Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Agathoclea

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

[edit] Agathoclea

Final (63/3/2); Ended 00:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Agathoclea (talk · contribs) – Agathoclea self-identifies as a WikiGnome living in Pembrokeshire, Wales. His article space contributions are mostly focused on Pembrokeshire, Germany (he is a native speaker of German), and Ancient Egyptian and Babylonian history. He has been active in the organisation of WikiProject Germany, tagging and assessing hundreds of articles as part of the WP:1.0 project, and also contributes at the German-speaking noticeboard and the Welsh Wikipedians' notice board. Besides his civil and useful contributions at these projects, I recently noticed that he spends time on the (unfortunately very necessary) fight against linkspam, not just by simply reverting and warning, but also keeping a long-term watch on links using Special:Linksearch links on his userpage. He adds references [1], helps in combating vandalism by reverting, warning vandals, and reporting them at WP:AIV, and even deals with open proxies, sockpuppet problems and long term abuse. Given his dedication, civility, and knowledge, I see no reason not to give him the mop to make him even more efficient against spammers and sockpuppets. Kusma (討論) 17:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes, I am hoping to be of benefit to the community. Agathoclea 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Initially I will be mainly on WP:AIV and WP:SOCK. With the later I see a particular need as that is a subject that always needs more than two eyes at any given time. I am rather inquisitive and want to know why things are the way they are and am looking for connections. This has already brought me to contribute in finding abusive sockpuppets and open proxies. In these sensitive areas I feel it needs more admins. Once I am settled in these I will venture into the various xfD.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: In connection with the work on WP:GER I was especially pleased when Mödlareuth was featured as a DYK.

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: That has happened within days of starting to edit Wikipedia. In that case for some reason that still fully eludes me today (something to do with some modern-day nationalism) someone removed Babylonian rulers from Category:Chaldeans. While panicking a bit at the time I did what I think should be norm in those situations, to look for other editors to help. Currently I am dealing with a person or a of group of persons who include the names of their teacher/their own and or fake names in German football clubs and town articles. Again I sometimes have to walk away and let other people deal with the matter. There is not a lot on Wikipedia that needs to be done now and can't be checked by another set of eyes. An outsider can also point out where ones own judgement gets clouded by getting too involved.

General comments

• See Agathoclea's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. Strong Support based on my experience of the nominee and the nominator. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support I see no problems with this editor upon review of contributions. (aeropagitica) 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Looks good here. — Seadog^Talk 00:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support good responsible editor. Lack of Wikipedia space edits is a bit of a concern though. Pascal.Tesson 00:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Weak support Soemwhat weak answer to question 2 and low Wikispace edits, but good editor otherwise. –The Great Llama^moo? 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support This is a user that definitely won't abuse the admin tools. King Toadsworth ^{The Princess is in another Castle!} 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Good distribution of edits, especially many talk edits indicating much communication with other users, good answers to the questions. TSO1D 02:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Super Strong Support in light of the editcountitis brigade below. Edit count isn't everything, nor is time on project, but ability to learn how to use the admin tools and your actual experience on Wikipedia. I think you'll do just fine. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 03:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Slightly unreasonable opposes. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

    Actually, it's just trolling. - crz crztalk 04:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

11. Support Terence Ong 04:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Good Candidate, and no abusing admin tools. Many positives on his contributions, distributions of edits. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support a good editor. Canadian-Bacon 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support - great dedication to the Wikipedia project. Insanephantom 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support of course, I am the nominator :-) Kusma (討論) 06:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support --Srikeit 09:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, no problem. (Radiant) 09:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Great user and I'm confident he is going to be a good admin. Give him a mop. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support, ond dwi'n ddim yn hoffi poblogi yn cymru pwy ddim yn siarad cymraeg :p Proto::► 15:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support A very good user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Lectonar 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Weak support per Llama man. That said willingness to help out at WP:SUSPSOCK is appreciated. Addhoc 19:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong support have observed this editor from the distance for some time, and have never seen any cause for questioning him. A wonderful editor who I have reason to believe will be just as good as an admin. Badbilltucker 20:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Diligent, give him a go. --Improv 20:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. Michael 20:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support per all above comments. --teh tennisman 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support I remember first noting Agathoclea in February, when he created Agathocles of Egypt, and was immediately impressed by his politeness and civility; I have absolutely no doubt he would never abuse of the tools.--Aldux 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support great user; confident he would use the tools well. Opabinia regalis 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support - Wikipedia namespace edits is less than satisfactory though still acceptable as it's over 300. I think overall this editor will make a good admin. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Weak Support I would prefer he had more community and project interaction, but he's a good enough Wikipedian to become an admin. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support; good impression. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support looks alright.-- danntm ^T _C 05:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support See nothing here to indicate user would abuse the tools. IronDuke 05:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
34. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 05:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Excellent vandalism work and a nice edit count. Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Appears to be a very good and trustworthy candidate •CHILLDOUBT• 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support – a solid editor who would not abuse the tools. Olessi 16:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. Good editor with plenty of experience in the areas where he plans to use the tools who appears trustworthy. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 16:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Valuable with definite admin purpose and need for tools. --MECU≈talk 19:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Good editor. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Of course. Good luck. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support cre cebgb, ybbxf gb or n erfcbafvoyr naq gehfgjbegul pnaqvqngr. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support~ I misread the edit count! I thought there were only 6 WPTALK edits. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Not a huge number of wikispace edits, but he seems pretty active. --Wizardman 16:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Joe I 21:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support You are ready, from what I see. Kukini 01:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-21 10:48Z
48. Support Ekki01 18:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Support Just H 19:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
51. support, I trust in him --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
52. Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
53. Support - a solid citizen. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support - Good luck with the tools. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    You appear already to have !voted, viz., at #40. I've inadverently double-!voted at RfA six times, so I suppose I should find one or two such votes myself. Joe 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

54. Support. I trust his judgement. Asterion^talk 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
55. Support --Majorly (Talk) 21:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
56. Support John254 02:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
57. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
58. SupportGreat service. TonyTheTiger 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
59. Support. Khoikhoi 23:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
60. Support I trust this candidate will make good use of the tools. Dionyseus 02:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
61. Support, looks just fine to me. Seraphimblade 14:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
62. Support per above. 22:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex43223 (talk • contribs).

63. Andre (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

I see a lot of Project tagging, for Trains and Germany. I see strong levels of activity since October, but rather slim activity before then. I see some vandalfighting, but virtually no deletion experience. I see moderate edit counts and in WP: and WP:talk areas, diluted even more with strong wikiproject participation that has little bearing on policy. I'll be happy to support Agathoclea in 2 months of sustained activity. But at this point, I oppose. - crz crztalk 02:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Now let's see. Agathoclea has had a large edit spike in the last 2.5 months, which shows up on the wannabe-kate tool. This makes the bar chart look rather skewed. Having said that, he totalled 2038 edits in the 8 months previous to that. That clocks out to be 3057 over a year, and many candidates have passed quite easily after 3000 edits per annum at such a leisurely rate. I feel the relative inactivity prior to this has been psychologically magnified due to the dramatic rate of increase in editing prior to this. In reality I feel that this 2.5 months thing has appeared due to a large increase in recent participation. Many other RfAs judge 250 edits per month as OK (although they tend to generate less traffic). I lookes up the XfDs and there are about 50-odd there..So not so bad. Most people get massive WP space edits by "voting" heavily on AfDs on a regular basis, but unless they are making original contributions (which in most successful RfAs, even landslides is not the case at all). As far at WT space goes, well, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blnguyen went 160-1, and I only had 166 WT space edits at the time, mostly from regional noticeboards and WikiProject discussions. Administrators aren't "approved" legislators or anything, so racking up piles of edits arguing about schools guidelines, etc, is not that necessary. As for the actual talk edits, aside from the project tagging, there's 135 to Talk:Adolf Hitler, 25 to Germany etc (see here). If you look before the tagging spree, there are about 250 genuine discussion edits..... , much more than I had when I passed as well (my highest at the time was 6 to Talk:Rahul Dravid). Thus I conclude that Agathoclea is one of the "unglamourous" candidates who sometimes gets subjected to scrutiny about deficiencies, which compared to other RfA candidates who fly through, are mythical. I ranted about this at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_72#Scientific_and_Emotional_judging_and_bureaucrat_intervention, so I'll just link to it instead of reprinting all the head-to-head comparison between the RfA/Sam_Vimes2 and the other un-named candidate who passed almost unopposed with almost 100 votes. Let me just point out that the un-named candidate had 100 talk edits and 200 WP edits (excluding Esperanza) and a grand total of zero XfD edits. The un-named candidate also only had about 1000 article edits, overwhelmingly automated...... Looking back again, both Crz and myself supported.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

<blushes> whom did I support with zero XfD's? - crz crztalk 05:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll email you.....no need to name the person, but were we charmed? Would we support again if the RfA was re-run? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oooo-kay. Rant back. No, I would not have supported it now - and I should not have supported it then. But it was a long time ago and a happier time. I was supporting left and right then. Besides, that user had other distinct (perceived) advantages - for which I've been known to deviate. I'll accede and withdraw my oppose. Your argument is sensible, as usual, and you're my wiki-hero, B. Have a banana. - crz crztalk 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And that is why, children, I have always said we need more lawyers on Wikipedia! Hurray for lawyers! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 10:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Crz took the words right out of my mouth. I feel you need to get more active in project participation. Nishkid64 02:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose overall level of contribs low for a self-confessed gnome and no exceptional mainspace or Wikispace edits to make up for it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Little involvement in Wikipedia processes or policy. —Centrx→talk • 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. May I ask of his English expeirience? Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

   I think you misunderstood. WP Germany is part of the English Wikipedia, it just encompasses topics related to Germany. TSO1D 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral for the low Wiki-talk count. Otherwise a very good candidate. I'm strongly leaning toward support, but only 6 means I can't. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Changed to support, I can't read obviously. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral, lacks edits outside mainspace but not so much as to oppose. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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.