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

Final (8/19/12); Ended 21:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Crazytales56297 (talk · contribs) Crazytales is an excellent editor. His 3228 edits show that he is dedicated to the projects, and his 781 talk edits show that he is willing to talk to other users and help them, as well as taking criticism. He also has 569 project page edits, showing that he is able to work well with a group. Crazytales has been with the project for the better part of two years, and I know him both here and in real life to be a thoughtful, sensible, and open person. His skills as an editor will be greatly improved with the help of administrative powers. --teh tennisman 21:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks for nominating me. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 00:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I feel that the admin tools would help me in doing behind-the-scenes metapedian work on wikipedia that I've noticed often has a backlog, like WP:OP and XfD's. I also plan to patrol CAT:CSD and WP:AIV because, respectively, there are sometimes over 300 CSD candidates in the category, and vandals can go several hours post-final-warning without being blocked. Of course, I 'll be a pretty active WP:AN and WP:ANI watcher and poster too. I'll also new-page patrol and new-user patrol to delete obvious nonsense and apply username blocks. In summary, I'll be a vandal-focused admin.

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

A: I'm proud of all my contributions, and I don't like emphasising some over others. However, I'm pleased with my contributions to automobile related articles, which are mostly adding photos and cleaning up. I'm also proud of my vandalism reversion. I often edit articles relating to stuff I have and have had experience with, like Virgin Mobile cellphone service and Logitech mice.

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

A: I had one small conflict with RJN over Evanescence's classification as gothic rock. I put that in, he reverted, I approached him on his talkpage about it and backed my classification up with data from last.fm. He apologised to me about it and allowed me to revert. Overall, I'd say we both handled the issue civilly but ignorantly, as neither of us was aware of the ongoing article-talk-page discussion regarding the classification, which resulted in it not being classified as gothic rock. Another conflict I had was with User:A Man In Black regarding xlinks to veekun.com pokédex in Pokémon species articles. We discussed it on WT:PCP, I feel that I handled that well. I'll deal with editing conflicts by taking a deep breath and discussing it with the user. I try my utmost to remain civil and follow WP:NPA.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

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

A: Ignore All Rules is paramount to me. I think it enables any user in good faith to contribute even if they don't know all the policies backwards and forwards, like how a good writer who doesn't know the slightest thing about wiki-syntax can use {{wikify}}. The snowball clause is another thing I think should be made policy. Ridiculous proposals most likely made in the name of disruption (like my Wikipedia:votes for deletion/Jimmy Wales when I was a n00b) need to be stopped quickly, and Snow does this.

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

A: No. Blocks are NOT meant to punish users; they're meant to prevent Wikipedia from being damaged through vandalism/3rr/username vios. However, I would invoke IAR over BP in the case of an obvious gnaa troll replacing the text of a page with 'GNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAA(repeat ad infinitum)'. Blocked indefinitely, thanks for coming, don't come again. (Obviously, 24h if IP, blocking is pointless if AOL IP)

6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A: Duck test. If it looks like an advertisement, and reads like an advertisement, then it is one. However, I'm only CSDing those advertisements that are beyond salvation. Those that aren't, are useful for cleanup if the subject meets notability guidelines.

7. What is your age?

A: I'm 14.

Discussion on the propriety of this question moved to the talk page.--Doug Bell ^talk 21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• See Crazytales56297's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

• My previous RfA can be found here: Wikipedia:requests for adminship/Cchan199206. ~Crazytales | 56297 21:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As the nominator, I'd like to make the point that while "that edit summary" was made, it was in response to some vandalism that specifically mentioned that anatomical region. Am I condoning Crazytales' course of action? No. What I am saying is that everyone makes mistakes, and that one mistake is not the reason to sway one's vote toward the negative. Everyone has made some mistake on the encyclopedia, whether it was making vandalism somehwere that no one could see it or by not reverting vandalism because one thought it was funny. All in all, I believe that all of you whose votes were biased due to that comment should rethink your opinions. If not, you are being shortsighted, and besides, no one is perfect. That's all I have to say about that. --teh tennisman 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I realize that as nominator you want to defend the candidate, but in my opinion your argument only raises more concerns. If "everyone makes mistakes", then who is going to say Crazytales56297 won't make still more serious mistakes? It's a pity an edit summary can end this wonderful user's RfA, and given more time I may support him. As for saying, "if not, you are being shortsighted", is that a personal attack? Yuser31415 06:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  One mistake, maybe not. But a mistake the same day? It was after listing this RfA, even. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Everyone has made some mistake on the encyclopedia, whether it was making vandalism somehwere that no one could see it or by not reverting vandalism because one thought it was funny. Whaaa??? I can safely say that I have never done either of those things and I'm kind of taken back that you would actually think that kind of attitude is universal. Next time Crazytales wants to try an RfA, I would advise him to select a nominator who understands this a serious project because your credibility has just plummeted. That said, I do believe everyone makes mistakes. It's just very unfortunate that Crazytale's mistake was so recent. He just needs to edit for awhile without those kinds of mistakes before some of us are convinced that he is ready for adminship. That's all. No one is saying he's bad and can never be an administrator, just that he needs a little more time. Sarah Ewart 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit summary which shall not be named is a bit childish, but let's not make that molehill into a larger geological phenomenon. God knows that we've seen much, much worse from the likes of other admins whom I need not name here. Crazytales has a good number of edits across all namespaces with a significant proportion of them in the Wikipedia namespace. I would like to see an answer to optional question #6 above before I vote. A Train ^{take the} 13:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly suggest that the candidate withdraws from this nomination, which in all likelyhood will not succeed. With a few more edits and no offensive edit summaries, I'm sure the community will be ready to support this editor. Thank you. Yuser31415 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Look, all of those who responded to my comments, all I was saying is that no one is perfect. It was not meant in any intention of NPA, but was my attempt to put what Crazytales said into context. And Sarah, I understand that you may have never done anything wrong, but still, all I was saying (redundancy alert alert) is that no one is perfect. If that makes his credibility "plummet" I apologise for not having the foresight to realize the outcomes of my actions. That said I apologize for any ill will that came of my statement. --teh tennisman 01:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Nominator support. --teh tennisman 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Support Will make a fine admin. — Seadog 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Change to Oppose[reply]

   I don't see lack of activity as a problem. By the way, WP:IAR already is policy, sir "I'd like to make WP:IAR a policy". :P -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   (changed to neutral)

2. Support A dedicated vandal fighter. Culverin? ^Talk 01:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support a good editor Canadian-Bacon 02:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support looks like a good mainspace editor, although remember to keep a cool temperament.-- danntm ^T _C 03:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support a very helpful and friendly user. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Weak Support The aforementioned edit summary is less incivil when one realizes it's in response to this edit. (The more appropriate edit summary, Crazytales, would have been less conversational. Sometimes it encourages vandals if they think they are getting a personal reaction.) Hopefully, Crazytales will be more circumspect and less indecorous in the future. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks. You have my assurance that will not happen again. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Moral support I must commend Crazytales on his recent determination to improve despite the collapsing RfA. His vandalfight in the past two days is very impressive and I hope that he won't feel discouraged by this RfA and continue such great work in order to achieve a successful RfA in the near future.--Húsönd 19:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Moral support. I strongly agree with Húsönd. Keep up the good edits, and you'll likely make it next time round. – Chacor 09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose Sorry Crazytales, I know that you are a very friendly and helpful editor but I don't see much of a need for the tools. Your past 500 edits span for almost 3 months with only sporadic vandalfight and participation in XfD. If you step up your pace then I will definitely support you next time. Good luck though.--Húsönd 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

changed to moral support--Húsönd 19:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I know my activity level has been reduced in the past three months (since September). This is because I've been somewhat stressed with the transition to a new school and my C- grade in one class. I've been working on stepping up my activity level. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong oppose We can do without edit summaries like this, as pointed out by Agent86 below. Yuser31415 01:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak oppose I'm sorry Crazytales, you are a great editor, and your participation in project space is good and varied. However, it only takes a few edit summaries like that to make people angry. The best way to combat vandals is throw bland templates at them until they get frustrated by it all. I understand how you might take it personally, a lot of vandalism I see around here raises my blood pressure a little as well, but administrators have to stay cool under pressure and remain disconnected from the situation. I'm opposing for now, but I think you would make a good candidate in a few more months with some continued work on remaining as aloof as possible. None of us should play the same tricks that vandals do. (Also, why is self revert not acceptable?) riana_dzasta 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Basically, what that means is that vandalism is not acceptable even if you revert it yourself. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong Oppose That diff that Yuser displayed was too much for me not to, basically I expect potential admins to be civil to those who aren't. If it was older I would remain at support but that was very recent. — Seadog 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose I don't like the idea of an RfA while you're running for ArbCom, it looks like an attempted power-grab. I would oppose anyway, though, on the basis of the link and points raised above. Sarah Ewart 05:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: I've intended to withdraw from the Arbcom elections for a few days now. I just haven't had time to post it. No power-grab intended. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 12:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, I appreciate that. As I said, I'm not comfortable with someone starting an RfA soon after it becomes apparent their ArbCom nomination will likely fail. It just doesn't sit well with me, however, that is really an aside and not my main reason for opposing. I do believe you are sincerely acting in good faith and I do not wish to see you become discouraged by this RfA. I'm sure with a little more time and experience you will be a much stronger candidate and will become a very good administrator. Sarah Ewart 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose. Unconvincing answer to Q1, & that edit summary. Mr Stephen 09:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose An admin has to remain civil, and what I see in the edit summary doesn't comply. Sorry. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Extremely incivil edit summary disqualifies candidate for now. Irrespective of his age, there are serious maturity concerns here. Xoloz 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak oppose. Good at fighting vandals, but you don't need to be an admin to do that. What admins need is civility; this user is civil most of the time, but could use some seasoning and experience to develop it better. I'd say keep editing, and re-apply after some time passes and more experience is gained. Also, displaying a userbox in which you claim to eschew grammar will not win you support around here. --Coemgenus 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. Civility is not an optional criteria for an admin. Answers to questions do not inspire confidence. Sysop powers are not necessary to fighting vandalism and in my opinion this user lacks the maturity to use them.- WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong Oppose per that offensive edit summary pointed out by Agent 86. I have now changed to Strong Oppose per the fact that the candidate did not disclose his previous failed RfA under his different name as pointed out by A_Train. Dionyseus 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong Oppose per edit summary pointed out by Yuser31415 Yaf 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose. Sorry, it's not just the edit summary, but the maturity that making such an edit summary shortly after listing your RfA demonstrates. The cornerstones of adminship qualification in my book are maturity, civility and judgement--I'm afraid you damaged my opinion on all three accounts. --Doug Bell ^talk 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose per [1] - policies are not the place to express your opinion. BigDT 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose I am concerned over the lack of civility being shown in some of your edits which have been pointed out in the above oppose comments. An admin has to remain civil at all times. Please do not take this to heart and address these issues in the next few months. If this is done, I am sure the Wikipedia community would forgive your past actions. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose that diff provided by BigDT did it for me. Don't use policy pages to make a point.--Jersey Devil 03:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose -- not at this time sorry. Perhaps with a track record of a few good months behind you and I'd reconsider. - Longhair\^talk 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Opppose per above. Michael 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose. Crazytales is a good, well-meaning editor. Far, far too much hay has been made of that edit summary; even the most level-headed of us has said something regrettable like that and in context it was far from a mortal sin. I am not particularly impressed with the candidate's answers to the questions, although he was sporting in obliging me with answering #6. With due consideration to the answers, I am concerned about consistent enforcement and application of policy. I am also a bit nonplussed by his failure to disclose his prior RfA under a different username. A Train ^{take the} 14:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose Quality editor whose personality shows through a bit too often. TonyTheTiger 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. I'll have to change to neutral. Too few talkspace and WP talk edits. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. You seem like an excellent and friendly Wikipedian. You participate in XfD's, AIV reports, vandal-fighting, etc. However, I feel you don't have that much experience in the article namespace. Looking over your edits, I don't see you getting that much involved in article discussions and such, and that worries me a bit since admins need to also be reasonably good dispute resolvers/mediators. Nishkid64 01:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral for the moment. I have no concern whatsoever about the drop in your contributions - real life should have priority. I was leaning towards support, however, I cannot do so unless the nominee can explain why he felt it necessary to include this edit summary when warning a vandal earlier today. Fighting vandalism is one thing, but I don't see why it can't be done in a civil manner. Agent 86 01:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Note the edit that was made. So it wasn't just completely random. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   For an admin that will be reverting similiar vandalism all the time, I do not think that edit summary was in any way appropriate. Yuser31415 01:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I did see the edit the nominee reverted. However, I'd like to know why you felt you needed to go beyond the warning template or why it was appropriate. Incivility does not necessarily need to be met with incivility. Agent 86 01:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   That has to deal with real life. I'm personally offended whenever I see 'suck my dick' or similar, even when not explicitly directed at me, due to incidents at school. I should better put into practise compartmentalization, and not let IRL activities influence my behaviour on Wikipedia. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 01:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Crazytales, I am very sorry if you are going through bullying or harassment at school or anywhere else, but you are right that you need to ensure that that does not influence you on Wikipedia as an editor and certainly not if you become an administrator. It will be helpful if you promise right here and now that nothing like this would ever happen again. More comments on your talk. Newyorkbrad 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for your support, Brad. This edit summary was an isolated incident. I promise to take a deep breath before posting an edit, and to not let IRL harassment affect my work on Wikipedia. This will not happen again. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 12:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral You just need more experience and please avoid lapses in civility, even towards vandals. But you are a good editor and if you reapply after some more work, I will gladly support you. TSO1D 04:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral for all of the reasons discussed above. Get some more experience in admin areas such as XfD and vandal fighting/ reverting. Holding your tongue when under extreme provocation is de rigeur for admins - we have to put up with a lot of flack and abuse, so keeping a cool head is vital. (aeropagitica) 06:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral per TSO1D and (aeropagitica). Needs some more civility. bibliomaniac15 20:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral I see some good things and some bad things in the non-admin AfD closures (nothing as bad as the one I royally screwed up). History of counter-vandalism and reports to AIV is good for someone who will be blocking. I think folks are making a lot more hay out of this edit summary than is really necessary, but that's me.--Kchase T 23:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral per BigDT and Amarkov. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 23:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral No obvious need for tools. Sharkface217 03:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral I'd like to see you as an admin one day, but not just yet. Keep up the good work. --Majorly (Talk) 14:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutral It does not reflect on your abilities, but I don't feel that a handle with complicated numbers like you have is a good fit for an administrator. I'm not trying to be jerky, but people should be able to easily get ahold of or reference someone via name, and with yours, they'd either need to copy/paste it from your sig or have it written down somewhere. As this RFA seems to be heading in a direction that doesn't result in promotion just yet, I encourage you to consider putting in for a username change request before you run again. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Neutral Probably a good editor. As has been pointed out by someone citing an edit summary, civility is important, but I don't want to oppose for now since it's only an isolated incident. Insanephantom 09:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.