Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cryptic C62: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Neurolysis (talk | contribs)
27,885 edits
→Nomination: fix time
→Oppose: cmt
Line 123: Line 123:
#'''Oppose''' - I think you are a great editor who does very good work on articles and helps build Wikipedia. You stay out of trouble and you know what you are doing. However, you simply don't seem to have any real use for the mop, and your answer to Q1 above clearly indicates that. I see not much rollback use, not a lot of deletion requestions, etc. There are already people in place to deal with the few requests for admin help you make and I can't seem to find a need. Sorry! '''''<font color="darkgreen">[[User:Fr33kman|fr33k]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Fr33kman|man]]</font> <font color="darkgreen" size="1">[[w:simple:User:Fr33kman|-s-]]</font>''''' 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - I think you are a great editor who does very good work on articles and helps build Wikipedia. You stay out of trouble and you know what you are doing. However, you simply don't seem to have any real use for the mop, and your answer to Q1 above clearly indicates that. I see not much rollback use, not a lot of deletion requestions, etc. There are already people in place to deal with the few requests for admin help you make and I can't seem to find a need. Sorry! '''''<font color="darkgreen">[[User:Fr33kman|fr33k]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Fr33kman|man]]</font> <font color="darkgreen" size="1">[[w:simple:User:Fr33kman|-s-]]</font>''''' 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
#:Even if they perform just one admin action after getting the tools, they will be of benefit to the encyclopaedia as an administrator - I don't see how seeing 'no need' is a concern. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">neuro</font>]]</b><sup><i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">(talk)</font>]]</i></sup></font> 02:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
#:Even if they perform just one admin action after getting the tools, they will be of benefit to the encyclopaedia as an administrator - I don't see how seeing 'no need' is a concern. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">neuro</font>]]</b><sup><i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">(talk)</font>]]</i></sup></font> 02:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
#:[[WP:NONEED]] &ndash;[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 02:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 02:39, 27 February 2009

Cryptic C62

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (15/15/2); Scheduled to end 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) – A few days ago, while going through Wikipedia:Biographical pages with several incompatible dates of birth, I came upon Arch Hall. Jr.. I immediately recognized that the first period was a typo and should instead be a comma per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Senior_and_junior. I tried to move the page to Arch Hall, Jr., but could not because that page already existed... as a redirect to Arch Hall. Jr.. Not quite sure how that happened. Anywho, I tagged Arch Hall, Jr. with {{db}} under CSD G6 (rather than perform an improper copy/paste move) and waited for it to be taken care of by an administrator.

I've come upon situations like this before, and I'm sure I'll see them again. As an occasional RC Patroller and a participant in various drives, such as the aforementioned biographical DOB correction drive, I am exposed to lots of pages. Although errors such as the Arch Hall incident are somewhat infrequent, the number of pages I view and edit ensures that I do come across them from time to time. I came to the conclusion that, for my own convenience and for the efficiency of the project as a whole, I should be granted administrator privileges. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: I do not intend to "go looking for trouble", that is, to close AfDs or block disruptive editors. I intend to "let trouble come to me", that is, to continue doing my article work and simply make deletions where necessary, including those pages which fall under CSD G1, G2, G6, and A3.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions? Hrm. I would say my strongest suit is my raccoon-like ability to adapt and contribute to many different areas of Wikipedia: FAs/GAs, DYKs, translations, Signpost articles, IWLC, RC patrol, peer review, etc. My favorite ongoing project, however, is the elements report, an comprehensive, ongoing, bimestrial, color-coded analysis of the amount of traffic received by those pages which fall under the domain of WP:ELEMENTS. The report helps us identify our weaknesses and stay motivated (or so I hope!).
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: Yes, Ottava Rima and I got into a disagreement during Candide's FAC over whether or not certain aspects of the article's infobox were grounds for his oppose !vote. The dispute was resolved quickly and peacably. He quoted a guideline to back up his claim and changed the infobox-related discussion from oppose to comment, so I dropped the issue.

Additional question from Keepscases:

4. In several places in your user page, you direct users to pornography-related articles without making it clear that's where the link goes. Why is this?
A: I believe Neurolysis sufficiently answered my question below, but just to reiterate, I know of no links to pr0n-related articles. I linked to the Pornography FAC because it has some very witty comments on it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Tan | 39 21:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find one pornography-related link, and it isn't to an article. It links to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pornography/archive1. — neuro(talk) 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here too. Townlake (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, that isn't an article. Second, it's not related to pornography. Third, both that page and the sentence in which I link to it explain precisely its purpose. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Featured Players" page has a "this" link to Wikipedia's Pornography article. Keepscases (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Ched:

5. On your user page you mention Finished Projects', could you explain what you mean by finished? (Accepting the review items that have closed as self-evident)
6 As a self-nom, have you requested and/or received any coaching from any of the existing administrators? If yes, could you tell us your experiences in that project.

Additional questions from Imperat§ r(Talk):

7. Can you explain why the Wikipedia community should place trust in your policy knowledge despite your lack of edits in that area (such as WP:UAA, WP:AfD, etc)?
8. Yes, I am aware that this is a dry question, but what is the difference between a ban and a block? Please include specifics, such as mentioning hard blocks, etc.
9. Give the criteria in which a username would be unacceptable.
10. When is a non-free image allowed to be used?

Optional question from Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC):[reply]

11. As an admin, is it ever appropriate to block or threaten to block an editor who asks for a second set of eyes to review your actions?

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cryptic C62 before commenting.

Discussion

  • You have 2k edits in approximately three years. Why is the activity rate so low? miranda 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, 2962 is closer to 3k than it is to 2k. Anywho, if you take a look at the graphs available on this edit counter page, you'll say that I went through two periods of almost total inactivity. The first was from September 2006 through December 2006. This was shortly after my failed nomination of Westport Country Playhouse. I was stupid and heartbroken, so I got bummed out for a while and didn't edit much. The second, from July 2007 through January 2008, was probably because I was doing an internship during that summer and just didn't get back into the habit of editing until midway through the school year. If you take out those chunks of time, my ~3000 edits have been made in a cumulative 25 months, not 36 months. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If you look at some user pages and talk on Wikipedia, such behavior does exist. miranda 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but not being funny, why does the fact that it goes on mean I should budge position and support it? Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Before making any sort of judgement calls, people need to look themselves in the mirror, first. This is just a website, not a social club. miranda 20:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've got a problem with me Miranda take it to my talk not this RFA. Pedro :  Chat  20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the things that I love about the internet (and especially Wikipedia) is that anyone can be anyone they want to be. Because users generally have a fairly large time window in which to formulate responses to statements, they have the opportunity to communicate more effectively and calmly than in real life. My user page is a reflection of my real life personality, not my Wikipedia self. If you really are worried that I am arrogant or self indulgent, I invite you to peruse my conversations with others on Wikipedia to try to find any indication of those characteristics. To the best of my knowledge, you will find none. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A fair reply, and I note Tan's comments above. This may well be a cultural thing, noting that you are from America. In the US it may well be that your comments are just big bold statements, and perfectly fine. In my part of rural England they look worringly akin to "I can do anything - including block you without thought or delete your article without care - 'cause I can". You clearly state above that your user page is a reflection of your real life personality - well I for one would hope you real personality would be the one you use to edit WP. For these reasons I do not trust you with +sysop. Apologies, but this isn't a vote, simply my thoughts. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I may be somewhat out of line with this, but if "this isn't a vote", would it be kosher for you/me/us to move this discussion to the General Comments section so as not to imply that it is a vote? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a big long reply lined up - but I really don't care. Strike the whole lot if you like. Frankly with < 850 odd active sysops we need all the help we can get these days - and there are plenty of people already with the bit who are far worse than any "arogance" I might see in your user page comment. Do what you want mate - I couldn't give a toss. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it must be a cultural thing. In the States, the idea that one can do anything he/she puts his/her mind to is widely held and universally promoted. I'd never have understood "I can do anything" as reflecting arrogance; I read it as blithe and, to the extent it is substantive, an expression of a gentle confidence and optimism. The diametric constructions follow, I imagine, from a difference over "I can"; you read it as "I have the power/right" and I read it as "I have within my capacity, through effort". For that we might reasonably blame the period March 2003-January 2009, during which "We can do anything" represented a vision of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny. I don't know, though, that it's fair, in the absence of evidence that the candidate has operated (or would operate as an admin) with arrogance, that we resolve an amibiguity in favor of the more pernicious construction; I, for one, am inclined to AGF and conclude (unless, I would note again, a deeper inquiry reveals independent grounds on which to base conclusions about the candidate's temperament) that the statement is an innocuous one, and at worst to suggest that, because a user must never be afraid to question an admin (who is, of course, a servant of the community) and because some might misunderstand the "I can" language, the candidate recast the line. 68.76.159.202 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, I don't think many people find it humorous. Look at it this way: There are thousands of people who have contributed to a featured article in some way or another. For you to brag that you are one of approximately two people who have had a relationship during that time could be viewed as uncivil to some people. I don't want to force you to do anything about it, as it is your page, but if you agree with my assessment, I'd tag it for U1. Tavix (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Strong support. Hell yes. Good experience, no red flags, clearly states why he needs the admin tools and how he will use them. I disagree with Pedro's assessment below - either the statement is sarcastic, in which case I don't care; or he likes to brag, in which case I don't care. It's probably the former, but either way, I don't see how this impacts whether or not we trust him with the bit. Tan | 39 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Totally agree with Tan. miranda 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Count me as in agreement with Tan (and Miranda). No problems that I can see here. --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seems fine to me. I read the statement on the userpage, and I interpreted it as humorous. I don't see how it's arrogant or why it indicates that Cryptic C62 will turn into a bully upon being granted adminship. Acalamari 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Looks fine to me. The line that worked Pedro up i took to be humour, which i think is invaluable in an admin. Nothing indicates any likelihood to go nuts with the tools, no blocks and looks like he expects to avoid the hotspots, at least to start with. --GedUK  21:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per Tan. SimonKSK 21:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not mental. Probably not gaming the system like Tan did to get his admin bit (he freely admits it before anyone jumps on me). 850 active admins = need some more. Also can't be arsed with slagging off going on above. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support No worries. Artichoker[talk] 21:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked and has various awards on userpage. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - iMatthew // talk // 22:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Serious scientific contributions, good use of edit summaries and communicates well. Some personal banter and braggadacio that seems a bit brash and American to me, but the clean block log and my trawl through the candidates contributions, talk page and talk archive reassure me that the editing attitude is OK, a quick look through your deleted contributions didn't unearth any skeletons either. As for the opposes, a reassurance from the candidate that links to potentially offensive sites will be more appropriately labelled in future would be appreciated. WereSpielChequers 23:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I have no problems supporting this Triple Crown winner. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - I find that statement on his userpage to be nothing more than humorous, but regardless, Cryptic C62 should be a fine administrator. As always, we have to ask ourselves if we can trust the user not to abuse the tools, and the answer is yes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Lean Support - I'm leaning support because I somehow didn't bite your head off during our dispute, which means that I didn't find a reason to not like you then. So, if that was then, and this is now, well, yeah. Plus, you know about Candide, so that is a bonus. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per Juliancolton. LittleMountain5 02:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Sorry, not yet. Also per Pedro. -download | sign! 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose The opening on his user page makes him sound egosticital (I know I spelled that wrong).--Giants27 T|C 20:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Not sure candidate understands the CSD process, based on nom statement and answer to Q1. Townlake (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of the CSD process is thus: A non-admin adds the CSD tag with the relevant criteria, an admin who sees the tag (either by happening upon the page or by checking Category:Candidates for speedy deletion) can, if he/she agrees with the user, delete the page. Alternatively, if an admin finds a page s/he deems to qualify for CSD, s/he can delete it outright without having to add the CSD tag, so long as s/he mentions the relevant criteria. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those are practical steps, but there's more to it than that. Townlake (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, never too late to learn. What other steps are you talking about? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose You want to work at AFD and CSD, but you have little experience with either there. Your work is good so far; when you've got more experience in those areas, I look forward to supporting. Useight (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, where on this page do my words imply that I want to work at AFD? I have no intention of working at AFD, as explicitly stated in my response to Question 1. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I misread that sentence. Struck portion above. Useight (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per pedro. Arrogance and dismissiveness is your off-wiki personality? All right, I can buy that. Oh wait, you have a "raccoon-like ability to adapt" as well now? What happened to keeping it off-wiki? It is completely impossible to entirely seperate off- and on-wiki personalities, and if elements of your "off-wiki" personality as described on your userpage are going to leak into your "on-wiki" actions (which they eventually will) then you would not make an appropriate administrator. Ironholds (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I really like some of his recent work. But he has a "listen to me, I'm always right" way of talking that really causes problems when it's coming out of the mouth of an admin. I'm not saying he has a character flaw, and I might support him next time he runs, if he has worked hard in the meantime. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of me being able to defend myself and for others to see your point, would you mind finding/linking to examples? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to look farther than this page. "To the best of my knowledge, you will find none"; really? Also, your reply to Townlake. If you need more, I can give you more, but I'd rather not. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really not sure how to defend myself here, neither of those two seem arrogant or offensive to me. The first is simply an honest and open invitation for anyone and everyone to dig through my dealings and bring about examples of poor conduct. I say again: To the best of my knowledge, you will find none. I'm not saying that everyone else is wrong or stupid, I'm saying that I'm confident in what I've done. As for my response to Townlake, what's wrong with that? Clearly he knows something that I don't know (but I should), and I want to learn. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Hmm, I think it is interesting to note that Cryptic said he has no intention of working at AfD when this and this seems to say otherwise. Also, if the only reason Cryptic wants the tools for is because of CSD, I really don't see much experience with the process to show that he is ready for them. Tavix (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was never my intention to imply that I had never ever participated in an AfD, and if that's the message that got across, my apologies. My participation in AfDs is a very rare and random thing; it is not an area of Wikipedia that I regularly participate in purely for the sake of doing it. Just to clarify: I have no intention of regularly participating in AfDs nor of evaluating consensus and closing AfDs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, thanks for clarifying. I kind of assumed that's what you meant, I just wanted to make sure. My main concern, however, is my second point. If you are going to go around doing CSDs, I feel you need more experience with them as I don't see any proof of you dealing with them regularly. Tavix (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I could make a glib comment or a 'per above' but I won't. The userpage is worrying enough that I would want to see more from him than than the spurt of editing in the last month (Indeed, the last few days, before the self nom). The user seems to indicate he wants to use the mop to 'sweep' up infront of him, and with such concerns and such a minor use of tools, combined it makes me say 'Not quite yet'. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for my own information, where does it indicate that I've had a spurt of activity in the days prior to this RfA? The edit counters I look at all graph edit counts by month. Also, if such a spurt exists, it is probably due to my participation in Wikipedia:Biographical_pages_with_several_incompatible_dates_of_birth over the past few weeks, for fixing 200+ entries requires making 200+ edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic C62 (talk • contribs)
  9. Regretful Oppose You seem an eager and good editor, but for someone who says he wants to do speedy deletions as the only thing he wants the mop at all, you have virtually no experience in that area I could judge from. I simply cannot evaluate how you will use the tools if granted and, sorry for that but, I don't like to support someone I cannot predict at all. Regards SoWhy 22:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Even though you appear to be a decent article contributor, I noticed a problem with your lack of participation in the Wikipedia area. For example, edit count doesn't show me a single policy with more than 13 edits. I suggest withdrawal and re-nominating after 2-3 months in which you have had participation in WP:AFD, WP:UAA, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and others. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose; your statement "I am one of the few Wikipedians to have improved an article to Featured status and maintained a relationship with a real person at the same time" is insulting to the entire WP:FA community; and, indeed, to the entire Wikipedia community as a whole. Hence, you do not show an attitude becoming of an administrator. It Is Me Here t / c 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Regretful Oppose Excellent contributions, but I don't see enough administrative/ maintenance/ policy experience. His attitude worries me a little bit, "I love myself. I can do anything... I am one of the few Wikipedians to have improved an article to Featured status and maintained a relationship with a real person at the same time" rings of arrogance, sysops are ambassadors for Wikipedia, and that type of attitude might come off as bitey or uncivil. Branch out into XFD's, vandal fighting, and whatnot, give it a few more months and I will be very enthusiastic to support. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - Not to cause anyone to get "bumned out", but "anywho", this is one of the weakest and most self-serving arguments for adminship I have ever seen. He/she may othewise be a good editor, but definitely not admin material. Ward3001 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - Not seeing enough experience in the areas the candidate wants to work in. That said, I take the 'insults' quoted above to be jokes, to be honest, but if they aren't I think this user has the complete wrong attitude. — neuro(talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - I think you are a great editor who does very good work on articles and helps build Wikipedia. You stay out of trouble and you know what you are doing. However, you simply don't seem to have any real use for the mop, and your answer to Q1 above clearly indicates that. I see not much rollback use, not a lot of deletion requestions, etc. There are already people in place to deal with the few requests for admin help you make and I can't seem to find a need. Sorry! fr33kman -s- 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if they perform just one admin action after getting the tools, they will be of benefit to the encyclopaedia as an administrator - I don't see how seeing 'no need' is a concern. — neuro(talk) 02:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NONEED –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral Interesting candidacy. Opposes have reasonably good arguments, supports... not so much. Seems a bit overeager. What is this page for? flaminglawyer 22:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That explanation is incoherent and not useful, so I'll just scratch it out... flaminglawyer 22:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Tempted to Support for the candidate's self-confidence and sense of humor. Still thinking this one over. As a mere dabbler in the ranks of editors, I applaud this editor for stepping out of the shadows and volunteering to do more work. --StaniStani  01:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cryptic_C62&oldid=273568938"