in article space with a high edit count. Speaking from experience, I have spent hours on articles which were committed in a single click. In that same time frame, "stub sorters" could have racked up scores of edits. The current process works in favour of the latter user. Is that fair? If adminship is really "no big deal", why deny it to this user? --Folajimi 02:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support volume of contributions may be comparatively low, but their quality is high. I like his emphasis on NPOV and in fact I like his emphasis on article space contributions in general. Answers to question 1 may not require admin tools but they would certainly be helpful, which is enough - not every admin needs to be a vandalwhacker. I'm a bit concerned that good users are getting passed over in RfA due to adminship-criteria arms races. Opabinia regalis 04:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I think we can benefit from his pre-wiki experience. FreplySpang 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, for one this user does not suffer from editcountitis. His high-quality edits surely make up for the lack of edits. Adminship is not a reward, but adminship is not a big deal either. --Nearly Headless Nick 07:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support -- reasons for oppesing are superficial --T-rex 15:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support -- Adminship is no big deal. --Philosophus T 14:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support -- No big deal, looks like a good editor, as per rob Stefan 13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Agateller has demonstrated that he understands the problems facing the Wikipedia community, and I suspect he has a better idea than most how to deal with them. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. It appears that people are opposing because he called a spade a spade. Unprofessionalism and over emotional editors on their pet articles are a serious problem for us, we should support people who don't care to play that game. --Gmaxwell 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Per nom and much of above. Especially per Gmaxwell. Pet articles must die. Bastique▼parler voir 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. A classic example of why strict statistical criterion are a Bad Thing.--SB | T 19:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support edits on the whole very good. reliable editor doktorb | words 00:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, though I am going to remind the editor that, even though "angry young males" as a syndrome of sorts is correct as a generality, he never abandon WP:AGF for the sake of being right. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. On principle, per RobChurch. Rebecca 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Oppose. Very few WP space edits, not very active on the whole, and answer to question 1 doesn't convince me he needs admin tools, most of those things can be done without them. --Rory096 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per first 2 paragraphs to Audacity's question. Last paragraph concerns me, though, so I'm still deciding whether to support or stay neutral. --Rory096 21:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So should this count as a neutral vote? Or is it a suppport vote? Let's let every man cast his own vote. --Rednblu 03:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite clearly not a "vote." --Rory096 03:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response. That's how I understood what you wrote. --Rednblu 03:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OpposeStrong Oppose One of the only things you say you'll do that actually requires admin powers is AFD, yet you've only comment on 3 articles' deletion pages. I suggest you get some more experience of how AFD and similar processes work before becomind an admin. --Tango 17:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to strong oppose because of all the "angry young males" discussion below.--Tango 15:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above --Guinnog 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to Strong oppose on basis of comments below, specifically the repeated uncivil use of the category "angry young males". I'm curious as to how you make this judgement on an internet-based medium. I do very strongly agree on the point you make about OR though. I recommend coming back in a month or two. --Guinnog 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to strongest possible oppose on suspicion of trolling and certainty of incivility, as seen below. --Guinnog 06:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes it can be rather obvious. For example, User:Queens finest - his username alone gives you a good idea of what demographic he's from. Λυδαcιτγ 14:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's pretty obvious. And the easiest way to find them is to mention them; they cannot resist commenting on any mention because they always feel that everything is a personal affront to their honor (even things that have nothing to do with them). Unfortunately they are the biggest problem in cyberspace today. The vast majority of vandals and people who engage in revert wars are likely to be angry young males, for example—hardly anyone else would engage in such puerile behavior.
    For what it's worth, I've have found in the past that dealing with angry young males often takes up a lot of the time of an administrator. Agateller 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Very strong oppose per civility concerns and epithets alone. SushiGeek 21:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC) SushiGeek 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose pre above; and the fact that there is only ~700 edits between now and October, 2005 means lack of activity?  Dure  (T) (E) (C) 21:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, doesn't appear to need admin tools. RandyWang (raves/rants) 21:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, but moral support. Needs more experience, but seems to be a fine contributor. Keep on editing and try again in a few months. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose for now; just too new. Λυδαcιτγ 22:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC) To clarify: new as in inexperienced, not as in time. Λυδαcιτγ 22:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)After some thinking at User talk:Robchurch, I'm still opposed, but because this user has not done enough for the encyclopedia to earn this status. I think giving adminship to anyone who would help Wikipedia with the admin tools dilutes the meaning of being an Administrator. That said, candidate has done some great work, and will get my full support if he continues doing so. Λυδαcιτγ 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry for the flip-flopping. Oppose per Tango, below, in the Comments section. Λυδαcιτγ 14:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC) because there is just too much danger of this user becoming an abusive admin. Maybe if desysopping was as easy as sysopping, I would support and hope for the best. But it's not; in fact, desysopping rarely happens for anything short of an extraordinary violation of decency. The nom's bluntness is a good thing, but the "angry white males" stereotyping suggests that he would not be able to work without prejudice as an administrator.Λυδαcιτγ 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is, I think, "angry young males" that the user has a problem with and wishes to purge by flushing them out. But your point is a good one; a prospective admin who shows this level of incivility to any group, be it age, gender or race-based during the RfA itself, hardly makes one think they could ever be admin material without a serious attitude rethink. --Guinnog 15:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I mention that angry young males love complex signatures, always address the person and never the topic, and like to have long exchanges between each other during which they try to increasingly rationalize their tendency to base all their decisions on emotion? Sometimes it's fun to watch when there's nothing at stake. Agateller 17:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I never noticed that myself, no. Do you think you might seem to be addressing the person, not the topic, by making such judgements? I am trying to address the topic, which is whether you would be a suitable person to use admin tools. I firmly believe that admins especially should be able to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, wouldn't you agree? That is really all we are concerned with here. If you meet honest and civil questions pertaining to your adminship with stereotypes and hostile statements, you seem to demonstrate that you are not suitable for adminship. Sorry. --Guinnog 17:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose looks like a great editor but lacks project and talk space edits to demonstrate knowledge of policy and experience in admin tasks. You can do a lot without the mop. Eluchil404 22:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. A good editor who needs more experience, particularly in the Wikipedia space, before becoming an admin. Zaxem 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Eluchil404. --Shizane 02:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I like to see a user crack 1,000 edits. Yanksox (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I very much dislike the idea that adminship "must be earned" because it follows that adminship can be earned, which is incorrect; adminship is given to those who would make good admins, period. At the same time, I like to see more time and edits to illustrate experience, knowledge, and ability to deal with difficult situations. In particular, "I walked away" is a good answer, but not the best answer, to question #3—it's the job of every Wikipedian to make sure the encyclopedia is accurate, and it's the job of administrators to confront the most obnoxious. I will gladly support in the future if solid edits continue. -- SCZenz 06:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose as per above concerns re WP inexperience and very low talk participation. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Not enough all-round invovlement at Wikipedia at the moment to convince me. --Wisden17 09:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose doesn't need admin just yet, doing fine as an editor. Needs more experience before proceeding to be an admin.--Andeh 11:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Notable article edits are just 2%. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 13:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - no need for admin tools based on answer to question one, and dangerous sexism/bias. --Xyrael T 14:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that the user is a young (I think?) male himself, I have a feeling the thing about the "angry young males" was said in jest. I doubt the nom will be biased against a group he is part of. Λυδαcιτγ 14:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    “Angry young male” refers to a behavioral syndrome, not an actual specific group of people. I use the term because I see this behavior most often in young males (high testosterone and/or low IQ, I suppose). They are a serious problem for sysadmins, who must constantly clean up the messes they make and intervene to stop their escalating playground fights, so pretending they don't exist is counterproductive. Agateller 01:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Object: Good time period, but too few edits (664). Besides, you need to be more active in more namespaces and talk to a lot of users as well.
    Try again in a month or two. You're just not ready now. --Slgrandson 16:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG, a year or two. That's ... amazing. Kim Bruning 16:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely you mean month? That has to be a mistake... --Tango 17:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrased per your opinions. --Slgrandson 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose needs more experience. As far as when to try again, I will not consider supporting a re-RfA in less than 2 months --rogerd 17:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose based upon the answer given to question one. Closing AfD debates may require the ability to delete pages, but admin status carries far more responsibility than that. There is currently no demonstration of intent to perform other admin duties. More experience and knowledge of Wikipedia process and policy would be an advantage.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. 2 user talk edits and 21 Wikipedia-space edits so far does not show an understanding of policy on Wikipedia, how the user interacts with others and how they would handle pressure. (Nor do the answers to the questions, really.) Adminship is not an entitlement, like some seem to think, and we have seen these priveliges misused before by much more experienced (and presumably Wiki-knowledgeable) editors. To the candidate: I'm sorry your RfA has become a battleground. Heed what the oppose votes are saying and come back in a few months and I'll probably support you. Grandmasterka 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose for low edit counts.--Jusjih 00:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose with the strength of zeus That edit count is simply too low. Doesn't show enough experience. User talk far too low as well, admins have to help peple, yo can't do that if you don't even talk to them. MichaelBillington 01:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Too little experience in the Wikipedia: namespace; I can't support someone who wants to close AfDs who's barely even been there. Try again in a few months with more experience, and I'll gladly reconsider. BryanG(talk) 05:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose I don't like the stereotype of "angry young males" that you reference so many times in your answers. I respect and value your contributions...don't take this the wrong way. Coincidentally, I see nothing wrong with your edit count. Regards, --Alphachimp talk 05:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this will sound irreverent, but the best way to get the angry young males to come out of the woodwork (and thus prove their existence) is to mention them. They take everything personally and tend to make decisions based on the strong emotions that result from doing that. And if RfA is a popularity contest rather than an objective evaluation of candidates, I'm not sure I want to play (actually I rather expected that it would be, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to volunteer, just in case). Agateller 01:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose, long way to go in several areas. Deizio talk 11:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose There seems to be civility concerns. I would reapply in a 2-3 months. — The King of Kings 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Needs more experience. Nephron  T|C 04:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose, not enough contributions. -- getcrunk ? 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose, few contributions.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Too few contributions. Gain enough experience and try again after 3 months. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - I didn't think there was anything wrong with the original use of "angry young male" in answer to a question. But this comment is ... umm ... not in line with WP:NPA ... The mere fact that my epithet irritates you does indeed imply that you are in the category of persons for whom I use it as a euphemism. Umm ... yeah. BigDT 00:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong oppose - I don't mind that the candidate mentioned "angry young males" particularly. However, the suggestion that anyone who is irritated by this epithet is described by it, and is therefore acting emotionally and irrationally, makes me seriously question whether the candidate can accept criticism. The edit history suggests he/she can, but this whole back-and-forth has created sufficient doubt in my mind. --Saforrest 03:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Fails my Admin criteria. --Cyde↔Weys 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose, fails all of my criteria. — Jun. 22, '06 [15:20] <freak|talk>
  36. Oppose fails My RFA criteria Anonymous__Anonymous 16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose partly for the comment "If it stresses you to admit someone new to the tree house club, don't vote me in." It's a shame too. Agateller is obviously very experienced with computers/internet/technology and might be great asset... but without the ability to respect people who disagree with him (or her?) I fear that the likelihood of abuse is too high. However, if Agateller is willing to change his/her behavior I’d be willing to support on the next RFA. ---J.S (t|c) 20:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose Sexist comments, its discrimination peroid. Mike (T C) 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if that were true, how is it relevant to being an administrator? Is it a question of electing people you like or with whom you agree, or people able to do the job? Agateller 04:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's concerned that you'll block people because you don't agree with them, or have some sort of prejudice against them. SushiGeek 05:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be wrong, but Agateller would not even revert an unreasonable and misinformed editor in Agateller's own area of expertise. It seems to me that, if Agateller would block people just because the editor disagreed with him, Agateller would be violating the very caretaker SysAdmin principles that Agateller has strongly and eloquently advocated against much opposition here on this page. --Rednblu 06:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't continue to revert in the case under discussion because, if the "no original research" paradox of Wikipedia were to be fully applied, the entire article would have to be deleted; so I couldn't just change one part without questioning the rest. (However, the NOR principle is internally inconsistent and unenforceable in practice.) In other cases, I never delete based on disagreement, but only on established policy. Unlike the AYMs, nothing bothers me personally and I don't stalk or take revenge against people with whom I disagree. And in general, if there is any doubt, I give others the benefit of that doubt, as I tend to believe in freedom of speech and I'm opposed to censorship. Not that any of that matters on this little playground, though, I suppose. Agateller 10:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strongly Oppose per above. --HResearcher 05:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose, sadly, from the AYM dialogue. Shenme 06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral, too few WP and talk edits, does not meet Mailer diablo test (PBUH). -- Миборовский 18:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He does have a featured picture, Image:EuroConstLarge.png, which looks like it took a fair amount of work. Λυδαcιτγ 22:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mailer diablo's 1FA test doesn't include featured pictures, only feature portals, featured lists, and featured articles.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 21:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I'd be willing to support, but I'd be willing to see more community-related interactions. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - a little low on edit count, not totally sure and not sure if tools are really needed -- Tawker 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Sorry, not quite enough experience. DarthVader 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, edit count and experience. Give it five months and I will support you. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per all above. Roy A.A. 20:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - While adminship is no big deal, I still believe that knowledge and experience are important things to have when using admin tools. I'm not saying Agateller would not make a good admin, I'm just saying that, considering his lack of project namespace edits, participating a bit more would be very useful. Afonso Silva 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - It seems that this user is a good user who understands Wikipedia quite well. While the mainspace count is quite low, I would still support the user if their edits were of quality. However, an admin needs to deal with a lot of different users and the fact that this user has only 2 User Talk edits means I will stay neutral. Nobleeagle (Talk)
  9. Neutral per the unsigned vote above, and my own anaylisis. It's not that I don't think you have the heart and dedication to become an admin. I just see little involvement in the wikipedia namespace, and I'm led to believe that you don't have the experience of working with trolls, vandals, tigers, and dicks to work as an admin comfortably. If you revert some vandalism, report to ANI and the village pump over issues, and shift towards being a metapedian, I'll probably support you at your next RfA.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I noticed on your userpage that you stated you are not a wikipedia cop. Well, being an admin is basically a cross between a custodian and a cop, so I'd bet that you'd find some administrator chores as turnoffish. When you are an Admin, you have to stand up for what's accurate and right, and not back down (as you stated in your answer to question 3). It can be a pain in the ass, and it could cost your userpage being vandalized or some angry letters arriving in your email, but in the end, an admin's gotta take it, or else they're not helping keep the encyclopedia, as well as the community, intact.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what being an administrator is; I've been one for a large part of my career. However, if I'm not an administrator, I do not presume to carry out unilateral actions that should be reserved to administrators. I know exactly how to handle troublemakers, but unless I'm an administrator, that's not my job (since nothing objectively makes me any more right than any other person). This is why I didn't bother to get into a revert war in the situation I mentioned. The most important thing about being an administrator is knowing when to leave things alone; newbies almost always jump off the deep end and become extraordinarily heavy-handed and autocratic, typically without being willing or able to explain their unilateral actions. Agateller 04:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your response, Agateller. You say that you are no more right than the next wikipedian, which isn't that true. Some people come here to push a POV agenda, and in a conflict with them, you'd probably be more right. I get the feeling that you meant to say that, and based on your responses, I can see that you remain cool in the few situations you've been in. If there is a problem, and you feel that you are in process and they are not, there are a variety of things you can do, usually involving the assistance of other users and administrators. You can set up a peer review, take your case to ANI, or perhaps the Reference desk if you want to find another expert. You mentioned cases of autocratic newbies. What do you think is the best way to handle that?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The best way to prevent it is to never make someone an admininstrator if he seems keenly interested in becoming an administrator (also a good way to weed out people unsuited for any position of authority, by the way). The best way to fix it is to remove admininstrator rights from anyone who becomes too autocratic, until he grows up (although that may take years). Agateller 02:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in view of The most important thing about being an administrator is knowing when to leave things alone; newbies almost always jump off the deep end and become extraordinarily heavy-handed and autocratic, typically without being willing or able to explain their unilateral actions and The best way to prevent it is to never make someone an admininstrator if he seems keenly interested in becoming an administrator that, notwithstanding the various objections I raise above, I continue to support (although I'd suggest that, on WP at least, it is often the neophytic administrators who are most reticent and deliberative and the tenured admins who are more willing to act unilaterally; surely one is better equipped to deal with situations having been an admin for some time, but so too is he/she likely to think him/herself omniscient). Joe 05:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personality is certainly a factor. Some people will always be tyrannical, no matter what their experience, and others will be suitably even-handed from a very early date. Admin functions tend to attract control freaks, which is why I say that people who are fairly salivating over the prospect of being an admin are generally the last people you'd want to hire for the job. Eventually most good admins realize that their intervention is hardly ever actually required for anything; they also learn that, if intervention is required, it should be short, sweet, and clearly justifiable. Everything an admin does irritates someone, so trying to please everyone is a waste of time. Agateller 08:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Merovingian {T C @} 02:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Okay. Let me explain something here. You will be amazed. You never knew this. Some people will walk out and leave wikipedia over this. Others will rfc me for violating WP:POINT over this (even though they don't actually quite understand that guideline). But...

WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA

People are actually opposing because this person actually spends their time editing the encyclopedia. And Agateller seems to use the preview button too! (A heinous sacrilige, causing the holy edit count to come out 50-75% lower.)

So Agateller is actually being "punished" here for using wikipedia what it's meant for.

Kim Bruning 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, not being an admin shouldn't be a punishment. Secondly, an admin's job isn't editing the encyclopedia (although I'd hope most carry on doing that anyway), it's doing all the behind the scenes stuff. Being a good editor doesn't automatically mean you'll be a good admin. If it did, RfA would be much simpler - anyone with over 1000 edits and no serious complaints on their talk page gets approved. --Tango 13:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, an admins job is exactly nothing. An admin is someone who can be trusted not to blow up the wiki. And out of those 1000 edits, make it "just enough edits to clearly determine they won't blow up the wiki". ;-) Kim Bruning 13:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. And I like Tango's vision of how RfA should be. robchurch | talk 14:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, change "job" to "work". However many edits you make, if they aren't the right kind of edits, they don't tell us you won't blow on the wiki. 1000 main space edits, no talk edits, no WP space edits, doesn't say anything about how good you'll be at closing AFDs and blocking vandals (or whatever other admin work you intend to do). --Tango 14:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of our current Featured Article community was adminned before people started asking strange questions like that. I think Agateller is probably someone who would best help out in that part of the community (the people who do the actual work of making a great encyclopedia!) . What do you think? Kim Bruning 14:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd completely agree, but that doesn't require a sysop bit. --Tango 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we should desysop our featured article specialists? Though imho, typically adminship can be handy for folks like that. :-) Kim Bruning 16:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they've been an admin for however long without causing problems, then of course there is no reason to desysop them. That comes under common sense. But just because they haven't caused problems doesn't mean a similar person might not in the future, so we should still only give admin powers to people that have shown they know what they're doing. --Tango 16:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, one day in the distant future, we might indeed be wrong, and need to call in the arbcom. ;-) Kim Bruning 16:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why take the risk when the candidate can spend the next month learning about AfD and the like and then come back? If people only got one chance at RfA, you might have a point, but failing RfA is nothing more than a delay, a successful RfA carries with it a certain amount of risk. This candidate won't be ready to use the admin powers for a month anyway - the 4th thing you do in AfD can't be closing one, that would be crazy, you need to learn how it operates first hand first. --Tango 17:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a challenge. <grin> I guess I've been shanghaied for admin training anyway. What do other folks think? Kim Bruning 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm,no. I don't think this users needs special admin training. If I did I certainly wouldn't have given him my Support. Someone correct me if I wrong-I don't think most users comments indicate a need for special admin training. Instead most opposing or neutral comments direct this editor to spend more time in Wikipedia namespace such as WP:AFD, WP:PROD, WP:RFA, or policy discussion pages. They also want more interaction with users on talk pages before a RFA. He seems quite capable of doing this and it is probably best if done by Agateller alone. No special assistance needed. regards, FloNight talk 22:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, let me get this straight. Assuming Agateller has a limited number of hours-in-day, you're actually saying he should cut down on editing the encyclopedia to be able to become an administrator? Kim Bruning 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. An admin's work doesn't involve directly editting the encyclopedia, it involves the behind the scenes work, so someone wanting to become an admin needs to step back from the front line work and show that they know how to do the rest too. If he just wants to edit the encyclopedia, he doesn't need admin tools. --Tango 11:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the previous remark. As it currently stands, I can't even delete my own subpages without permission. There are times when I have made errors while creating articles/redirects where having access to the rollback feature would have been exceedingly helpful. Then there are instances where pages need to be moved due to unintentional errors. If I can undo my own edits without intervention from bureaucrats — not Wikipedia:Bureaucrats — this conversation would be moot. --Folajimi 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a rollback option, try WP:POPUPS. Prehaps there should be a more automated version of {{db-author}}, but this isn't the place to discuss that. --Tango 14:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I injected myself into this discussion was because your remark seems to suggest denying access to those who primarily contribute to the article space since they are unlikely to become bureaucrats (not Bureaucrats). The pop-up option is for reverting content, not deleting pages. The other tag you mentioned still requires the intervention of a user with access to said tools.
Usually, I try to ignore canards and red herrings. The only reason I elected to respond is that this [sprawling] debate is going to be archived for posterity; silence on your remark might be misconstrued as concurrence from the entire community... Folajimi 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know popups is for reverting, that was one of the things you said would be helpful. I also know db-author requires an admin to do the actual deleting, that's why I suggested an automated version (ie. give everyone the option to delete a page that no-one else has edited). --Tango 16:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serious civility concerns

(pasted from Agateller's talk page) I am minded to change my vote, if you can explain/retract/otherwise reassure me about your 'angry young male' epithet. I am an irritated (and I am told irritating) middle-aged male, and the description is uncomfortably close to being me. I wouldn't want an admin who was prejudiced against a gender. Hope you understand, and don't mind my putting this in your talk rather on the RfA. I will paste from here and/or my own talk if I decide to change my vote as a result. Best wishes --Guinnog 22:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that my epithet irritates you does indeed imply that you are in the category of persons for whom I use it as a euphemism. Angry young males take everything personally and base their opinions on the strong emotions they feel as a result, like spoiled schoolkids on a playground. That's a very poor basis for making decisions like RfA, but I won't retract the epithet, as it is simply too descriptive of reality (as your bargaining request itself demonstrates). I've spent decades working with computers and interacting in cyberspace, and angry young males are a constant and overwhelming pox on the medium. I cannot in good conscience overlook the trouble they cause. Agateller 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. It certainly clarifies things for me and helps me to decide my vote. Best wishes --Guinnog 06:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for illustrating what I'm talking about; it proves that I'm not just making it up. Agateller 08:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you make broad generalizations on males who are young, such as myself? I don't see myself as being angry. SushiGeek 10:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I make broad generalizations concerning people who exhibit a certain extremely characteristic pattern of behavior, one that is common in (but not exclusive to) angry young males. They are so predictable that I know well in advance what they are going to write or do; they are like animals butting heads in competition for territory or females—just as devoid of intellectual control over their actions. Anyway, they are society's biggest problem, and they are an even bigger problem in cyberspace. Sometimes the best way to deal with them is to pull their chains until they burn themselves out. Agateller 15:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know the group you're talking about - I'm sure everyone here does. However, I think you're putting far too many people in it. "Angry young males" as you call them rarely do anything useful, there is no chance of them getting through RfA. You're offending a lot of people with your generalisations. I think the name you've given them is a little inaccurate, as well - they aren't angry, they're arrogant, and they certainly aren't always young. At least online, they are generally male, though, but that might just be because of the overall gender imbalance on sites like this. --Tango 12:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many people voting here are administrators, but a lot of them fit the category quite well. However, that is to be expected in any group of more than two or three people selected at random in cyberspace, since angry young males are often a majority in cyberspace venues. I call them angry because they are extremely emotional and very prone to outbursts of anger that often get them in trouble. I call them young because this type of behavior is strongly mediated by testosterone, and testosterone levels are highest in both sexes in the years just following puberty. And I call them males because about 98% of people with this syndrome are male (probably also related to testosterone or some similar effect). Agateller 15:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say out of everyone on this page, you fit that description best. You're offending people and getting yourself into trouble, you're generalising, which is generally an emotional reaction, and worst of all, you're dismissing people's opinions because you've pigeoned holed them into a group you don't respect. Take a look at the "angry young males" fighting to keep their new playground game's article on AfD - they do all the same things you're doing. --Tango 15:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was pretty sure that the angry young males would sabotage any volunteering on my part to do admin work, and it quickly became obvious that they rule here (and even if they didn't, they'd build bots or sockpuppets to sandbag a voting process, anyway). Given that this is just another AYM playground, I may as well get them to stomp their feet and fume while I'm at it. The key difference is that I don't take it seriously, whereas they do. And I'm not the fire, I'm the draft. At some point they always accuse me of being one of them, before progressing to stronger stuff such as bad words, direct insults, and so on. Notice that I haven't named anyone, but since they unconsciously recognize themselves, they get defensive anyway. If I'm not going to be an admin, I can at least entertain myself. The whole title of these paragraphs, Serious civility concerns, absolutely smacks of the angry young male, who can only see everything as a personal affront, and has no capacity at all for objective, emotionless consideration of any topic. Agateller 17:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the originator of the heading, and as one who you have already explicitly placed in this category you like so much, I want to state that I named it that solely because I had serious civility concerns after your reply on your talk page. I assure you that I am not taking personal affront over a judgement of me made by someone who does not know me, on the basis of some civil questions. While I am far from affronted, I find your behaviour highly unsuitable for a prospective admin, that's all. Shame, because I did like (as I already said) some of your comments about WP:OR.
I would ask you though, why, if you don't take it seriously, have you mentioned it so often, and why didn't you say that before now? Are you saying the whole thing has been a joke? --Guinnog 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just give it a rest? Agateller 20:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that sockpuppets make a difference on RfA is very insulting to the beurocrats (and others) that work to ensure RfA is fair and works well - insulting the people that are going to decide if you become an admin or not probably isn't wise, however unbiased they are. If the civility issues aren't enough to stop you making a good admin, the paranoia certainly is. I suggest you give it a rest. (I can see that I'm likely to start getting angry if I discuss this much longer, so I'm going to step back now - this will be my last message on the subject.) --Tango 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Well, I was pretty sure that the angry young males would sabotage any volunteering on my part to do admin work, and it quickly became obvious that they rule here (and even if they didn't, they'd build bots or sockpuppets to sandbag a voting process, anyway). Given that this is just another AYM playground, I may as well get them to stomp their feet and fume while I'm at it." Jesus Christ, dude! You don't know when to stop! You've exhibited the exact same behavior many people are opposing you for right here! Are you now going to dismiss all of our concerns as "the angry young males stomping their feet and fuming" as well? SushiGeek 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


All user's edits.Voice-of-All 05:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Agateller (over the 664 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 201 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 18, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 10hr (UTC) -- 30, October, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 664 edits): Major edits: 61.05% Minor edits: 92.31%
Average edits per day: 3.29 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 557 edits) : Major article edits: 66.44% Minor article edits: 94.12%
Analysis of edits (out of all 664 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 2.26% (15)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 26.2% (174)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 27.56% (183)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 41.75%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 448 | Average edits per page: 1.48 | Edits on top: 17.47%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 45.33% (301 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 15.96% (106 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 5.87% (39 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 31.33% (208 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 83.89% (557) | Article talk: 7.08% (47)
User: 1.05% (7) | User talk: 0.3% (2)
Wikipedia: 3.16% (21) | Wikipedia talk: 0% (0)
Image: 4.37% (29)
Template: 0% (0)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.15% (1)
Over past months I've found myself regularly spending a lot of time contributing to Wikipedia, so I figured it wouldn't hurt to volunteer as an administrator. Agateller 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit count with Tool2:
Username Agateller
Total edits 651
Distinct pages edited 471
Average edits/page 1.382
First edit 10:47, October 30, 2005

(main) 544
Talk 47
User 7
User talk 2
Image 29
Image talk 1
Wikipedia 21
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: General clean-up, Wikification, copyright status, articles which may be biased, articles requested if they fall within my areas of expertise, articles for deletion, potentially other stuff as time permits. Agateller 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've done a few graphics that are quite clean and neat (see illustrations in Euro symbol, Sinus rhythm, Stack (data structure)), and written some articles or portions of articles that are fairly clean and neutral (Covert channel, Multiprocessing, Ring (computer security), Sanisette, etc.). Agateller 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: One conflict with respect to Non-native pronunciations of English (French section—a domain that I happen to know extremely well), involving an angry young male guarding his turf. Eventually I was distracted by other contributions I was making and I haven't gone back to look at that article in quite some time. Some people are hellbent on keeping their preferred text in an article and will revert endlessly and obsessively, and I don't have the time to play that game. Agateller 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Nobleeagle (Talk)

Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)?
A: The main frustration with Wikipedia is common to most forms of Internet communities: constant attempts at dominance by angry young males who are more interested in fighting and competing for some unspecified prize than in cooperating to get a job done. In Wikipedia it takes the form of heavy-handed reverts and edits, highly selective demands for citations and sources (aimed only at text with which the person making the demand disagrees), and so on. Even this nomination process for administrators shows it: it seems that most people think of being an administrator as an exclusive boy's club rather than an additional responsibility and burden that a few benevolent volunteers are willing to take on. I have to smile at the thought that people should earn administrator status as though it were a medal; I've been sysadmin many times on many systems and all it means in practice is that you get blamed for a lot more, you screw things up more easily if you're not careful, and you have to get up and go to the computer center at 3 AM a lot. In my experience, people who think of administrator status as some sort of prize or magic power are among the worst abusers of that status; they often still have some growing-up to do.
One other frustration is the "no original research" policy, which is actually impossible to enforce. Even print encyclopaedias depend largely on the knowledge of article authors rather than an infinite number of references to other sources. And other sources are not necessarily any more reliable than the person writing the article. The fact that someone has published something, somewhere, doesn't mean that it's more reliable than what a well-informed person might write himself. I can see the motivation behind the policy, but it is very unequally applied, and it's impossible to apply it to the letter—ultimately, a lot of every article comes from the writer's own knowledge, and isn't just an anthology of quotations from other sources. If this policy were rigidly enforced, 99% of the content of Wikipedia would have to be deleted.
Overall I like the concept of Wikipedia, which is why I've volunteered. I kind of anticipated the reaction I see (see my comments above on the angry young males), but I figured I'd try anyway. Agateller 09:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Λυδαcιτγ

Q: In your answers to question number 1, only "copyright status" and "articles for deletion" are things that could require administrator tools. And even these two processes are mostly done without regards to administrator status; the only role for an administrator is cleaning up the backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and closing AfD debates. So: What do you understand to be the duties of an administrator, and why do administators need the extra tools? Furthermore, are these the only areas in which you would be using the administrator tools?
A: As it happens, I know quite a bit about copyright and IP law, and I'm particularly conservative about it in most respects (to avoid litigation), so I might be useful in that capacity. I haven't proposed many articles for deletion because I rarely see an article that truly seems to merit deletion, even when deliberately looking for them. Many articles require rewriting, clean-up, merging, renaming, or things like that, but few really need to be deleted.
I volunteered to be an administrator without any specific idea of the magic powers I wished to wield. Administration is a burden for anyone with long experience of that function—it isn't a gift. People who think otherwise are newbies and are often in the angry young male category that I've already described … they are the worst possible administrators. Anyway, I simply took for granted that an admininstrator would have greater scope for contribution to Wikipedia and that's why I volunteered. I don't know which admininstrator tools I'd use most; I'll worry about that if and when I'm an administrator. You see, I'm not looking for wizard powers, I'm just trying to find new ways to contribute.
It seems that statistics plays a big part in approving administrators. If the numbers are all that count, why not just automate the process? There also seems to be the usual huge influence of subjective opinions, which ties in with phenomena that I've already mentioned.
As I've already explained, the novelty of being an admininstrator wore off for me long, long ago; my first sysadmin job was thirty years ago. If you want additional help in administering Wikipedia, vote me in. If it stresses you to admit someone new to the treehouse club, don't vote me in. I won't force my volunteer assistance upon people who don't want it, and I'm sure I can find many other ways to occupy the time that I might otherwise dedicate to administrative functions. Agateller 04:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Agateller&oldid=1147968991"