Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crisco 1492

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

Crisco 1492

110/12/3. Closed as successful. WilliamH (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) – I'm delighted to be able to nominate Crisco 1492 for adminship! Crisco 1492 is a great editor, and has 297 DYKs, 23 GAs, 2 FAs and 23 Featured Pictures currently, and a triple crown! Crisco has reviewed 35 Good Article Nominations, nominated 57 pictures for WP:FP. Crisco has been a wikipedian for over 6 years, [and since becoming highly active in April 2011 is now Clarification, to avoid misrepresentation  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)] one of the 1500 most active wikipedians and has made 245 articles. Crisco 1492 currently is autopatrolled, a rollbacker, a reviewer and has Global IPBE. To finish, Crisco has a simple signature and over 35000 edits. Thanks! Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 10:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• I accept and look forward to answering any questions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: One of my main areas of expertise is DYK, as indicated above. As such, a main task I would work on as an administrator is the building / editing of the DYK queues, which are fully protected. I would also work on copyright issues when they come to my attention, including removing copied and pasted non-free content (such as I did at Garin Nugroho) then revdeleting the copyvios. I also hope to help with deletion, both speedy (log here) and at AFD. I would also involve myself with anti-vandalism work as needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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

A: I am quite proud of my Indonesia related contributions - both FAs and 22 of my 23 GAs are related to the country. Of these, I am perhaps most pleased with my work on Chrisye and Indonesian literary works. The article on Chrisye is easily the best English language source on the artist in existence (and the translation is among the best Indonesian language sources), while my GAs on Indonesian literature, including Belenggu, Atheis, and Sitti Nurbaya, give very complete coverage of the topics, allowing international students of Indonesian literature to have a good starting point for their own research. Other articles, although not necessarily of GA or FA class, are among the best English-language works on their topic. A couple I can think of are the film articles Tjoet Nja' Dhien, Garuda di Dadaku, and Ibunda, as well as the articles on the Trisakti shootings and the crash of Dakota VT-CLA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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: There are two conflicts which I remember clearly, although both are quite some time ago. In April 2011, when I first became a highly active editor, I had a heated argument with SatuSuro and Merbabu about sourcing (visible here) which led me to improve my sourcing. Since then, SatuSuro has praised my contributions a couple of times.

The second was the DYK fiasco of July 2011 (at Did you know/Archive 69 and Did you know/Archive 70), which I found myself smack in the middle of. In the heated discussion over two weeks, I was not at my best (I was admittedly not the only one) and said some things towards SandyGeorgia, Malleus Fatuorum, (stricken, see Question 9) and Truthkeeper88 which I regretted. Since then, however, I have apologised to Sandy and Malleus and grown to respect all three for their extraordinary contributions. Malleus did a great job copyediting Chrisye and Truthkeeper gave a brilliant peer review for Belenggu, so I believe that things were settled amicably (Later edit: or not; I was mistaken about Malleus, although I firmly believe that his copyedits with Chrisye were instrumental in the article passing, and so I am letting the praise stand)

Since then, I have tried my best to take constructive criticism - even if phrased harshly - and work on a way to solve it. This is something I plan to continue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

4. I notice that on your user page you have a user box which says that you perform non-admin closures at AfD. Could you please provide some examples of the discussions which you've closed? Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Certainly

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of death metal bands from Nordic countries (no consensus)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Kovach (speedily deleted by admin)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Boucher (withdrawn nomnation)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiss (South Korean group) (withdrawn nomination)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fancystreemscom (speedily deleted by admin)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davison Associates (kept)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff (merge)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ansiklopedika.org (2nd nomination) (speedily deleted by admin)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombie Ghost Train (2nd nomination) (kept)
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Swan Hotel, Alnwick (kept)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response! Those closures all look sensible. I note in particular Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff where you did a good job of assessing the differing arguments which were made about whether the article should be kept or merged and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Swan Hotel, Alnwick where you also correctly weighed up the differing views. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Optional question from Hipocrite:

5. Review Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_70#Daily_DYK_scandal. What should you have done differently, if anything, at any point in the process before, during, or after that episode? Why? Hipocrite (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've considered that several times, and this is what I've come to. Firstly, I should have reviewed the edit history / general activities of several editors in question before answering (it was my first time interacting with several of them); had I done so, instead of basing my impressions of Sandy and MF, among others, on first impressions, I would probably have not been flippant with them and better considered their opinions. My negative first impression was not conducive to a proper discussion. I should have also not been inflamed by the comments I read, such as Sandy's "Crisco somebody".

Had I had a better understanding of close paraphrasing at the time it would have been monumentally helpful. I've been unconciously avoiding close paraphrasing for ages and I neglected to consider that a sentence's structure could also constitute close paraphrasing; had I understood that from the beginning, a couple kilobytes of drama could have been avoided. I am glad that I now have a firmer understanding of the issue and have caught close paraphrasing numerous times since the discussion last July.

Third, it would have been preferable to apologise for any untoward comments immediately after the controversy died down, instead of waiting several months. Doing so would have avoided unnecessary drama with the Signpost article after Sandy resigned from her spot as a FA delegate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Was there anything wrong with the hook you chose - "... that Texas State Representative Wayne Christian obtained passage of an amendment in 2009 that allowed him to rebuild his own beachfront property damaged by Hurricane Ike?" Hipocrite (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• As a Canadian living in Indonesia, I find myself distanced from the vagueries of American politics. At the time I found it interesting that he actually needed to get an amendment to do something like that. I neglected to consider that this may be considered putting his needs against those of his constituents. Now I attempt to be more conservative with hooks regarding BLPs. As such, that hook should not have passed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from It Is Me Here

6. You say in response to Q1 that you would like to participate in anti-vandalism. Could you describe your previous experience in this area? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Most of my vandalism patrolling was in May 2011, when I still had a strong internet connection (example revert here). Even then, I found myself edit conflicted out of reverting vandalism quite often and dedicated myself to content creation. After moving to a new place and switching to a satellite modem, my connection speed suffered and so I found little opportunity to revert vandalism. I've recently begun doing more (examples 1, 2, 3, and 4) and plan on dedicating more time exclusively to vandalism patrol in the future. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Salvio giuliano

7. Imagine you are already an administrator and are patrolling CAT:CSD. You stumble upon the following articles; all have only received two edits, one by the page creator and one by the tagger, and none is eligible for deletion under A10. What do you do? First article, second article and third article.

A: Hmm...

1. Regarding the bike shop owner, I'd decline the A7 as it has a claim (not necessarily a good one) of notability (youngest businessman in a town, owning a successful business) but promptly tag it with {{Prod blp}}, as it is unsourced.
2. Regarding Sorj, I'd decline the A7 as it has a claim of notability, that it won a prize (assuming on good faith that the word prize was left from Médicis) but promptly tag it with {{Prod blp}}, as it is unsourced.
3. I'd delete the article on Jane Doe assuming a Google search and read of the CNN article does not come up with anything which may show notability. It is not a claim of notability to be on trial for murder (per Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill and WP:CRIME), but it's possible that articles on notable murders start from stubs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from My76Strat

8. Do you believe administrators should be required to have reached the "age of majority" to be eligible to serve in that capacity? briefly explain your answer

A: That is admittedly a decisive topic, and rightfully so. On the one hand, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (and presumably anyone can help manage). On the other hand, there are certain legal protections / requirements of persons under the age of majority which should be kept in mind. A further problem which muddies the issue is that age of majority is different in every country; I seem to recall that it's 17 in Japan and 21 in several countries. We should also keep in mind that editors can (and may) simply lie about their age, and requiring absolute proof of their age, like a driver's license or birth certificate, violates their right to anonymity.

I believe that an editor who has shown emotional maturity and quality edits, no matter what his or her age, should be allowed to run for administrator and be chosen in such capacity. If a person can make good edits and judge consensus well (for AFDs, RFMs, etc.), as well as follow the policies and guidelines, he or she should be allowed to help with the administrative backlog if he or she is willing to take up the mop. At Recent Changes Camp in Australia in January this year, I met an admin on the Simple English Wikipedia who was, quite simply, more mature than some of the editors who were over the age of majority; not allowing people like that to take up the mop is discriminatory and ultimately detrimental to the encyclopedia, as mature yet underage editors can still do great administrative work. I am also against requiring identification or proof of age to become an admin, as numerous admins are anonymous and do great work, work they may not be interested in doing if their real name is public record.

Regarding the special needs and obligations of minors, including various protection statutes both nationally and internationally, I believe that most underage admins or future underage admins, those who are mature enough to be trusted with the mop, will also be trusted to not violate their local laws. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Malleus Fatuorum

9. In your answer to Q3 you mention a conflict you had with me, for which you provide a link and which you claim has now been smoothed over, yet I see no postings from Crisco 1492 there. Who were you then?

A: My apologies, the disagreement with you came later, in September. I called you a troll, which I agree now was a mistake. I will strike your name above.

To answer the question directly, I've been Crisco 1492 since I can remember. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that you ought to be a little more careful in your answers? Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and my apologies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your accusation of trolling appears to be a direct response to my comment that "So if DYK is not about article improvement then why is it explicitly mentioned as one of DYK's goals on this main page?" So I suggest that you strike any suggestion that you and I have made up in your answers to the mandatory questions, because we most certainly have not. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• My apologies, I assumed to much. I have left my praise of your copyediting, as I genuinely feel you did a great job, but noted that I was wrong about us having made up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Tom Morris

10. One role administrators perform is handing out user rights requested at WP:RFPERM. Administrators are expected to be able to judge whether the user requesting the rights "can be trusted not to abuse the tool(s)". Given this, consider the following hypothetical user: within a few months of registering, they have made six requests on and off-wiki for rollback, been granted it once, had it revoked once, requested file mover despite zero edits in the file namespace, launched a self-nominated RfA with less than 200 edits, applied on Meta to be a global sysop, requested to be made a 'crat on a Wikipedia version in a language they don't speak and many other requests for permissions across a wide range of WMF-hosted wikis. If you are given a mop, would you grant this hypothetical user rollback? Please explain your reasons.

A: Most certainly not. The hypothetical user's actions indicate that he or she is looking for power and special privileges, starting low and then trying to get even more despite all indications that he or she will not. Aside from that, the user has presumably previously indicated that he or she cannot be trusted with the rollback tool, possibly by using rollback to edit war (I'd have to check the log to see why it was removed, first, of course). If the majority of this user's actions are related to seeking power, I'd probably consider it disruption and warn the user that it is not likely to happen unless he or she begins making quality content edits and shows that he or she can be trusted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If you'll permit me a follow-up question: if the user I described above were to nominate you for adminship, would you accept their nomination? —Tom Morris (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I see no reason why not, as it is not forbidden by the rules, I would only accept if I felt ready, and I would not grant said user special privileges if they are requested; that third one would be dreadfully improper. I would prefer a bit more... widely respected... nominator, however. To clarify Ryan Vesey's statement below, I have been considering adminship since August 2011, but put it on hold to better show my use to the project through content creation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Salvidrim

11. Are there any areas of administrative work you have little intention of taking part in, and for what reasons?

A: Until I gain more experience with controversial articles (pretty much every article I've ever extensively worked on is non-controversial, which leaves my watchlist looking bare at times) I plan on being careful with RPP. I would also avoid controversial blocks until I had experience with the more obvious ones, as (to quote a film) "with great power comes great responsibility" and we are to AGF. Naturally, if I see someone doing blantant vandalism I'd block him/her after he/she has been properly warned, unless it was something utterly unacceptable. I don't plan on visiting UFAA much, as there are already several high quality administrators working in that area. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Martijn Hoekstra

12. regarding this edit, what was your reasoning for nominating the article? Did you do any kind of research before nominating? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A: My reasoning was that it did not make a claim of importance. The article was, essentially This company is owned by some other companies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Martijn Hoekstra

13. Following up on the last question three more subquestions:

• Do you still believe the article meets A7?
• Do you think that this article should be speedy deleted according to guidelines?
• Do you think it's a good idea to speedily delete this article?

A: With the new reference, no. For the the current revision, 13b is also a no, as the extra reference (to another neutral, third-party source), gives greater credibility to its claim of importance. Regarding 13c, as the article still stands it would probably not be a good idea, as it can be further expanded and developed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from MakeSense64

14. Suppose you are closing an AfD or RM. In the first case there are 10 support votes who all cite the same policy based point #1, and 2 oppose votes who cite policy based point #2. In the second case there are 2 support votes who cite policy based point #1, and 10 oppose votes who all cite the same policy based point #2. Same case, same arguments. Q: Would your closure be different or the same, and why? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Request clarification: By support you mean delete? I'm not used to RM and will probably not do much there (that's an area I forgot when answering Q11 above).

Assuming by support you mean delete, at an AFD I would look at how well the different faction's argument fits with the article. If those ten delete voters are quoting no RS's in the article but there are two references to The New York Times, three to The Guardian, and five to The Huffington Post (to choose random examples) I would consider those !votes invalid. If the keep votes are quoting RS and the article has nothing but references to The Onion, well... same thing. The policy quoted does not match the actual state of the article. That would be a consideration.

Assuming the arguments reflect the state of the article and are not misleading, I would attempt to weigh which argument is stronger. Should someone quote PORNBIO to support deleting an article that flies through the GNG (say, the performer received no awards but has had in-depth coverage in several mainstream publications), I would probably decide to keep the article. If I were unsure, I would consider relisting.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from ChromaNebula

15. How will admin tools help you improve Wikipedia? Why do you want to be an admin?

A: First, I would be able to help ensure that DYK is never late; there have been times where a set has had to stay on for an extra several hours because no admins were free. I would also be able to help with backlogs, such as AFD and CP. I would also be able to help revdelete copyvios and personal attacks, which would lighten the load on other admins.

A short answer to the second part of the question (15b, if you will) is that I hope to help the encyclopedia. We are losing editors fairly quickly, including several administrators. I hope to help pick up the slack. This would also be a good way for me to give back to the community, considering I have had several fantastic things happen to me in real life because of my involvement with Wikipedia (including two jobs as a contractor for Wikimedia Indonesia). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from ChromaNebula

16. Are you an inclusionist or a deletionist?

A: Neither. I try to judge articles on their individual merits. As visible from [toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=Crisco+1492 this tool], I have a little more than half delete votes. However, as evidenced by AFDs such as this, I don't mind voting keep even when others disagree with me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from ChromaNebula

17. Administrators are supposed to be models of civility, especially towards newcomers. In what way have you demonstrated, or can demonstrate, that you can uphold that standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChromaNebula (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A: One of the first times I helped a new editor was with Patricia Horoho, which I discovered at requests for feedback. I helped the editor expand the article and brought it to DYK. I've also helped editors with problems when they've come to me; this has generally been received favourably. Since then I've adopted a user, Redyka94, and we've worked on several articles together on both the Indonesian and English Wikipedias. I also copyedit Redyka's articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Crisco 1492: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Crisco 1492 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

• Stats posted on talk. Rcsprinter (warn) 14:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Strong Support –- as nominator. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 10:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. Normally I would be the first to say that creating great content is not really the most important skill we need from admins, so this can be a distraction at RfA; but outside of content creation I've had nothing but good encounters with Crisco1492. I think they're competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the mop. bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Support As someone who's "just getting in" to DYK, I have seen nothing but good from this user, and "we need the extra hell".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Clearly an outstanding record of contributions, and Crisco is already performing administrator-like tasks well in the areas they've identified as being their focus. I see no risk that he or she would miss-use the tools, and their excellent contributions should provide a good grounding in handling the various issues admins are asked to manage. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Support - This user's contributions to Belenggu show that he knows how to contribute to content. Additionally, a read over several of his DYKs showed no evidence of copyright violations or plagiarism that occasionally plague them. (Most of the sources are in Indonesian, so I was only able to read and check for continuity/style changes.) His GA reviews, such as Talk:X (The X-Files)/GA1, show a careful eye for detail. Contributing to featured content is an excellent plus. Finally, a review of his deleted edits show good understanding of the speedy deletion and PROD policies. About the only mistake I found was when he accidentally moved a userspace draft to User:Surabaya (fictional work), and tagged it as U1 (user request to delete page in his own userspace) rather than U2 (no such user) or G7 (author request to delete). Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   Oh my. *blush* and to think I made the mistake of moving it there in the first place. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

6. Support Long standing, experienced editor. fantastic contributions and appears to be sufficiently familiar with policy. No concerns. Pol430 talk to me 12:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
7. Support a reliable contributor, and very faithful at DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
8. →Bmusician 13:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Support - Dedicated editor who consistently works for the sites betterment. If he wants the tools then past history shows he's going to use them well - Peripitus (Talk) 13:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - impresses as sensible, level-headed and fair, and has churned out a chunk of audited content. Fairly confident will be a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Support Good Content creator in particular to those related to Indonesia and see no concerns .He/She has been editing regularly since April 2011.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
12. Support Always helpful and outstanding (extensive and very nearly flawless) performance as an editor.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  14:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
13. Often see around. They sure can have the mop if it was up to me ;) Rcsprinter (speak) 14:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
14. Support Very good editor, see him at dyks often, I guess those template space edits are mostly from dyks. :-) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 15:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

    Absolutely correct. :-) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

15. Support Does good work in many areas, including FAC, DYK, GA, (has two featured articles, multiple GAs) writes many articles from scratch. Extremely pleasant to work with. Diplomatic and helpful. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
16. Support Clueful editor who I trust to use the tools well. Lord Roem (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
17. Support I have been expecting this, good candidate--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
18. Support — All looks good. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
19. Support 1492 is a great vintage. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC).
    
20. Support Crisco's history of quality content production is astounding, and in a year of being his enthusiastic talk page stalker, I've never seen him react to conflict with anything but diplomacy and kindness. Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
21. Weak support. Not the most convincing reasons, but good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
22. Strong Support We need admins with high-quality content contributions, he could really use the mop for DYK work too. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
23. Knows how to build an encyclopedia. Secret ^account 20:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
24. Full Support for a good content creator. Graham Colm (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
25. No red flags. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
26. Aye.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
27. Stephen 00:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
28. Yuuuuup All my interactions with the nominee have been positive. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
29. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
30. Support This user has a lot of experience editing Wikipedia, so he is now ready to handle the tools. Good luck. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 01:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
31. Support - Per nominator, outstanding content creation. Barring any unforeseen issues others may dig up, seems like a perfect candidate for mop privs. — GabeMc (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
32. Support. Materialscientist (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
33. Strong Support - I was surprised to see Crisco's nomination. He's being doing so much work at DYK, I had assumed he was already an administrator. Great writer, and always courteous in his interactions with other users. -Zanhe (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
34. Support – I always wondered why he's not an admin. — Bill william compton^Talk 06:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
35. Support Worked with Crisco at FPC dozens of time, where he is always seeking to enhance the encyclopedia. No doubt he will use admin tools to do the same. —Eustress ^talk 07:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
36. Support Absolutely!! Great user to work with. PumpkinSky talk 12:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
37. Support—Excellent work. Tony (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
38. Support I trust other's judgements on his editing on the whole, but in particular I notice his AFD performance and willingness to do more than count the votes when closing, showing he can use judgement in determining consensus, not just a calculator. His record voting in AFDs (around 80%ish over time) I find reasonable as he doesn't seem to just tack on "me too" votes. I don't know him personally, but a look seems to indicate he can disagree without being disagreeable, willing to take criticism on board, and be independent without ignoring consensus. Being humble enough to recognize and address your own mistakes is a trait I find too all too rare at Wikipedia, and Crisco 1492 seems to have it in abundance. Glad to offer my support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
39. Support - From the looks of it, you should have become an admin a long time ago. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 13:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
40. Support Absolutely. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
41. Support I've paid attention to this editor for awhile, and worked with him once. He's as good as they get.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
42. Support I have had dealings with this editor at FAC and PR, and found him to be scrupulous about following WP policies, not a bluffer (he will say when he doesn't know about a subject), and above all thorough and helpful beyond the call of duty. Tim riley (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
43. Support User has a lot of maturity and has a lot of clue. Keep up the good work. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 16:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
44. I can only echo Tim Riley. The "not a bluffer" part in particular is a relevant quality when it comes to admin decisions. —WFC— 17:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
45. Strong support I was suggesting that he run for adminship back in August. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
46. Support His work here is almost flawless.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
47. Support Per everybody.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
48. Support User has a good eye for detail and sound judgement. Has the necessary experience with a wide range of WP processes, and has a pleasant demeanour when interacting with other users. The Interior (Talk) 20:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
49. Support User has great contributions, (DYK, GA, FA, etc.) and would make a great admin. —HueSatLum 22:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
50. Yup per above. Chedzilla (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
51. Support. Crisco seems to be model sysop; polite, knowledgeable, and well-versed in content creation and expansion at all levels. He'll be a great role model to users and has already he's more than capable of handling administrative tasks. GRAPPLE X 01:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
52. As long as he helps with copyvios. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
53. Support per nominator. Torreslfchero (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
54. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) of course
55. Yes. Positive asset - good quality contributions and a good attitude. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
56. Support - I honestly think that the obvious rubbish that fills up some ofthe questions above, and some of the absurdities below, make RFA what it is a smelly suspect circus and something that has needed overhaul for a long time (which is why I havent been see voting here at RFA for years) - but that aside - Crisco has a capacity to do things within a subject/field (Indonesia) that has very limited admin presence - and that alone should be a consideration as there is always a need for a balanced, level headed, involved editor in that subject area - and he is that SatuSuro 11:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
57. First time I saw him was at the WT:DYK discussion that is mentioned in Q3, so my first impressions weren't incredibly favourable. Since then every time I come across Crisco he seems to be knowledgeable and and level-headed, so I'm willing to accept that he has learned from it. Also has a relatively large amount of audited content, which is obviously a plus. Looked at the opposes and they don't concern me. Lastly, I have a lot of respect for SatuSuro, who works in the same area as Crisco, and if he trusts him then I can't see why I shouldn't. Jenks24 (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
58. Support Excellent content edits in my view, shows a good understanding of policies. I don't see AfDs and CSDs as reasons to oppose. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
59. Strong Support - Mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 14:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
60. Support...No evidence that this candidate will abuse tools or position...MONGO 20:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
61. Support Can't find any compelling reasons not to trust this candidate with the responsibility and the tools. The opposition is unconvincing, and if Tim Riley is supporting, I'm most happy to pile on and follow suit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
62. Support: (1) Fine content editor; (2) I ask myself if I think Crisco has the right attitude: willing to learn what he doesn't know & willing to acknowledge when he's made a mistake. The answers are "Yes" and "Yes". No need to look any further for what an admin should be. --RexxS (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
63. Support experienced excellent collaboration and good questions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
64. Support I have no suspicion that this user will abuse the Administrative tools. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
65. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
66. Support Seems like a fine choice, I hope everything goes well for you...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
67. Support Good candidate & good answers above. Skier Dude (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
68. Support - Clueful user with a good mix of contributions. His experience puts him in a good position to help out with admin tools. -- Dianna (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
69. Support: Excellent work on Wikipedia. Crisco would be a perfect admin in my opinion. Oh yeah, the editor definitely isn't shit. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
70. Support. Upon review, he does good edit work and is not quick to judge. Kierzek (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
71. Support, fine candidate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
72. Support - Exceptional content contribution, seems very competent, reasonable and serious. Seems like an ideal candidate for the mop. :) Salvidrim! 03:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
73. Support per all above. A competent, clueful editor who among other things has done great work in Indonesia-related articles, an under-represented subject area in Wikipedia. Graham87 03:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
74. Support: I think that he will be excellent admin.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
75. Support - A fine editor. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
76. Per Kudpung. Candidate has done good work, good answers to questions and I see nothing untoward in his contributions. Best of luck. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 13:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
77. Support - No concerns. A very good editor. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
78. Support No Concerns -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
79. Have met this user offwiki and they're just as clueful there as they are on here. No reason to believe he'd misbehave with his tools. — foxj 15:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
80. SupportBrilliant user. Should get sysop rights. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 16:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
81. Support It's a privilege to receive admin rights, and with that much decent content work, s/he thoroughly deserves to have them! Minima© (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
82. Support Despite another admin suggesting your primary area of interest would be deleting articles, your large body of work and contributions up until now would suggest that adminship would serve you well among a multitude of tasks such as DYK, anti-vandalism, and backlogs. Mkdw^talk 03:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
83. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
84. Support Great Editor --Tow Trucker talk 07:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
85. Support - per above. Had a look through his contribs etc. and happy to support. Kennedy ^(talk) 11:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
86. Support I have seen Crisco many times at DYK, and his contributions are immensely good. He will be a good administrator, for sure. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
87. Support—Seen him around various areas of the project, and he always seems clueful, happy, and collaborative. More admins interested in DYK is a good thing, and I'm sure he learned from the kerfluffle there. I trust this user will ease into admin activities and will be a net-positive to the admin corps. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
88. Support, good contributor, sufficient experience, do not see any problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
89. Weak Support - I've been following this RfA for awhile, and I've been on the fence the whole time. I think that his grasp of deletion policy is not as strong as it could be, but I also think that the absolute terror of using the tools your first few months will ensure that Crisco doesn't perform any controversial deletions for awhile. He's done some good anti-vandal work and excellent work at DYK, and I have no qualms about him using the tools in those arenas. Therefore, though my support is weak, I feel that Crisco will be a net positive to Wikipedia as an administrator. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
90. Weak Support: Based on personal review and that of others here, a great editor I would trust with a mop. A little concerned about points drawn against in oppose, but he has shown a history of self betterment - there is no reason to doubt he will grow into a well to be admin. The Illusive Man^(Contact) 22:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
91. Support. Be careful with them CSDs. Don't feel the need to thank people for their feedback (except for me)--that's running with the pack. ;) I'm not familiar with the GA issue (though whatever MF says is usually true), but from what I've seen from Crisco they will not abuse the tools and, on the contrary, will use them to the project's benefit. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
92. Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
93. Support - This is WP:NETPOS territory. I am happy to support you with so much content experience. Good luck in DYK. Now, your application of deletion policy may be less than exemplary, but my big-picture look at your DEL work does not make me oppose. My advice is to stay rational and stay conservative. Thank you for looking out for copyvios. I do not foresee cataclysmic destruction upon granting the tools. NTox · talk 02:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
94. Yup, will be a tremendous asset to the 'pedia with the tools. Just wish I'd thought to nominate him. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
95. Support - Seems like a reasonable, dedicated contributor. No problems here. Michael (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
96. Support. I admit to being a little concerned about Phil Bridger's diff, and I urge Crisco to go slowly in AFD and CSD where other editors have pointed out issues. However, he has shown that he is willing to listen to criticism and act on it, which I regard as one of the most important qualities in an admin. I am confident that any issues that may crop up can be dealt with via discussion, and that Crisco won't be the cause of any unnecessary drama. Also, I shouldn't neglect to mention his very impressive content contributions and his expertise in DYK. In my opinion it would be worth promoting him even if he only wanted the admin tools to work with the DYK queues. I think the project would definitely benefit from giving him a mop. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
97. Support I have no reason to oppose. The Determinator p t c 19:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
98. Support: Everything convinces me. ZappaOMati 01:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
99. Support Yes, DYK could use another admin (several instances since I got the tools). And Crisco 1492 works so hard, I admit to having thought he already was one. The nominations for deletion worry me, and so does the BLP angle that came up in the extra questions. I was also a bit disappointed in the response regarding underage admins. But the candidate has demonstrated here and elsewhere a readiness to re-think and discuss things, is collegial and far more adminny in his breadth of work here than me, and I see more net positives than negatives. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
100. On balance, I am confident in the candidates abilities. My only concern, and it has been addressed, is the lamentable possibility that you could be overly aggressive deleting articles at AfD. I accept your stated intention to move cautiously in that arena. Overall, good answers to questions, and exemplary conduct here have earned my trust. Good luck moving forward. My76Strat (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
101. 'Support As good a candidate as any, and a dedicated contributor. So long as having admin tools doesn't distract him from what is important (Indonesian novels)!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

     I trust stage plays are alright, good doctor? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

     and films!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

102. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
103. Support excellent editor who deserves the mop. Great answer and attitude on Q3 which was an extremely heated fiasco for DYK. Royalbroil 13:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
104. Support Experienced editor with great answers to the questions. ChromaNebula (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
105. Support. I'm influenced by what I think is a very thoughtful pattern of the answers to questions. It seems to me that this candidate has had experience in discussions about disagreements about content, and knows what he is doing, and is willing and able to learn from his mistakes. Although Phil Bridger's diff pushes my buttons, I see it as an example of where the candidate is willing to learn, and all the other examples given throughout the RfA, as well as the DYK-related dramas, really do not bother me at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
106. Support because of this user's commitment to creating good content, participating in GA and FA processes, and for contributing to the DYK project. I support in spite of other users' concerns about this editor's understanding of the CSD criteria, because I think this editor has demonstrated competency in the CSD process and interest in learning more about it. I trust that this user will not doing anything wrong even if this user does not do everything optimally right, and I think in time this user will do everything as well as anyone else. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
107. Support per User:Tryptofish - UnbelievableError (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
108. Support - nothing in the oppose comments is compelling. Shadowjams (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
109. Would be a great addition to the admin corps. – Connormah (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
110. Support Seems like a fine candidate for becoming an Sysop. Has good mainspace edits to articles. However an important point here needs to be noted that just because an editor (any user) that has many mainspace edits to articles does not mean that said user will become a potential administrator too, no it's not like that. For that the said user definitely needs to have prior experience in at least some administrative areas where he/she intends to work in and must have done satisfactory work in those specified areas, and Crisco1492 has that experience which they have shown that they can be trusted to use the tools responsibly and properly for the betterment and development of Wikipedia. No major reason to oppose this hardworking candidate, ready to work with the Admin tools. TheGeneralUser (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - You have so far closed only 10 AfDs which all were almost half year back (no problem in that). This isn't the main reason for me to oppose but, you stated in your 1st answer that you'll take part in CSDs. According to your CSD log, you have tagged around 84 things from which 10 were declined which shows that success rate is 88% and it is way too low if you are going to be trusted with admin rights. If you want to work in CSDs, then little more accuracy should have been shown. I really appreciate your efforts in DYKs and GAs but 88% is a red signal. →TSU ^tp* 13:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)It was an hasty vote. my apologies →TSU ^tp* 13:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the !vote. It should be noted that of those declined, all were later deleted. Regarding the AFDs, there are a couple more (I did not list all of them, such as this, this, and this). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I don't think the candidate is ready to make speedy deletion decisions in article space. Looking through User:Crisco 1492/CSD log I see only 2 A criteria speedy deletion nominations. Then, in response to question 7, the candidate seems to be confusing the notability guidelines with the criteria for speedy deletion under A7. Clearly an article should not be deleted if the subject is in fact notable, but the standard for deletion under criteria A7 is "claim of importance" not "claim of notability", a much lower threshold that an article must pass to survive. Response 7-3 highlights this problem, Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill and WP:CRIME are fine arguments to make at the WP:AFD stage, but they really have no place in the consideration of a WP:CSD A7. A national news outlet providing coverage of a subject, with a reference to that coverage in the article, should always foreclose deletion under A7. Monty₈₄₅ 18:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   I disagree completely with that. Being convicted of murder, let alone being accused of it, is not a claim of notability or importance. There are 15,000 murders a year in the USA alone. To quote A7 "..An article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.". Which that one doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   The hypothetical person is a suspected murderer who has attracted national media attention as evidenced by the hypothetical CNN link, that such a national news outlet has decided to cover the subject is clearly an indication of importance. It alone if likely not enough for full fledged notability, but it should be enough to justify deliberation over the deletion at AfD rather then a summary deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 21:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   WP:NOT#NEWS. To give you an example, I could point out that one of the UK's most notorious murderers does not have an article of their own, being subsumed into an article on their crimes. If this had been a "Murder of John Doe" article, A7 wouldn't have applied (and straight off to AFD). I'd have no problem pressing delete here, especially given the possible BLP issues. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   The key to understanding CSD A7 is that it isn't a license to delete content under a variety of Wikipedia policies, it is for situations where an article is so deficient that it doesn't even have a claim of importance. WP:NOT has been proposed as a CSD criteria many times and soundly rejected. Really the proper place for the article would be AfD, if an admin decided to IAR delete it and save everyone trouble I wouldn't loose any sleep over it, but its clearly outside the scope of criteria A7. Monty₈₄₅ 18:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Honestly, that's the answer I'm the least troubled by — except for the fact that Crisco keeps referring to notability instead of importance —. In my opinion, his answers regarding the other two articles are far worse, frankly. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   May I inquire why the other two give you more pause? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   Well, for starters, you'd be treating equally an article about an unremarkable kid and one about a writer who was awarded one of France's main literary prizes, which I find a tad perplexing. That said, Wikipedia is becoming increasingly bureaucratic — and the various "let's make it de jure" ban nominations are good evidence of that — and we need admins who are capable of ignoring the red tape when it's warranted. Your actions regarding the kid's article, on the contrary, are terribly bureaucratic, though probably technically correct; that's one of the cases where we should be protecting the privacy of the fourteen-year-old boy and speedily delete the page. If, in your opinion, the fact that he's his city's youngest businessman is a claim of importance, which is legitimate, and you're not comfortable invoking IAR, then the least you could do would be not to interfere and let another admin do the right thing. To keep such an article around for ten days is a terrible idea, in my opinion. And, besides, your reply is also strange, in that you'd keep an article about this kid, though unsourced and with a dubious claim of importance, and yet you'd delete a sourced article about a woman charged with a murder — not that I'd particularly mind: I can get behind such a deletion, though it's clearly out of process —. Regarding Sorj, on the contrary, you'd basically propose for deletion an article about a writer who was awarded a very important literary prize; again, you're technically correct, but I am disappointed you would not look for a couple of good sources to improve the article, after declining the speedy deletion nomination. After all, this person is, quite clearly, notable — as in really notable and not in a "we must cover all MMA events" kind of way. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you for the feedback. I shall keep that in mind; I had Oneglected to consider that privacy would play a factor in the biography of Mr Doe, although it did cross my mind for M(r)s Doe. The second instance emphasises the need for WP:BEFORE in all tagging / deleting and not just AFD, and I shall remember that lesson well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Heh, I hadn't even looked at the other two. First one - kill with fire, second one - decline and tag for improvement. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2. (Moved from support) While I initially liked the large amount of edits, the cheerfulness all across the board, etc., I was really dismayed by:
   • a)The lack of A-category taggings in Speedy Deletion. While I see you are more into files, A# deletions are still important.
   • b) The AfD success rate. Although I may be counting this wrong ((103+154+5+15+6)/491)*100), adding up all of your supports and no consensus's over total # of AfD's yields a lousy 57%. Sorry, but I really don't like that. I'm suspicious of my math, but I don't like the #'s anyway.

   I also don't like the fact you mention six years of experience when you only have about 2.5 in activity. I understand this is very minor, but it does mislead people. Sorry for voting oppose, and hope you come back here soon. To summarize everything, do more A-class speedies, more successful AfD's, and teach me some math :). All the best, Buggie111 (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you for the honest feedback. Just a bit of clarification, the nominator mentioned six years; I noted that I became highly active beginning in April 2011, although I had created a single article well before then. I will double check the math, although that is a field in which I lack aptitude (side note: the stricken support above seems to still be registered as a support; may need to be fixed) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Snottywong's tool gives 80.5% votes in accordance with the ultimate outcome, 14.8% not in accordance, and 4.7% no consensus, over my past 250 !votes. There are about 17 nominations in which I've !voted but that have not been closed yet, as of this timestamp. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for the reminder, and your response to point 3. I was going through and adding the successes+no consensus on all three AfD pages by Snottywong, yours are split up on the tool 250-250-10. I might be misreading the tool, and the percentages on each page (80+73?+52) are cumulative, but I'd like clarification. Buggie111 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   You're welcome. I shall try and count up the remaining 260, but I'm not sure how the tool works for old AFDs (i.e. 251 and after). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   K, so 103 !votes in accordance with the ultimate outcome, 19 not in accordance, and 6 no consensus, over my past 250 !votes after 3 June 2011, 154 / 45 / 15 between 16 April 2011 and 3 June 2011, and 5 / 3 / 3 before 16 April. That gives 517 !votes (a couple seem to be popping up twice due to technical limitations), and after subtracting 17 total for the open AFDs we have 262 / 67 / 24 out of 500... I guess there are a lot of malformed closes, because that's clearly not right; that that only equals 353... If we use the 353 figure, we get a little more than 74% overall. Confuzzled. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   This is accurate. I have a secret way to run the tools over all of your votes, and it comes up with 74.8% for how often you vote in line with consensus. Keep in mind that the tool is not 100% accurate and usually errs on the low side (so your actual accuracy may actually be closer to 80%). -Scottywong| babble _ 14:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Ah, ok. Saw a lot of "undetermineds" in the counter, that might have thrown it off. Still concerned about the lack of article CSD's, which will keep me here, but happy about the other stuff. Buggie111 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks ScottyWong, that solves the confusion. Thank you for the feedback Buggie, I will keep that in mind (and try and practice a bit more) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Hi, Buggie. I saw that there was another oppose and came to look. Very surprised. I've been here seven and a half years, and have a "deletionist" rep, and I don't even know what "A-category" tagging means ;) As to not agreeing with AfD outcomes, well, AfD gets it wrong a /lot/ of the time. Anyway, I wholeheartedly support Crisco; prolly should have said more than "Absolutely", thou. Hope that helps. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   I believe Buggie is referring to all the A-type speedy deletion categories found under Wikipedia:Csd#Articles. In other words, he appears to be surprised that Crisco hasn't tagged many articles for speedy deletion. Worm^TT≡talk≡ 08:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks (some deletionist I've proved;) Mebbe Crisco should {{db-a1}} some more junk... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   On to patrol new pages. Jack, do you have any idea why the tools' figures are a little quite off? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   I barely know how to WP:NPP. I did recently patrol my new user and user talk pages to get rid of an annoying "!" next them in watchlists. Scott' tool will have a margin of error; it would be parsing the AfD text and looking for the usual stars and bolded "Keep/Delete" and such. If you post in an other form, it might miss it. AS I was saying before, such stats are meaningless, as "consensus" != "right"; more often it means "gridlock" or "battleground". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   I see what you mean. What I see in the success rate is voting Delete to articles that are meant to be deleted and not Speedy per G4 for something that obviously doesn't fit that criteria. Buggie111 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Scotty's tools are a great start, but you still have to dig. This is how I came up with around 80%, not counting no consensus. I would be leery of anyone with 95%, as that would look like purely "me too" voting, which wouldn't be helpful. Anything in the 70-90% range is perfectly fine to me. His AFD record is why I supported him. We don't need "me too" admins, we need independent thinkers. He will do fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose. The two incidents referred to in Q3 suggest to me that the candidate has an unfortunate tendency to run with the pack when it comes to hounding those who express unpopular opinions. Does one's personality really change so quickly? Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   I have surprised myself by how sweet I have become, so the answer is "Yes!". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   And are you also preparing for a future RfA? Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Welcome back! I looked at that thread (with some interest;). FWIW, Crisco likes me and I often express unpopular opinions. Taht "pack" iz a problem; uze teh kitteh'z teeth to byte their sorry azzez ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Welcome back to what? My only remaining interest in this cess pit is in clearing out at least some of the shit. Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Touché. But, hey, I'm in there shovelling as fast as I can! Crisco's ok; not one of teh problem shites (I know; ya had fight;). I haz little list; we work together! Friend? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

4. Weak oppose – Crisco 1492, you have done so much good work here, seem generally friendly and sensible, and I likely would have supported if you had not expressed an intention to use administrator tools in AfD and CSD work. I agree with my fellow editors above that prior to this RfA we have not seen enough A-category CSD tags to really get a good sense of your understanding of the criteria. In one of your responses above, you noted the importance of following WP:BEFORE in any deletion work. Then, declaring you were heading into New Page Patrolling, you went ahead and tagged this (which I believe did not follow WP:BEFORE for at least two reasons), and this, at a time when your contributions are under the most scrutiny, so that's not especially reassuring. Your AfD contributions also raise some red flags for me. I'm all for concise communication when appropriate, but your rationales are so brief that we do not get an understanding of your thinking process or if you have done any research prior to making a !vote or nomination. Nominations like this and this appear to be typical of your AfD work, where you cite a policy or guideline without explaining the reasons the article violates them, and not actually saying if you have searched for sources when you declare that something has "no indication of notability" (which is a quote from your Prod work, which is similar). Even if you have searched for sources, I think it's important to be explicit about what you have done, in order to set an example to new contributors to deletion discussions, and also to reassure non-Wikipedians that we are not just making deletion decisions on a whim. Too many of your contributions become Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions due to their brevity. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fair trade coffee is particularly concerning to me. Did you look at the article history? Why have you not revisited the discussion? When you do not revisit AfD discussions when new information comes to light, it gives the impression of drive-by voting. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Long is another example.) Sorry for the long rationale here, but I think it's needed in order to explain how i came to an overall impression. Any of the single things I mentioned above, taken in isolation, would certainly be unfair nitpicking, but as a whole it paints a concerning picture about your approach to deletions—to me at least. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
   • Thank you for the feedback, I have begun addressing the issues you brought up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose I'd like to think that RfA candidates would spend a few minutes researching the background of the nominator before accepting an RfA nomination. If they had done so, they would have found a user who is a hat collector of the highest order, with 34 requests for rights across eleven different wikis, a whole string of problematic behaviour and so on. Accepting such a nomination makes me question the user's judgment, which is something I consider quite important given that admins frequently have to make judgments about user behaviour (for blocking and unblocking, for instance). —Tom Morris (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   Guilt by association?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   I was aware of the nominator's background (having seen the editor under an old name at Malleus' talk page), but, as I noted above, it is not against the rules for the editor to nominate one who feels ready; I have assumed the nominator has no ulterior motive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   Tom Morris, you were the one who took me to AN. This applies here. Put the past behind. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   I believe Crisco has been contemplating adminship for some time, Tom, and the fact that this particular user was the first to offer a stepping stone for him should not be seen as a reason to oppose. — foxj 15:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   There's nothing that stop Crisco 1492 from self nomination if he believe he is ready for adminship and that he's got something to contribute... -- KTC (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   With the nominator, it may look bad for the nominee to decline a RFA nomination from a less established user and then accept a RFA soon after from a much more established editor, so nominator unless the RFA raises suspicions by itself should be irrelevant. Secret ^account 18:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   I sense a COI with Tom's oppose. It has more to do with the nominator than the nominee. He does not suggest there are other grounds he'd oppose if the nominator had been different. Mkdw^talk 03:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

   Well, Tom is free to oppose on whatever grounds he wants. The weight of his oppose will be judged by the closing bureaucrat, they do more than just count votes. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

6. This edit, made today, displays a severe lack of knowledge about how notability-based AfDs are decided, dismissing the general notability guideline as irrelevant because it contains the word "presumed", and also demonstrates an inability to answer a simple question in a meaningful way. Admins should have much better procedural knowledge and communication skills. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   This is not an insignificant oppose rational. Yet I and others have stated support for this candidate, and based that support on balance with the many demonstrated strengths, trust that the gravity of this weakness (in AfD clue), and need for caution within that process was understood; with concurrence (so all the right things were said). In the eleventh hour I must ask the candidate why he has not considered withdrawing this nomination? I suggest it has not been considered because had it been; there is only one right thing to do. When I go to that AfD I will !vote speedy keep; and all that it implies. I will ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination and probably cite a third of WP:BEFORE to show why the nomination was ill construed. Truly, however, I am concerned because I may have to! I am keen to see a reply. My76Strat (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

   • I have withdrawn the nomination. I was mistaken in the nomination due to a failure to run the article against the GNG and not just DIPLOMAT. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

     Crisco 1492 I think you have done the wisest thing and shown the most important quality that you must maintain; that being a willingness to acknowledge a mistake, while correcting the miscarriage. From the beginning of this RfA I wanted to find a way to tell you my impression of why I believe this is your weak suit. It's ironic of course, but as we always encourage content creation, and you have risen like cream in that arena, I think it is possible to lose sight of the significance of a stub article, and when in fact it does meet inclusion criteria. It's almost like you view the subject with an eye toward; could this become an FA class? If you think yes, well of course that would be a legitimate keep. But simply for not seeing an FA potential; shouldn't translate to delete. But again most of that is just a gut feeling, and I only offer it in hopes it may help at some level. Otherwise, I suppose you should get ready to dawn your t-shirt and starting moping the deck. Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I'm sorry Crisco 1492. While I sincerely believe you have done and is doing excellent work in terms of content contribution, the edits linked to by Phil Bridger and Paul Erik clearly demonstrate to me you are not yet ready to deal with deletion nominations and discussions, which is one of the area you state in your response to Q1 that you intend to work in. -- KTC (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose I don't think you should be doing article deletions at this time, and since that is one of your main areas of interest I'm afraid I have to oppose. The answer to Q7 is a pretty serious mistake: A7 is not about evaluating notability, it is meant to be a very low bar and if an article has anything in it which indicates that the subject may be notable (such as national press coverage) then it should be evaluated through the AfD or PROD mechanisms. Some of the links presented by Paul Erik and Phil Bridger above are also concerning. I suspect this may be just down to lack of experience, and you should be fine with some more work in these areas, but I don't think you're there yet. Hut 8.5 20:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you. As mentioned above, I shall work on that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

9. Oppose. I'm not happy to oppose, because I don't feel that Crisco can do much about it. Question 7 is a difficult question, yet I value it a lot. The rules-based approach from Crisco is understandble, yet insufficient. There is simply more than the letter of policy to go by. Judging a candidate on RfA is hard, and pretty much the only question I ask myself at an RfA is "does this editor grok Wikipedia, and does he grok the prime directive. The answer here, I think, is almost, but not quite, which is a minus. Then to me the candidate made a mistake on Q12/13. Editors make mistakes, administrators make mistakes, god knows I made mistakes and will continue to make mistakes in the future, and I certainly hope that we don't think there is any chance in hell that we will ever have an administrator or editor for that matter that won't make mistakes. So the candidate makes a mistake in tagging an article for speedy deletion. That's bad, don't do that again, carry on, and go be an administrator. The problem to me here is that the answer to Q12/13 wasn't: I was lazy, I didn't check, shame on me. The problem is that the answers give the impression of trying to find justification in a bad action by bringing in the rules, demonstrating that it's not such a bad action. Potentially the atmosphere we have created at RfA is to blame, where one can't make a mistake (I could be judged to be doing the same here, in my defence, I intentionally left the door back open with Q13 to fix the IMO insatisfactory response to Q12). Potentially we treat our editors to such a harsh introduction to the rules that their importance gets inflated. Likely this is more the fault of the community shaping our editors in the wrong direction than it is Crisco's getting shaped by it. But in the end, I can't claim I would like this candidate to be an administrator without this natural feel for how rules should work here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you for the feedback (and the chuckle at the edit summary) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose Poor judgement. As a different sort of example, see Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Asian woman tan line. Warden (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    Personally, I don't see it as "poor judgement". Putting something up for peer review is giving your idea/article/picture to the community for help in improving it. If he asked for feedback, no one should bemoan the fact that some people didn't like it. That was the point of putting it up for peer review in the first place. If anything, it demonstrates his use of a common feedback process in improving his work - something that we should praise, not argue as a detractor. -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    While I don't see this as a reason to oppose by itself, I do wonder about the Might need to go in a couple more articles to have the good encyclopedic value we want. --regentspark (comment) 20:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    That comment (7-8 months ago) is a bit ridiculous. But I give him credit for trying, for at least working through the peer review process. It shows that even then, a while back, he was concerned about doing good work. That's the way I see it. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    In what way was that "good work"? Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    I'm not making a comment on the specific peer review request, rather, I'm making a comment on his use of that process. I would have had a problem with his judgement if he would have taken such a thing directly to nomination. The fact that he is cautious enough, and cares enough about getting his work right to subject it to peer review shows that he has clue. Even if this specific proposal was a bit off, that doesn't change the fact that his mindset was towards accepting community input. In my book, that's the sign of a trustworthy editor. Lord Roem (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you, Lord Roem. I prefer putting images which I feel uncertain of at PPR, despite the often long stretches of time it takes to receive a reply. Colonel, are you sure this has nothing to do with me voting delete more than keep at AFD? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    I am not familiar with your work at AFD, which has not registered with me, and other editors in this discussion seem to have that area covered. I am more familiar with your activity at DYK as you recently closed a nomination of mine. That decision seemed too negative but I wouldn't like to hold it against you as I was involved and am generally supportive of DYK work. At RfA, I try to review contributions from a past month and see what I find. The nomination of that photograph for review seemed bizarre and verging on soft porn. Perhaps you could comment on what impressed you about it. Warden (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    The last month, eh? That PPR was from October 2011. I was thinking of these two AFDs, in which you were quite an active advocate for keeping. Regarding the DYK, articles are required to be well references, which sadly the pastry article was not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    I said past not last. I typically review about 6 months ago so that the activity is not influenced by the forthcoming RfA. And those AFDs you raise were from May 2011, which is even older, so your argumentation seems quite contrary. Those AFDs also show poor judgement and understanding of the AFD process and, from what is said by others, this has not improved. My oppose stands. Warden (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    Fair enough on past and not last. These replies are not to sway you, but to show you may have a possible COI. Regarding the image, I found it artistically quite interesting and aesthetically pleasing. Aside from that, the tan line article was (and still is) limited to a single ethnic group; to be more representative the article should have images from other groups. Regarding AFDs, I should think that a 50% consensus rate is a bit worrying. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    That comment is, for two reasons that should be obvious, unworthy of a potential admin. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

11. Oppose per Phil Bridger's diff. Why don't you address the concern here or at the AfD? A really good admin/admin candidate should respond in a honest way. Do you think the comment is unjust or unworthy of your response? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    Neither. The several above have made good points, and I've tried to work them into how I'm working, such as at this AFD and my last couple CSDs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

12. I have been sitting on the fence until now, because, to be honest, I'd really want to support you, because I consider you a capable wikipedian; however, I have reservations regarding how you would use the delete button if you were made an admin, which force me to end up in this section. I'm aware that your RFA is very likely to succeed nonetheless, so let me ask you to please be extra-careful before deleting something — or declining to do it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    Point taken, and I plan on taking it slow should this RFA pass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Not really feeling strongly supportive, yet no opposition from me at this point, either. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 03:28, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
2. Given the hubbub that occured concerning DYK's about Politics in the United States, per my Disclosure of COI, I will recuse myself from consideration of the candidate. Achowat (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
3. I will recuse also due to the fact that I am not having the decision to support nor to oppose because of the responses in Q#8 and Q#11 and since some good editors are not SysOp. TruPepitoM (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

   At 37,000 Crisco is a bit of a rookie, but OK. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2012 (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.