Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Agentsoo (archive)

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

[edit] Agentsoo

final (0/5/4) ending 05:00, 1st August 2005 (UTC)

I've had this account for over a year and wrote a number of articles before that (e.g. Chasmosaurus). I have accrued close to 1400 edits, most minor, as I spend a lot of time proof-reading pages via the Random Article page, fixing typos, grammatical errors and vandalism as I go. I've also written a few more substantial articles, mainly on the subject of dinosaurs, music and Scrabble. I think I must have quite an esoteric edit history. The extra features available to admins, especially rollback, would be very helpful in my quest to make Wikipedia better one comma at a time! Agentsoo 18:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. Contributions list starts on 19th June 2004 (hence the over a year claim) but there were only 2 edits before 27 May 2005, talk-page got the welcome message on 28th May 2005 and first edit to own user page was on 30th May 2005. I reckon that's a presence of about 2 months. Apart from that, the single "sysop" chore cited doesn't need admin powers to do, or to complete. Has cast a total of 2 VfD votes and no other *fD at all. Has 3 User talk:, 22 Talk: and 62 Wikipedia: edits, which is too little interaction to judge. Does good enough article work, though substantially many edits are minor. However, this username has never edited Kentrosaurus (below) or Chasmosaurus above. EDIT: the finish date above has been set correctly, but the time appears to be chosen arbitrarily. -Splash 21:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

   As I said myself, I edited those articles before I had an account. I have no way to prove that 213.122.72.220 is me, although I can prove (if absolutely necessary) that I own the account on Everything2.com with which I originally wrote them. There was a long gap after my first edits as I never saw much value in logging in, although evidently I have recently seen the error of my ways. My point re. sysops was that I don't mind doing the less glamorous tasks that Wikipedia requires - which includes minor edits, which again I said myself constitute the majority of the work I do. Nevertheless I am pleased that you bothered to check out my claims before voting - it reaffirms my faith in Wikipedia. Agentsoo 21:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose for now. He's only really been here for two months, as was already stated, and still has only 3 edits to User talk and less than 100 to WP:, so he hasn't really had much experience with admin tasks or interactions with other users (and hence with handling conflicts). I would recommend waiting a few months and being renominated by an existing admin. --Idont Havaname 17:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

   Maybe I was premature in applying. IMHO the 'no big deal' line is a little misleading. I'll keep working away and hopefully someone will renominate me at a better time. Agentsoo 17:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose Ditto to everything Splash said. The fact that your edits are mostly minor works against you. The fact that you have numerous spelling errors in your nomination works against you. Ryan 06:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

   Numerous? I found one; "clearn" for "clean", obviously a typo. It's absurd for minor edits to count against me. If you look in my edit history, you'll see that the vast majority of work I do is clean-up. No, it's not exciting, but someone has to do it. Also, I already conceded that I applied too early so this vote doesn't really matter, but at least keep your criticism fair as the above voters did. Agentsoo 10:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

   I apologize for my hyperbole. However, you could have at least corrected the 'clearn' mistake. Don't worry, I did it for you. If you wish to brag about how all you do is clean-up, you might want to start with your nomination. Good luck to you in the future. Ryan 08:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

   I thought it might look dishonest to fix the mistake while we were talking about it, but thanks for fixing it. Agentsoo 09:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

   No problem. Sorry if I came off a bit rude. I've snapped at, like five nominees in the past three days. I need to chill. :( Ryan 09:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

   People often come off sounding curt on here; it's a consequence of the medium I think. I don't take it personally. Agentsoo 11:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Sorry, but confuses policy with proposed policy [1], and has only really been editting for the last two months. I'll likely change my vote if good habits continue and Agentsoo shows a slightly better grasp of policy. --Scimitar ^parley 18:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose Don't think that he/she is experienced enough. Has only been really contributing for 2 months--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Participation in the double-redirect project indicates your dedication to Wikipedia and a certain willingness to do the tedious things administrators must sometimes do. However, "Almost all the things I do already probably count as sysop chores" and the lack of experience on VfD or vandalism reversion indicate confusion as to what an admin actually does. A total of 25 Talk: edits and 62 Wikipedia: edits also indicates that you have probably not been involved in much conflict – this is a good thing, but as Splash says this is "too little interaction to judge." It's my feeling that, although adminship ought to be "no big deal," applicants should already be doing the kinds of things that would naturally lead to an adminship. Since you appear to be a valuable contributor to article space and have had no history of vandalism or other unpleasantness, I will not vote to oppose, but until you get more experience doing admin-like things, I cannot vote to support. android79 00:05, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

   Fair criticism. I will attempt to get more involved in VfD. Agentsoo 00:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral for now. Would suggest a few more months of active wiki involvement. Other than that, I look forward to supporting you on a future date (as we can always use a responsible admin). Keep up the good work and happy editting! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 07:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral I would support but the oppose claims are too strong. Please come back in a few months time. JuntungWu 14:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Decent attitude, been here a little while at least. Probably wouldn't benifit all that much from Admin capabilities, but then that probably doesn't matter much as I'd much rather candidate continued little fixes. Also confuses proposed policy with normal policy... Anyway, I've think you've learned what you needed to from this - come back next week or later with a good attitude and you've got my vote --RN 09:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I am reserving my judgement for now but I was just wondering why you consider fixing double redirects an admin chore? Its part of a WikiProject that anyone can contribute to (and in fact are encouraged too). Besides that, your edits look really good. If you could clarify this one thing, it would be great =) Sasquatch′↔T↔C 09:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to show that I'm happy to do the boring-but-necessary tasks. Sorry for being unclear. Agentsoo 10:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks!Sasquatch′↔T↔C 07:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• I think more edits, with variety, are essential for deciding any issue for nomination. I wish User:Agentsoo all the best, and would love to see him around on a continuous basis. --Bhadani 17:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I racked up hundreds of edits during the recent WikiProject to clean up double redirects, and I'd be happy to do that again. Almost all the things I do already probably count as sysop chores.

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

A. Kentrosaurus was particularly pleasing, as I wrote it before I had any real idea how Wikipedia works. From that basis, numerous devoted Wikipedians wikified it in numerous ways and turned it into the rather good article it is today, all from the factual input of a newbie. Just how Wikipedia should work, I feel.

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. Perhaps surprisingly, no. Generally I find people here to be robust in their arguments but very reasonable and honest. We're all trying to achieve the same thing, after all.

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.