Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Agentsoo2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


[edit] Agentsoo

Final (48/9/4) Ended 02:20, 2006-08-14 (UTC)

Agentsoo (talk · contribs) – I have been a chronic user of Wikipedia since May 2005, accumulating over 12,000 edits (if that counts for anything). I have been the major contributor to two featured articles (this and this) and a featured list (this). I also work on several WikiProjects (this, this and this) and find time to contribute to AfD whenever possible (albeit less so recently). I have recently begun using VandalProof and was surprised at how many edits are actually legitimate (Wikipedia naysayers be gone!). I believe I am familiar with Wikipedia policies, and take a special interest in keeping Wikipedia as free as possible, particular with regard to images. Hopefully I can now be trusted with the special privileges of adminship. (PS This is my second nomination, my first one was over a year ago so hopefully I've resolved the objections raised.) Soo 23:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Soo 23:56, 6 August 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, 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: I'm about to start work on the Featured Article Review, but I'd be particularly interested in using admin powers to handle issues with supposed fair use images and other copyright issues. I'm not a copyright fanatic but I think I understand the issues involved fairly well so it makes sense for me to deal with that area. I'm also happy to help out on AfD if required, and am generally quite flexible.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Getting Countdown (game show) to Featured status is probably my proudest moment. The article was in a bad way when I started working on it, was comprehensively rewritten (with valued contributions from other editors) and then put forward for Featured-ness. The FAC debate was an arduous 31 days, but the article emerged much improved. That said, I recognise that it's probably not the most significant article in an encyclopaedia, and recently I've been working on Mathematics, which I hope to bring to a similar standard eventually.
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: I have been involved in only one major dispute, nearly a year ago. I disagreed with another editor over two versions of a page, and he accused me of vandalism and sock-puppetry (a charge on which he was later found guilty himself.) It was resolved, largely, by Mediation. I found the detailed criticism of the FAC process quite stressful, but managed to remain civil and focussed my attention on improving the articles in question. Hopefully that will stand me in good stead for the stresses of adminship.
Comments

Additional questions from JoshuaZ As always, all additional questions are completely optional.

1 In your previous RfA you mentioned that you had done work as an anon before getting an account and that as an anon you had written articles including starting Chasmosaurus. Could you give us a list of the main articles that you started/contributed to as an anon?

A: I can't remember all of them, but this gives a fairly representative sample.
Comment The IP is 213.122.72.220. There are less than savory edits by other anoons, and I want to spare others the confusion I experienced. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2 In regard to question 3 above, could you give more detail about the incident with the sockpuppeting editor?

A: I was unhappy with the state of the article Skull (symbolism), and I marked it with the NPOV tag, which I now realise was the wrong template (I really meant 'tone', but I didn't know it existed at the time.) I had some dispute with the article's editor (User:Wetman) but it remained fairly civil. I couldn't make much progress with the article, so I added it to my watchlist and forgot about it. Some time later, an anonymous editor jumped in and made some fairly aggressive changes to the article. I felt that this heavily redacted version was better, since I think an accurate but incomplete article is better than a long and disputable one. By some process I can't really remember, User:DreamGuy became involved in the dispute over the two versions, and we got into a revert war, which lasted about 10 reverts over a few days. I now regret that, but at the time I was inflamed by DreamGuy accusing me of 'vandalising' the article. At the time, I was 'training up' a new editor (User:JonONeill) who inevitably became involved in the dispute too, and DreamGuy accused me of using him as a sockpuppet. I invited anyone to perform an IP check or otherwise investigate the situation properly, but instead the accusations continued by innuendo and suggestion. In the end I realised that there was no point continuing the argument. As a post-script, I notice that DreamGuy was concluded "likely" to be using a sockpuppet himself in this checkuser case. So I admit that I probably didn't handle this as well as I could have done, but I think I learnt from the experience and hopefully my conduct in my various FAC debates indicates that I can be civil in disagreement.

3 Could you explain what Francis-Tyers oppose vote below is about and please explain your version of events, with relevant difs if possible?

A: He was the mediator in the above dispute.

Last 5000 article edits (seperated due to heavy AWB use). Voice-of-All 02:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Agentsoo (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 310 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 07, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 10hr (UTC) -- 1, September, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.23% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 231.73 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major article edits: 99.23% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 17 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.2% (10)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.92% (96)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 92.72% (4636)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 88.26%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 10 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 4459 | Average edits per page: 1.12 | Edits on top: 17.54%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 12.68% (634 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 81.74% (4087 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 4.72% (236 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.44% (22 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 100% (5000) | Article talk: 0% (0)
User: 0% (0) | User talk: 0% (0)
Wikipedia: 0% (0) | Wikipedia talk: 0% (0)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0% (0)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)

Next 5000 article edits:

Viewing contribution data for user Agentsoo (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 340 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 07, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 1, August, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 99.5%
Average edits per day: 1.62 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 99.5%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 17 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 1.96% (98)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 4.16% (208)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 92.52% (4626)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 89.65%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 4713 | Average edits per page: 1.06 | Edits on top: 6.8%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 15.06% (753 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 83.26% (4163 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 1.24% (62 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.12% (6 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 100% (5000) | Article talk: 0% (0)
User: 0% (0) | User talk: 0% (0)
Wikipedia: 0% (0) | Wikipedia talk: 0% (0)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0% (0)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)

Username   Agentsoo
Total edits     13560
Distinct pages edited   11695
Average edits/page      1.159
First edit      20:22, June 18, 2004
        
(main)  11932
Talk    301
User    117
User talk       145
Image   44
Template        33
Template talk   12
Category        212
Category talk   5
Wikipedia       681
Wikipedia talk  71
Portal  7
Support
  1. STRONG SUPPORT Soo is a very dedicated editor. She works very well with others, and she's knowledgable on many aspects of Wikipedia. I have worked with Soo regularly on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, and she's great to work with. If I'd have known she was interested in adminship, I would have nominated her myself. Great user. Give her a mop! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Soo is not female.. I suspect he's going to get a good laugh when he reads this, however. Bobo. 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Good god, I've been referring to him as a woman for the last six months! Why didn't anyone tell me!? :/ --Firsfron of Ronchester 07:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: You're right, I did get a good laugh :) Soo 10:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support A great, experienced editor. I might like a bit more interaction on talk/user talk/Wikipedia talk pages, but she(?) deserves the mop. —Mets501 (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Michael 01:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support. Who cares if they interact with the community? I think this user would make an excellent admin. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 07:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom - Soo is the best. Jono (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support A very dedicated user to this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. <-Seven!, I see no problems (as of yet), answers seem OK and I think we need more admins that deal with images/media problems, huge backlogs me thinks?. Couldn't see any major problems under oppose. Users talk edits are a bit low because of no vandal fighting, users talk page shows activity.--Andeh 10:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong support. More than ample edit count and time with project. Uses VandalProof and takes part in AfD's. The remaining question in my mind is civility. I believe the heated exchange that resulted in mediation is far enough in the past. User:WikipedianProlific's oppose appears to be related this entry on Soo's talk page, where User:WikipedianProlifichas left a note referring to this comment on JonONeil's talk page. The two taken together look like an exchange between friends or at least acquaintances. If so, I've seen worse. I am WP:AGF for now and awaiting clarification. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support I also note that Agentsoo's contributions as an anon we're very good. The total number of edits is astounding. I'm going to run through my standard logic: 1) Do we think that Agentsoo will deliberately abuse the mop? No. 2) Do we think he will do something incompetent and highly damaging with the mop? No. 3) Do we think that the project will benefit from Agentsoo having the Mop? Obviously yes. I therefore I have trouble seeing how someone could not support. JoshuaZ 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support I'm not really fond of the "twat" comment, but unless I see that that kind of thing happens often, I'm sticking with this support. AgentSoo will benefit us greatly. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, a very solid user all around. — Deckiller 18:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, many good reasons to support. Nothing questionable in the last 8 months. While it would be nice to see more user talk edits, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Many people rack up user talk edits chatting, which Soo does not. Soo does good work, has plenty of experience and always uses edit summaries. While this isn't direct communication, admins are responsible to the community at large to show transparency in what they do. Soo has done this.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Lots of good work, opposes don't show anything that bad any time recently. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support as my criteria met and this is supposed to be no big deal. 12,000 edits and no incivility issues? I see no reason to oppose. Ifnord 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. No recent issues, and I don't really care about talk edit counts. Been here long enough that I seriously doubt he'll abuse the tools. BryanG(talk) 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support: Agentsoo has been here long enough to know what he is doing, I think he has shown he can be trusted. The "twat" thing doesn't bother me - exactly the same thing goes on at IRC, it is just that comments there are not so permanent. It is none of my business how Soo interacts with his mates, he certainly doesn't appear to abuse those he doesn't know and that is what is important here. Rje 22:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support, we always need more admins who can deal with fair use abuse with a heavy fist. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strong Support. Looks like a good editor that has worked hard and knows WP. WP would benefit if they got the mop. No reasons to oppose IMHO. Nephron  T|C 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support - he is a very dedicated user and the civility problems cited by the opposers seem to be reasonably mild abakharev 23:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support I see nothing wrong, also, the joke is fine and I don't have an issue with that. Sometimes things don't read off the way they sound, but I think we all do things like that. It's perfectly excusable. Yanksox 23:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Good editor, who I'm sure will be a useful admin. Civility concerns are minor. -- Avenue 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Bianca: Excellent Support, Darling! (raises champagne glass happily) --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 05:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. per nom.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support - per nom 2.0 -- Tawker 15:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Looks like a dedicated and thoughtful editor. I don't agree that his actions on Skull (symbolism) were out of line to the point of opposing adminship several months later. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Looks okay to me. Deb 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. OMG SOMEONE WITH 2FA! Support! However, hoping to see more talk edits. -- Миборовский 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support per nom. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support - valuable contributor - Glen 00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support none of the objections to this adminship are very convincing for me; I see no evidence that this user would abuse the m&b. Ziggurat 03:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support, don't think he will abuse or misuse the tools. But how can people vote "per nom" on a self-nom? Do you believe someone makes a good admin because he says he will? - Bobet 16:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support...I'm not sure article talkpage stats are all that important. Very frequently issues about articles are handled on user talk pages, the village pump, project pages, and peer reviews, etc. so I won't hold these lack of edits against them. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support per nom. Looks like Agentsoo2 would make a fine administrator. - Bootstoots 21:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. Steel 23:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support from what I have seen I believe he would make a dependable administrator. Doc ♬ talk 23:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support - has done good work on important projects, no basis to fear tool-abuse. bd2412 T 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  40. Robert 18:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support will be good admin --rogerd 00:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 19:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. Jeffklib
  44. Support - no reason not to trust him with admin tools. Metamagician3000 04:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support per nom. Icey 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support Very impressed.--Holdenhurst 19:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support large body of edits, the oppose votes don't convince me, and I don't think that the user would abuse administrator privledges. However, you definately need to make more contact with other users in their talk pages.--Jersey Devil 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support per Jersey Devil. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 21:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The editor's actions on Skull (symbolism) do not befit an administrator. - FrancisTyers · 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Are you talking about this incident from eight months ago? Just asking. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 00:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    See talk. - FrancisTyers · 00:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Less than 200 user talk edits fails my criteria. Especially with so many mainspace edits, the nom should be communicating more with his fellow wikipedians. I will likely support on re-app. Themindset 05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I guess I'm just not very sociable... Soo 10:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per above --Masssiveego 06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for the above reasons, and also because of a generally bad attitude unbefitting #an administrator. See [1] --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    None of the difs in that section are Agentsoo's. Could you point more explicitly to what you are talking about? JoshuaZ 13:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure he means these: [2] [3] (the link he posted first goes between these two, and you get the whole picture. Although I'm pretty sure this isn't something that was meant to be serious or that was taken seriously. - Bobet 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm, I'm puzzled as to how that could merit an oppose vote. I will ask WikipedianProlific to explain this in more detail. JoshuaZ 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, BOBET, for finding the missing piece. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 15:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    WikipedianProlific was quizzing me about an in-joke between me and my friend JonONeill that didn't involve him at all. I don't see why I should have to explain it to him, or what it's got to do with being an admin. Soo 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the explanation. That's what it felt like to me-- a joke between friends and not an incivil exchange of insults. (I have two co-workers that go at eac other the same way.) Happy to support Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Just to confirm that... yeah, an innocent joke. Certainly not grounds for a negative vote. Jono (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    To clarify at the behest of JoshuaZ. I felt that his responses to me personally and the general language used was unnecessary and unhelpful. An attitude that wouldn't serve him well as an administrator. I didn't realise until several days after initially reading the comments that it was an in-joke. All Soo had to do was say, "don't worry its just an in-joke" when I asked and I'd have thought no more of it. Instead I spent a fair amount of time which I could have spent editing or making diagrams researching those comments. Overall the oppose is for the unhelpful "why should I tell you" attitude and the fact it cost me some fair amount of my time. Especially as it turned out the ‘in-joke’ was actually made at my expense, something I object to. Its not a strong oppose but I feel this user may still stand to benefit from some more time as an editor. Soo’s a very proficient editor and generally good with the ins and out of Wikipeida which is very commendable, but I felt this constituted an underlying negative attitude towards other editors just trying to be helpful. Sorry Soo if I've taken it the wrong way and I do hope you know I was just trying to be helpful, its really nothing personal but that’s where I stand on it at the moment. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, I think I can unpick what happened here. My friend Jono sent me an odd message, so I assumed it was a parody of the usual warnings that vandals get round here. I replied, referring him to WP:NPA while calling him a twat, which was intended as a joke and Jono interpreted as one, replying in kind. Next thing, WikipedianProlific was asking me to explain myself, when as far as I knew he wasn't involved at all. It turns out that Jono's original odd message was actually a repost of a message to him from WikipedianProlific, but at the time I didn't put two and two together. So just to clarify, it wasn't a joke at your expense, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted your intervention. I now understand your curiosity! Apologies for the misunderstanding, it's a limitation of the medium I suppose. Soo 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per FrancisTyers and Themindset. Singopo 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Weak Oppose per recent diffs above, mostly disregarding the Skull situation as too old. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Tony Sidaway 22:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Impressive edit count but needs to engage in communication before considering adminship.
  8. Oppose: not quite ready yet. May support in future. Thumbelina 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose because of insufficient communication with others (talk pages), which I find crucial for an administrator. --dcabrilo 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral: Seems an experienced, good editor. However, I am rather troubled by his use in response to the third question of the phrase "a charge on which he was later found guilty himself". To me, this indicayes a user who is prone to wikilawyering, in particular treating our processes as courts of law. --David Mestel(Talk) 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Merovingian - Talk 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Per concerns on both sides. Seems to be a good editor though. Attic Owl 09:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, and a tough call. I'm quite impressed by this user's contributions, and singularly unimpressed with the seeming inability to communicate. As an admin, you will be called upon to be a communicator and a mediator ("mediation" is formal; mediating is daily), so I expect I'd support with the knowledge that this candidate can step in and referee. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:32, 13 August 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.