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

Anthony cfc[edit]

Final (13/12/1); Ended 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Anthony cfc (talk · contribs) - I would like to take this oppurtunity to request the extra buttons in order to further that which I have already given the community. I do have a second motive for this - I'd like to gain valuable input from the Community that I've come to love in my 1+ year at Wikipedia. I've done my fair share around the encyclopedia: I've been one of around three or four editors to really get Cambuslang railway station going; I've passed about 20 or 30 GA candidates at WP:GAC, and I've created a couple of nifty little templates to ensure I provide the largest amount of feedback possible. I am currently mediating a case for the Mediation Committee, in addition to my Mediation Cabal cases. I also do AMA work, and I'm a member of the ArbCom group there, which specialise in cases with Wikipedians about to go in front of the Arbitration Committee. I've reverted hundreds of vandalism posts all by hand (I don't use VandalProof, although I'm an accepted user): see my personal vandalism policy for exact details. I reguarly participate in XfD debates - and not just AfD; I also try to list my humble opinion at TfD, CfD and MfD as well. I'm also active in the article mainspace - I do lots of WikiGnome edits, as well as moderate article writing (mostly on random pages.) The one thing that I am not proud of is my overly large User space edits, which I often am compelled to do by my medical condition, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; I only hope the community does not hold this against me. I now semi-quote this piece:

I only ask is that when choosing to list your name in any of the three fields, you consider this: do I trust Anthony cfc to assist in clearing the backlog of admin-related duties; to block when necessary, and to a acceptable length and standard? Most importantly, do I trust Anthony to continue the key Wikimedia policies and Wikipedia policies that we are to adhere to in order to keep the spirit of Wikimedia alive, even when he has those all-important extra functions?

— Essjay

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept on the grounds of self-nomiantions; may I make one final request: if an editor raises an issue against my edits - in any stance, Oppose, Neutral or Support, I ask that the others don't hound her or him - I wish for this Request for Administratorship to be remembered as one where no editors where harmed. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)I would like to withdraw from this request for the mop at this time; I would like to graciously thank everybody that has supported, opposed or take a neutral stance towards my request. Your feedback is essential and I will be trying my utmost to implement it into my Wikipedia activities. Kind regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 07:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 participants:

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.

My first and foremost anticipated chores - so long as the community chooses to grant me the mop and bucket - is primarily those areas which tend to receive less attention or have larger backlogs. Examples might include Requested Moves, Speedy Deletions or Proposed Deletions. I'd also like to pay attention to the Requests for Admin Intervention (Against Vandalism) noticeboard, with particular attention to ArbCom enforcement which I believe I'd be particularly well-suited to because of my personal Neutrality Policy, as well as my experience with the AMA, Mediation Cabal and Mediation Committee. I'm also around plenty of hours in the day - mostly RCP or GAC work, or else with one eye here and one eye on the non-Wikimedia wiki where I'm now a 'Crat, Sysop and CheckUser (Oversight has been disabled for a few days.) All-in-all, I'd just like to be a generally available editor who can be easily reached. (As an extent to that, I'm going to bring back my status indicator so that visitors can easily see if I'm in.)

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

I'd definitely have to say Cambuslang railway station, which has flourished since I started editing it...if I do say so myself :P. I've also expanded almost every Glasgow railway station article - even if some of them may only by a sentence or so. I've rewritten part of Glasgow Central station, as well as helped promote Paddington railway station to Good Article status. Most recently started is (although the others are still ongoing) Jews for Jesus, to which I've been implemented edits as reached to concensus by the editors of the case I'm mediating for the Mediation Committee. On that topic, I'm very pleased with that case: the first attempt by a Committee member broke down, but since I took over the second attempt I've managed to single-handedly bring the mediation up to the point where approximately one resolution is being reached per day. Finally, I've adopted to users in the Adopt-a-User program: User:Db1944 and User:SoonerDave, and I've been coaching them in my classroom. All of these - I believe - demonstrates my committement to not only administrator-relevant areas, but also to the mainspace (including Mediation, which is as close as you can get short of article-authoring) which thus shows that I am committed first and foremost to the expansion of this fabulous project I have come to call home.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

I suffer from Bipolar Disorder (formerly known as Manic Depression) which does have great potential to shred any civil responses I might make to pieces :) however, I am exceptionally proud of the fact that I've not been in any major disputes at all! Most recently, I was in a dispute with Peter, but we have since both come to a resolution within a matter of six or seven posts - in fact, I feel that Peter has become one of the editors who is quite close to me, and I hope he feels the same way.

I also think that, if I cast my mind back to the dawn of time when I first joined :-) Wikipedia, my inexperienced ways resulted in more superior users giving me a fair telling off! My scars of these conflict are still on my Talk page, but I have since apologised to Ancheta Wis and I do hope she bears no grudge!

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Good questions; I'm off to bed now, but I'll answer these in the library tommorrow during lunch. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. What do policies of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean and how would you apply them?

A:

5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A:

6. What is one exception to the three-revert rule?

A:

General comments

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

---

Discussion

Support

1. Support — I believe I can trust you, I've seen honesty, civility and kindness, you've made a few mistakes that haven't always made me happy per se, none the less you try your best and I feel you won't abuse the community's trust. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - Humble, teachable editors who recognize where they're inexperienced make good admins. I don't see anything here that worries me about Anthony's ability to handle a mop. Tijuana Brass 22:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Honest, kind, hardworking. You're all the things I look for in an admin. I think your answers and statement are great. I'm extra pleased you explain your high user edit count, and I noticed you created a sockpuppet especially to do this - an excellent idea. Very best of luck to you. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support I too notice the lack of contributions to XfD discussions in your last 500 Wikipedia-area edits, but I don't believe that the admin tools would be misused by this editor. Some more participation in discussions would be welcome; perhaps a small reduction in some of your other tasks would be in order so that the application of the tools can be accommodated. (aeropagitica) 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support This is a vergy good user and I see him/her around frequently.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Great user, I would offer to nominate him in the near future.--Húsönd 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support: Someone with experience at AMA, Mediation Cabal and Mediation Committee is exactly the kind of admin that will do well at WP:AN/I, which always needs admins who are willing and able to dive into a mess and sort things out. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support: Although I've never stated it before, I find Anthony's work at the Medication Committee to be "above and beyond the call of duty", so to speak, and it would be great to have more admins such as him. His excellent work in consensus building is an inspiration. .V. _[Talk|Email] 00:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. More XfD experience would be good certainly, but you're more than capable as an admin, support.--Wizardman 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support -- very conscientious and courteous. Cares for the project. And cares for the people in the project. Will make a fine admin. The Transhumanist   00:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support seen you about and you seem to be a good contributor and trustworthy. Cbrown1023 talk 00:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - regarding the bipolar stuff, it's cool man, I know what you're going through. Despite his flaws, I think the candidate has experience and will use the tools judiciously. YechielMan 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    While offering support and sympathy is in good spirit, it doesn't fully justify this user's previous incidents of incivility. Until hefigures out how best to manage that, he should not be considering adminship at this time. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13. Support I think he'll do well. Pigman^talk 05:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. (Note from Anthony: and honest :))

1. I am sorry to be the first one here but I personally don't think you are involved enough in the deletion process. Don't take it personal, but in the past month I only see a couple of XFD's maybe less than that. I wish you best of luck. ~ Arjun 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Adminship != XfD. I had only 7 XfD contribs in the year and a half before I became an admin. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Ryan, you were promoted months ago. Times have changed, and people's expectations have also changed. Also, in your own RfA, the people who opposed you did so because of your lack of experience dealing with policy, as stated by VoA, BaseballBaby, Mets501, etc. People may have not made a big deal about it then, but I think XfD participation is important nowadays, as it demonstrates if a user understands policy. Nishkid64 01:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong oppose I cannot support this user. As an administrator, a user becomes the face of Wikipedia, his or her actions are put under a spotlight. This edit, made only 1 week ago, sharply contrasts the user's (ab)use of blink where he says "Click here to leave a civil message." A few days ago, he stated that he is "inactive at this project", and he comes back 2 weeks later with an RfA. While it isn't major, the use of AWB here is strictly opposed on the project's page. Also, Using Vandalproof for this and this confuse me. Infact, having 2 respected users revoke access to VP and AWB, 26 minutes from one another, less than a month ago would be one of the most disconcerting things I have seen on an RfA candidate. You went inactive about a week ago, are you sure that you have time? You've shown civility issues and unfamiliarity with policy, your merits aside, how can I trust you as an administrator? Please, work on these, give it 3-4 months, avoid conflicts, be careful, and you'll make an excellent administrator. ST47Talk 01:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi there; thanks for your comments - they are much appreciated. However, I do have a small favour to ask - I was suffering from a Bipolar "feeling-down session" when I posted that nasty "If you're here to start a dispute..." message, and I am ashamed of it. Please do recognise this. Hope you're well! Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am sorry but Anthony I suffer from Bipolar also, I prefer not to talk about it. But still if you are down just walk away from the computer, Wikipedia is not a better place when we let our "RL" feelings slip unto Wikipedia. ~ Arjun 01:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree with Arjun, Wikipedia isn't the place to vent, and if you're going to use it as such I would rather not have you in some position of power or authority. ST47Talk 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC

   Thanks for your clarification; I have carefully considered your advice, and I will try my utmost to implement it next time. Thanks chaps - Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose; user used blink tags. But seriously, ST47 raises some good points. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose. From what I've seen of him around, this user strikes me as lacking experience and having (for want of a better phrase) a somewhat "kiddie" attitude. On a lesser note, there seems to be some copycat thing going on with Essjay-related stuff. His talk page has a header almost identical to that on Essjay's talk, and until recently you could have easily mistaken his userpage for Essjay's. There's also things like this and this, this and this, and this and this . Just giving three examples there, the list goes on, frankly, from bragging about being an ABCO (Essjay's "position" as it were) on another wiki (incidentally, his own wiki), to him appearing on Essjay's talk with some regularity asking inane questions or commenting on things that have nothing to do with him. -- Steel 01:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I do have some small objections to the above comment. Essjay openly advertises all of those pages (bar Neutrality, which in fact is very different from Essjay's equivalent guideline) on Meta Skins gallery. Also, "ABCO" does not "belong" to anybody; perhaps "Developer" only belongs to Tim Starling? Lastly, I am of the opinion that the opposing an editor (RfA, or otherwise) because of his userpage is not exactly relevant: this is a Wiki, and every piece of information on here (except Copyrighted Images, etc...) is available for free use. I hope I have made my comments clear in a civil manner? Have a nice night, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose: While I assume this user has good intentions for requesting adminship, I have some serious concerns about their manner and conduct. Firstly, this user was banned from both VandalProof [1] and AWB [2] in the same day, and then removed the notices from his talk page [3] without archiving them along with his other talk page messages. I personally take a dim view of such messages being removed, especially with seemingly deliberate non-archiving. It also appears this user has an issue with personal attacks, shown here via messages displayed on his userpage [4] & [5], and on talk pages [6]. There are certain ways an editor can deal with disputes, I don't think any of the above, [7] or troll archives(?) are them. There could be more edits of concern than I have managed to retrieve. The edits I've selected are just several from the start of this year.
   I also don't feel that this user would make good use of sysop tools. While he claims to want to assist with admin backlogs, I can see no evidence of assistance with other other backlogs. When looking at edits since the start of this year, this user appears to have spent more time locked in discussions and disputes on user talk pages, and editing Wikipedia namespace articles/talk pages than editing articles. I don't see evidence of how admin tools will assist this user with their current contributions.
   I apologise for the length of this entry, and if I have repeated some diffs linked from previous messages. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per apparent 'hounding' of oppose !voters, especially when while accepting the self nomination, Anthony specifically requested that nobody hound the people commenting. (see oppose #2 and #4) In addition, I feel that the issues raised above are worth some merit. I don't think the XfD matters all that much, but the problems raised by ST47, Arjun01, and Sagaciousuk are serious issues. Please fix the above issues and come back in 3 to 4 months. Regards —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. Besides the issues above, this user seems to have a strong desire for power:
   • December 27, 2006: adds himself to the standby list for CheckUser clerks. Not yet granted.
   • December 29, 2006: requests to join the mediation committee. Denied.
   • December 31, 2006: requests OTRS access. Not yet granted.
   • January 9, 2007: requests CheckUser access. Denied.
   • January 16, 2007: attempts to gain access to the Bot Approvals Group. Denied.
   • There may be more instances as well. Of those I've listed above, CheckUser is always reserved to Arbitration Committee members and users they give it to, OTRS is "very selective", and the Bot Approvals Group contains only one non-admin (inactive, and he was formerly an administrator). All of these facts are laid out on each page. An interesting note is that every one of the powers he's applied to is one that Essjay holds; this seems almost like a form of wiki-stalking. In short, I think Anthony cfc just wants any power he can possibly get, and that's never a good trait in administrators. I do not trust him to handle the tools properly. Ral315 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak Oppose - honestly, I thought he was one. But from looking at some of the diffs above and looking at the revert war on Peter M Dodge's talk page [8], I just can't support. I'm sorry. You're a great user and I don't really agree with some of the opposes. I don't fault you for volunteering to serve in other areas, nor for contributing in ways other than AFD discussions. But civility and trust that you won't misuse the tools are important for admins. Based on the recent examples of incivility, I think more time to earn the community's trust would be a good idea, but this is a very weak oppose as you are obviously a very dedicated user and one whom I hope will someday be an admin. --BigDT 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. I agree with Ral315, this appears to be Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking. — CharlotteWebb 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   What the??? How about Wikipedia:Thank you for your willingness to serve, but we think you need some more experience and would suggest a different way to serve in the meantime? That would be a little nicer. --BigDT 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose' - per discussion above. ~ UBeR 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose per Ral315.. and I also don't savvy the editor representing himself as a member of MedCom in his nominating statement without mentioning that he was subsequently denied membership. He does great work; I just think it needs to be on the user end for now. --Mus Musculus 04:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose. Without wanting to denigrate your work as an editor in any way, the number of conduct issues raised above are alarming. Also, and I mean absolutely no disrespect by that, the idea of an administrator of whom we know that they are suffering from psychiatric disorders does not sit well with me. Admins can do substantial damage to the project if they want to, and I just don't feel we should take the risk in this case. Sandstein 06:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral Seems like a trustworthy editor, but there are too many things in the oppose section that disturb me. -- P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 03:55, 9 February 2007 (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.