Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steve Crossin

Steve Crossin

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (26/3/2); Scheduled to end 03:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) – Steve is an editor I would like the community to consider for cleaning up around here. He began his wiki-career back in February of 2008, and has contributed over 22,000 edits to our projects. Steve's growth here has not been without controversy. He was forced to sit out a ban for several months over a year ago due a lack of judgment in regards to the use of another account. While he suffered through the ban, he reflected, learned, and matured into an exceptional member of our community. I've personally worked with Steve on a couple articles in the 24 project, and I've learned a great deal about collaboration from him. Steve is an organizer, a motivator, and a calm voice in the face of storms. The highlights of his efforts as I see them are:

• Contributions to WP:AIV (650+), and the protection of the 'pedia
• His organizational skills in improving the 24 project at Wikipedia:WikiProject 24
• He has spent untold hours and effots to resolve disputes as a member of WP:MEDCAB
• When I asked for help in assisting a new user, Steve not only jumped to help the editor - he adopted a proactive approach; started and developed an adoption program to assist those in search of help. (see: User:Steve Crossin/Adoption/Policies ... and I'll let him direct you to the other sub-pages.

The bottom line is that Steve has from day one been enthusiastic about our project, he's made mistakes, suffered the consequences, and learned and grown from them. He is a highly dedicated wikipedian, strong, compassionate, understanding, and mature beyond his years. We desperately need the dedication and devotion that Steve has shown to our community, and I fully endorse him having a couple extra tools to facilitate the improvement of our project. — Ched :  ?  01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thank you for your nomination, Ched. I just want to add that I'm not overly concerned about the outcome of this RFA. Failing isn't a death sentence. I figure I can pitch in a bit more with a few extra buttons, but I'll still help everywhere I can otherwise. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: The main reason for me running for RFA is to help with the massive pile of work that needs to be done that is the admin backlog. I figure that there is a shortage of active admins, an excess of work to be done, and I feel I'm capable to help. In particular, I'd initially work at AIV, and RFPP, but likely expand into other areas like XFD and CSD. I realise that my contributions in some of these areas aren't as expansive as some would hope, but my previous experience in dispute resolution, where we have to help guide and determine consensus, might indicate that my ability to judge consensus, as well as interpret policies, would expand to areas outside DR, like XFD.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My triple crown for Martha Logan, Ziegler Polar Expedition and a collaboration with another user on a featured picture restoration would probably be the highlights of my article edits, though I've also done serious article and maintenance work with regards to articles related to 24, as well as the work i've done in maintaining the 24 project. I've helped create some high use templates that are still in use today, most notably {{AIV}}. I've also done quite a bit of help with other users resolving their disputes at WP:MEDCAB, the largest dispute relating to Prem Rawat. I've also helped maintain an adoption program. I am, at heart, a metapedian, and behind the scenes work is my expertise, but I have been known to do article work, too.

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?

A: Not many come to mind, apart from the time when I was banned, which I detailed upon below. I have, from time to time, had conflicts with a user over the 24 articles, and I have at times become frustrated. Over time, the best way I learned to resolve my own disputes is to implement the same measures I implement when resolving other people's disputes. Negotiate with them, offer compromises and discuss matters calmly, or ask for outside input. I'd probably do the same in the future.

Optional question from Ched

4. Steve, you were involved in an incident that involved you using another editors account over a year ago, and as such you were banned from WP. Can you explain what you learned from the experience, and describe how it affected you and changed your approach to editing Wikipedia? — Ched :  ?  02:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A: At the time, it seemed like a great opportunity, and I took advantage of that "opportunity", without seriously looking at the consequences. I disregarded the fact that there was so much to lose, and so little to gain, which I later realised. I took for granted the trust that the community had in me, the trust my friends had in me, and abused it. Whether or not I misused the admin tools was irrelevant, they weren't mine to use and I shouldn't have in the first place. It affected me a great deal. Being banned was one of the worst things I'd ever had to go through, merely because the privilege to edit is revoked. It's quite isolating, and carries quite a deep stigma. It's changed my approach to Wikipedia in a big way, I don't take editing for granted, and fully realise that no matter what the short term "benefits" might be, in the long run, it's just not worth it.

Just to outline the incident, I was banned for six months for sharing accounts with two administrators, and using their admin tools. The full discussion took place here, if anyone requires further details. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

From memory, I once edited outside my ban, using an IP. It was a vandalism revert. diff I got told off for it, and was told that I was to ask an administrator to review anything I thought needed looking into, which I did from then on in. Something else came up on Simple English Wikipedia. This happened around a year ago (not long after my en ban started). From memory, an editor approached me and asked me to do something on their account. I had serious reservations about doing this, and at the time, I felt rather reluctant to do anything. They gave me their password, I didn't ask for it. I logged in and logged out. It's something I regret. I discussed this with someone afterward (not sure if I can or should mention them, but they know who they are) and they admonished me for it, basically explaining that I needed to take care to not be taken advantage of by other editors, and to do my best to rid myself of the label I had received, a bad editor. I have worked hard to do so, and I have learned a lot from my mistakes. Do I regret my past actions? Of course. I do apologise for not mentioning this before, but I had forgotten about it - it happened so long ago. I recalled the matter when Roux mentioned it below. I realise this may attract more opposes, but I'd rather have everything out in the open. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

5. Under what circumstances would you speedy delete an article with an {{underconstruction}} tag on it?

A: It would depend on the article. If the title, was, say "Joe Bloggs is a wanker" or "Askhglkjhdsg", then it really wouldn't matter if an under construction template was on it or not. If it had a more reasonable title, such as "Mary Lewis" or something that was obviously real, I'd examine the content of the article, and see if there were any serious issues with it, such as blatant and unrecoverable vandalism (if the article was only vandalism) or a BLP violation, where said BLP violation was the only content on the page. I'd search Google News and search engines to see if I could find any references to start an article on the subject. If I could, I'd blank the article and work on it myself, otherwise, I would delete the article under the appropriate CSD criteria. If the article had notability issues, I would do a google search and look for references. I'd generally not speedy something with an under construction template with notability issues, simply because articles don't need to be completed all at once, and there's a chance the editor may still be working on it. I'd possibly consider moving it to their userspace so they could work on it further, and help them where I could. Pages that had an underconstruction page for a lengthy period of time with no editing, I'd post the user a question in regards to the article, wait a day or so, and send the article to AFD otherwise. There's no deadline on Wikipedia, and as long as there are no major flaws with the article, it doesn't need to be deleted immediately. I feel we should favour giving newbie editors time to build their article, as opposed to deleting everything so fast. It can be quite frustrating for new editors, as I've witnessed first hand. Apologies if I've rambled on a bit.

Additional optional questions from Juliancolton

6. Do you believe sysops should be universally trusted? Please explain.

A: Candidates go through the RFA process to see if they have the knowledge of policy, and how to apply them, as well as to ensure they have sufficient experience to make difficult decisions. I take people who pass RFA as the community saying "I trust your judgment, and that you will do the right thing". While some RFAs pass with a higher ratio than others, the message is still similar. I think that, unless admins later on "play up" and give cause for the community to lose their trust in them, that administrators should be universally trusted. We either hand a new admin all the tools, or none at all. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Steve Crossin: Steve Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Steve Crossin can be found here.
• Regarding the expanded Q4, whilst regretful that he made those further slip-ups I can't but fail to be impressed with Steve's total transparency. I'd also note that popping in as an IP to make one revert (one assumes you were reading the article at the time, or whatever) may have been against the letter of your ban but I doubt that the spirit of a ban (which is presumably to make Wikipedia better in whatever way) is violated by removing vandalism. Pedro :  Chat  11:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Steve Crossin before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Time to put this one back to work. ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
2. (ec) Support Per answer to Q4, shows that he understands his mistake and has moved on from it. I highly doubt that he'd abuse accounts again.--Giants27(c|s) 03:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm hoping the tide this week is one of understanding and second chances. This user did his time, continued to make great contributions despite any 'stigma' and I am extremely confident that he will make a good administrator. I would also like to say that his willingness to admit the mistake beforehand shows that he is doing his best to show transparency and good character. Here's to second chances and I strongly support. Law _{type! snype?} 03:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support I have been leaning this way, and the answer to Q4 reaffirmed my rationale for supporting Steve: He has learned from his mistake. He did a very irresponsible, immature, and ultimately, stupid thing. However, he did his time, and sat out his ban peacefully, and without trying to use sockpuppets to evade it. For months since, he has made constructive contributions, not only to articles, but also to AIV, and discussions. In what is normally considered recent history by RfA voters, I see no major issues. So I ask myself and others these questions: Has Steve learned from his mistakes? I think so. If he has, is this enough? Arbcom gave him a ban, a punishment that I can sort of say that I know how it feels, since I had no computer for just half a month last year, and no internet for a month a few months ago. But I can still only imagine what it must feel like to be able to see what is going on at Wikipedia, and still not participate in it for six months. I believe that he has been punished enough, and since he has learned from his mistakes, there is no reason to think that he would abuse the tools. Is there any reason unrelated to the ban to not give Steve adminship? I find no reason, but I am open to comments from others.--Res2216firestar 03:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Essentially per Res2216firestar, who has said it better than I ever could. Javért ^☆ 04:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Would make a good use of the administrative tools. @harej 04:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
7. I'll support Steve. I'm surprised that he'd been banned for 6 months, I'd never imagine him to compromise somebody else's account. It was a terrible mistake, but one I'm positive he'll never make again. He's been and will be a lot more cautious in making decisions. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Provisional, weak (very) support. Will definitely revisit later. Please don't withdraw this if it goes poorly until you think you have exhausted all possible feedback. Protonk (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Res2216firestar. Here is someone who did something stupid, and has come back to earn the tools the right way. As a "reformed vandal" myself, I'm going to say support. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Steve is hard worker, and we could use his skllls in the admin area. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. While there have been problems in the past, Steve seems to have worked through them and moved on to become an excellent contributor. Based on the answers given above, I think Steve has learned his lesson, and due to his experience, will make a good admin. I also agree with the comments from Law and Res2216firestar. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. I believe the lesson has been taught and learned (the hard way). Will Steve having the tools benefit the project? Yes. No doubt there. I'd hate seeing people piling opposes because of that single event, disregarding the rest of Steve's records. -- Luk ^talk 06:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Support knows his shit. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. It was a learning opportunity. Perhaps of epic proportions. But I don't believe writing off any good faith contributor forever does us any good, and I think it's fair to say Steve is ready and able to resume his work as an administrator. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

    Resume? I've never been an admin :) Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps he's referring to when you were logged in as one. Two, in fact. Cool Hand Luke 13:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

15. Strongly As someone who intended to nominate. The community has, rightfully, shown that the comment "none will pass RFA in years" is clearly not what we want. Forgiveness is a good choice at times. Further, Steve clearly learnt from the event, didn't leave, didn't go using SOCKS or RTV. He held his hands up. We need a few more admins who can realise when they've made a grievous mistake and meet it head on with honesty, transparency and dedication. Further, rather than focusing on the negative aspect, if the password sharing incident had never happeneed Steve would have passed RFA months ago given his clue, quality editing and capability.Pedro :  Chat  07:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
16. Per Res2216firestar. I think we can trust him. Pmlineditor^Talk 07:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
17. Strong Support. Steve has made thousands of good edits. The fact that there have been no major incidents since being unblocked about 6 months ago clearly shows that he has repented his ways, and should be trusted with the admin bit. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. I'm trusting that there is genuine remorse for mistakes made in the past, and am willing to give Steve the benefit of the doubt. Therefore support on the basis of the many, fine contributions. Esowteric+Talk 09:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
19. Just don't do anything stupid this time, eh? Stifle (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - Has had very good interaction with the community and puts its needs first. Pleasant to deal with, knowledgeable and fair minded. Has learned from his mistakes and moved on. I believe Steve would make a great admin. GainLine ♠ _♥ 10:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
21. Has grown incredibly maturity-wise. I feel he is now more than ready to take on the tools. ceranthor 10:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
22. No concerns here. Valid judgment issues were raised but I've never seen evidence of anything malicious amid all the problems that came up last year - and since then Steve's been a generally excellent Wikipedian. Could definitely do a worthwhile job with his own set of admin tools, he has long since proved he's here for the good of the encyclopedia. ~ mazca ^talk 10:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Strong Support. I have had the opportunity to sit down with Steve in real life and discuss his views on Wikipedia, its policies and his role amongst the rest of the community. He explained to me the details revolving his participation and the unfortunate circumstances that led to his ban. I have honestly come to the conclusion that he is not only trustworthy, he is a really valuable asset to this community. Steve: thank you for sharing your views with me. You'll make a great and wise sysop, brother. Godspeed --In continente (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
24. I wanted to wait until NW revealed what they wanted to say, but it seems it's already there. I don't think something that happened a year ago should be held against you, especially when you have since demonstrated that you can be trusted. I really like your answers to the questions, and could find no concerns looking through your contributions. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
25. Obviously.  public GARDEN  13:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
26. Support per Lar. --John (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No way, no how. You cannot be trusted, period. You were banned for sharing an admin account, and while you were banned you did the same thing on Simple. And if memory serves, you did sock around your ban; I believe Deskana or Lar has the relevant information. There is no way for you to regain the trust you squandered. → ROUX ₪ 04:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   As far as I know, there were no similar issues at simplewiki. Perhaps you could clarify this? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   I don't know if I have the logs anymore, and I am using my roommate's computer due to a dead monitor and lack of spare cash to get a new one. The information came from someone who knew Steve and was confirmed via a steward. It was handled quietly and he wasn't banned. → ROUX ₪ 04:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   I didn't sock after my ban. I created another account, Samekh (talk · contribs), which I used on Simple Wikipedia, and never used it here. That account was known to public. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   That is not my understanding. → ROUX ₪ 04:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Just realised what you were referring to, this edit as an IP. I did make that edit, it was the only instance I made an edit, and I got told off quite severely for it. That was my only edit, and it was wrong, but it was so long ago that I overlooked it. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   It's not really overlookable, particularly in light of the other issues. I believe NW has readier access to the evidence than I do, so I'll be waiting for him to post it. → ROUX ₪ 05:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   To clarify, I only know of the matter secondhand, so I am waiting on the editor who does have access to the evidence to wake back up again. In any case though, even if I am wrong, the other part of my oppose still applies. NW (Talk) 05:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Well there we go, per Q4--though it's not the entire story, obviously. You were banned for X, and while banned you did X again. That's the definition of 'haven't learned your lesson and cannot be trusted under any circumstances.' → ROUX ₪ 11:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose - Sorry Steve. I think you are a good editor, but I don't believe that adminship is the correct course of action here, after only six months after the ban. There is more I want to say regarding Roux's oppose, but I want to wait to clear it with the appropriate parties first. I'll be sure to expand on this within a few days. NW (Talk) 04:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Well, you have gone out and said it in Question 4. You were banned for X, and while banned you did X again. Sorry, but I can't trust you as a sysop if you are willing to do that. NW (Talk) 11:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I've read WP:AN/Archive164#Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing in its entirety and can only hope that Sam Korn's comment there ("None of them will pass RFA in years") proves true. — Athaenara ✉ 05:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
   Addendum: the other two did regain tool access: PeterSymonds here and Chet B Long (now known as Coffee) here (Chetblong is presumably someone else). — Athaenara ✉ 06:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Well, considering Peter and Chet are once again admins... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   (I was editing my addendum when you initially replied here.)
   What do you mean by "considering"? — Athaenara ✉ 06:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   I think perhaps what Julian meant was that it is not possible for Sam Korn's comment to prove true given that two of the necessary conditions can no longer be met.  Skomorokh  06:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   And further (though I'm extrapolating), he might have meant that the statement being empirically false could hint that it wasn't too wise a characterization. Protonk (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Chetblong is the same person as Coffee, though. Jafeluv (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. The candidate seems to be an exemplary editor. I'm just going to stay in neutral for a few days to make sure no opposes come up. Otherwise I'll switch to support soon per my criteria. —Matheuler 03:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
2. This is a hard one. I am willing to put the admin account sharing incident in the past, since it was over a year ago and Steve has obviously learned from it. He has done very good work to rebuild his reputation since coming off his 6 month ban. But wait; we're talking about a ban. I don't like arbitrary time delays for past mistakes, but his whole (semi-recent) past makes me awful hesitant. But the big question here, I think, is do we trust Steve right now. In many ways, he's been able to prove himself again as a quality editor. But certain decisions, like making the IP edit, wasn't exactly smart. The statement "none will ever pass RfA in years" is blatantly false, and against the nature of Wikipedia; Chet and Peter I believe deserved the second chance based on their otherwise positive contribs and remorseful responses to the password sharing. However, the initiator of this incident I'm not sure I can trust. Feeling pushed into saying "well, okay..." is different than "please, please?". Both are cases of bad judgement, but the latter is worse. Part of me wants to strong support this RFA per his good attitude and self-rebuilding, an example of how WP:FORGIVE can be enabled; on the other hand, I'm tugged back by uneasiness. I will think about this, although I may stay here for a while. JamieS93 13:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)