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

Crazytales[edit]

Final: (46/7/5); ended 02:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Crazytales (talk · contribs) - Crazytales is an excellent editor. He has almost a ton (literally) of mainspace edits, meaning that he has done a large amount of page editing. Also adding to this is his dedication to vandal fighting. The more impressive statistic, I believe, is his 850 Wiki-space edits, including 92 AN/I edits. This goes to show further his vandal fighting as well as his desire to stop disputes and incidents between users. Also, he has made no edit summaries such as the one that contributed to the downfall, as it were, of his prior RfA, meaning that he has taken time to address the concerns presented. All in all, Crazytales is an excellent candidate for adminship. --tennisman 02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 02:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'll definitely patrol Administrator intervention against vandalism, since vandalism is, in my opinion, the largest threat to Wikipedia. That's saying nothing of the bad press vandalism gives us. I'll also keep an eye on the admin noticeboard and the incidents noticeboard to assist newbies who might have posted in a less-than-ideal place, and to try to resolve disputes without taking a side. The open proxy project is something I've gotten involved in since my last RfA, and being an administrator would allow me to more efficiently enforce the open proxy policy by blocking proxies. It's not a high-traffic place that lots of admins watch, so I've seen proxies go for several weeks without a block. Deletion debates needing closure and candidates for speedy deletion are also frequently backlogged. One area I won't involve myself in, though, is image copyright. I admit to knowing next to nothing about fair use. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 02:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm pleased with all my contributions. If I had to pick some of them out, it'd have to be my vandalism reversion and cleanup of articles. I'm more wikignommish than anything when it comes to article space.—Crazytales (talk) (alt) 02:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: I've never been involved in any huge conflicts. RJN reverted my classification of Evanescence as gothic rock, and I approached him on his talkpage with data from last.fm. We were both pretty ignorant of the issue; apparently neither of us checked the ongoing talk page discussion about the classification. In a totally separate incident, User:A Man in Black went around reverting all my additions of a veekun.com Pokédex link to pokémon articles. We discussed it on the PCP's talk page and it resolved in that the veekundex didn't add anything really of value. In the future, I'll deal with conflicts by remaining civil and taking a deep breath before responding. The edit summary incident that ruined my second RfA will not happen again. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 02:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. What are your current opinions on a creation of yours, Cao Pu, which I recall you half-heartedly protesting the deletion of? Picaroon (Talk) 03:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a rather stupid April Fool's joke. Thanks for deleting it, since it wasn't all that funny. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional 5. from Navou What is your nutshell interpretation of WP:CIVIL?
My nutshell interpretation is that there's no excuse for anyone to lose one's head over what anyone says. I'm applying my own nutshell interpretation in dealing with the valid concerns of Miranda. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional 6. from Navou Two part. a. What is your nutshell interpretation of WP:IAR b. Can you give a brief example of an appropriate application?
My nutshell interpretation is that an editor is entitled to ignore the letter of policy and guidelines when their actions are directed in good faith at improving the encyclopedia, or when they're acting in good faith without knowing the exact rules. It goes along with being bold. An example of applying it appropriately would be to place a swift block on a repeat vandal that is somehow not getting caught and warned. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Why didn't you tell us about this account which was used recently? And what was this edit about? Miranda 05:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comments on appropriateness of this question moved to talk page
I declare my alternate account in my signature, and I simply forgot to place ((User Alt Acct Master)) on my userpage. As for the MediaWiki talk edit, that was removing pointless trolling from the 'tank engine vandal'. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. What article work have you done recently, other than vandalfighting? Majorly (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up some articles I came across. I don't usually do much heavy article work; I'm more a wikignome. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by AldeBaer

9. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo just because it's a cool sentence, No climbing the Reichstag because the cabal told me so, and List of homophonous phrases because I like to try to pronounce them. I might record that for Spoken Wikipedia. I like to think I have a sense of humour. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Richardshusr

10. Under what conditions would you block an established user (e.g. one with more than 500 edits)? Under what conditions would you block another admin?
I'd obviously block an established editor or admin if they were going batshit insane and engaging in high-speed vandalism. I'd also block an established editor if checkuser/duck test says they're an obvious sock of a banned editor. If I disagree with someone's editing or use of admin actions, I'll discuss it with them instead of blocking first. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 18:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Crazytales before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Beat the nom. If Tennisman nominated, I support. :) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Typical-Me-Nom-Support - Of course, while he is accepting, I am off RC Patrolling. Thanks for the !vote of confidence in me Springeragh. --tennisman 02:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. G1ggy Talk/Contribs 02:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support This user seems like a good sort of fellow that will make a good sort of admin. Captain panda 03:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Reliable user and we are in need of admins so why not?--†Sir James Paul† 04:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Well he is a very good editor and and would make a great Admin :)..--Cometstyles 04:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support You've gained enough experience since your last AFDRFA that I'm happy to support. Please do go slowly on the AFD closures and speedy deletes, though. Work your way into the more complex ones and you should be fine.--Chaser - T 04:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean "your last RFA"? I recall an RFA where the candidate got RFA mixed up with AFD. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks.--Chaser - T 05:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Per Crazytales assuming good faith with Klinkerhoffen (whatever his name) who is now unbanned. --MichaelLinnear 04:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I don't see any immediate issues that would make me think that the admin tools would be abused by this editor. (aeropagitica) 04:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Double edit conflict weak support My interactions with him have been few but positive. The existence of the template ((rfa-notice)) suggests that there is nothing wrong with Crazytales placing it on his user page to let others know he's running an RFA. While I don't condone the use of profanity directed towards other users, I understand why he wrote that edit summary. I hope there are no ageist opposers. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Per above.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. In protest to the below. Daniel 07:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - why not? Seems to be perfect for it, looking through contributions and reading the responses to the questions—arf! 07:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Seems an excellent editor and Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies could certainly do with some more admin attention. Will (aka Wimt) 11:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Rettetast 14:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Excelent vandal fighter, see him around fighting vandals quite often. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I've seen Crazytales around everywhere, I think you'd make a great admin, not to mention the impressive answers to the questions, especially 1. Good luck --The Sunshine Man 15:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. The candidate's dedication to the project, answers to the questions, and ability to identify the areas in which he would be best-suited to emphasize his work as an administrator persude me that he is suited for adminship at this time. I am confident that certain mistakes he made are in the past and unlikely to be repeated. I will suggest to the candidate, as I have done with many others, that if his RfA is successful he take things slowly and never hesitate to consult with other admins if he has a question or wants a second opinion about an action. Newyorkbrad 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support agree with the above. Acalamari 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - we certainly don't need uptight, cranky admins. Sense of humor = Good Thing. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - quality editor, reasons for oppose are possibly even sillier than the reasons I was opposed. Keeping a sense of humour about vandalism will be critical to avoid burnout. WilyD 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - A good sense of humor is definitely critical to avoiding an overload of stress, and while he has made mistakes, I doubt he'll repeat them. Hannah Kerela 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing bureaucrat, this user has less than 50 edits total.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 07:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Support- He is a good editor, who knows Wiki policy. The edit count is low, and that is why I say weak support. Politics rule 19:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Great sense of humour. Will make a fine admin. ~ Wikihermit 22:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - In reviewing your edits, I see most of your mainspace edits are RV's - but in reviewing you Wikipedia space edits I see you are active in a moderate range of Wikipedia areas. I do not see handing you the mop as being a threat to Wikipedia. --Ozgod 02:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per brouhaha below. —AldeBaer 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support- good hearted friendly editor. There isn't any reasons why I should think of opposing. Francisco Tevez 10:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Slade (TheJoker)
  30. Support - The concerns in the "oppose" section seem misplaced and/or trivial, and your history suggests that I have nothing to fear from a Crazytales with a mop. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. This Candidate gets my vote as I see no reason to oppose. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 06:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Crazytales has establish his/her trustworthiness and should be elevated to admin. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support sure, seems sensible enough. Unsure why first opposer seems to be hunting for a reason to oppose. Riana (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify, Riana. I was mixed up at first because the of the banner on top of his page can be mistaken as canvassing, because the banner is rarely used. Second, I am opposing on maturity issues as well as lack of article writing. Clear? Miranda 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear? Lol... yes ma'am! :) Riana (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - You are an excellent vandal fighter who I think will use the tools well; I also like your civil and friendly nature. The oppose reasons do not concern me, after looking at the evidence I still think you are mature enough for adminship. Camaron1 | Chris 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support --Húsönd 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Looks like a good candidate and I'm comfortable with the answer to my question (Q10) --Richard 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - from personal interaction, I trust this user with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Advised by gracenotes to tone down my support message. But, we all know what was here =) --trey 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. You get my support too - good luck.--VS talk 16:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support See nothing to suggest would abuse the tools. Davewild 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I have dealt with the user several times, and they would definately make a good admin. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Terence 04:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I trust this user. While I can understand the oppose reasoning, it looks more like he merely has a sense of fun about him than pure silliness. - Zeibura (Talk) 05:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. User:Miranda has seemed to have performed exhaustive efforts to torpedo this RFA, and her reasons aren't that convincing. Therefore, I choose to support. -- Renesis (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, I don't think we will regret it. And humour is not a bad thing when it is done in good faith :) -- lucasbfr talk 17:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. What gaillimh said does make me nervous, but I think crazytales can take criticism to heart. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose Per canvassing, here. New reason to oppose shown below. Miranda 04:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read WP:RFA/N? User notification: While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfAs fail), some users find it helpful to place ((Rfa-notice)) on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed. It's not canvassing. --tennisman 04:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [ec x 3] Yeah, I have to agree that placing a notice on your own userpage isn't canvassing (of course, it shouldn't be surprising that I agree with that statement, saying as I wrote it...). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The link is to a single, standard ((RfA-notice)) template on the candidate's userpage. This does not violate either the letter or spirit of the anti-canvassing norm; after all, the template exists for a reason. It is important to think about the reasons we have a policy when one seeks to apply it to a given situation, especially when the context is something such as opposing a dedicated user's RfA. I honestly don't see why anyone would oppose a candidate for this reason. Newyorkbrad 04:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree about this oppose. Crazytales is not trying to solicit his/her opinion and/or asking people to support his/her RFA. Crazytales is just notifying people that he/she is undergoing an RFA and is asking people to add comments. That is in no way soliciting an opinion. Besides, that template is used a lot with other RFAs, as shown here, here, and here, and these are just the current RFAs. I really don't suppose you are also going to oppose those RFAs because of this template, and if so, I suggest you file a TfD instead of opposing RFAs. Diez2 04:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked over his edits from the past, and I saw this, which is kind of immature for an administrator. I have also discovered this log. Under #wikipedia policy, logs are not supposed to be published. I also believe this candidate lacks in knowledge of such policy of WP:BLP as well as WP:OWN. He is good at reverting vandalism, but sorry, vandalism fighting isn't all of what administrators do. Miranda 04:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (self-conflicted) About the first edit summary: That has since been dealt with in his previous RfA and in his work since then. The log: Did you not notice the This is a query, and I have permission to post the log.? That means he is not violating policy. --tennisman 04:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That log had the express permission of both users, it was also a private chat, and its a Freenode rule, like seriously...Freenode, yeah. --MichaelLinnear 04:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Miranda, I would appreciate it if you please struck accusations that have been shown to be false. Thank you, GracenotesT § 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't agree with these incidents, specifically this and this and definitely not this. Shows immaturity of administrator. Also, the edit summary is not as high. Miranda 04:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting a picture like that on a userpage of someone who says they are "openly gay" was probably not the best thing to do. --MichaelLinnear 04:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, since when does having a sense of humor make you immature? (I'm talking about the bilge pump comment) I've made plenty of worse comments... EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Crazytales was very polite in telling the anon that he wouldn't suck his dick. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has ever said that to me politely so right now I am leaning towards support. daveh4h 05:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    i can understand the new reasoning. I posted a message at his talk page asking him to talk about it as soon as he gets back tomorrow. As for me, I'm off. Any nominator things will need to wait a bit. --tennisman 04:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandal fighting shows immaturity? Yeah right... G1ggy Talk/Contribs 04:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The bilge comment I didn't even take to mean anything besides a witty retort to the vandalism. Perhaps edit summaries should always be serious, but I think even the best admins have probably something worse in an edit summary than this. As for the fellatio comment, I personally avoid using colorful language, and may be an instance of biting a newcomer, even if the newcomer was an obvious vandal. It's always best to be stern, but polite and not sink to a vandal's level. These alone clearly are not enough to deny support. However, what bothers me the most is editing another's user page. I would like an explanation for that edit. Thanks.-Andrew c 01:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Crazytales responded to it on the RfA talk page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (reduce indent) The bilge comment can be misconstrued as either this or this, even though it was cleaning up vandalism. I also don't appreciate people who are supporting this RFA ask me why I am opposing a candidate. I have no vendetta on Crazytales. I just believe that an administrator should have more maturity on how to handle situations, if a certain person were to vandalize a page or make personal attacks. I also nominated the template which I opposed on previously for WP:TFD. Cheers. Miranda 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, while it certainly wasn't intended to be harassment, it was obviously interpreted as such, which is why I apologized. Not sure what else I can do to "make it right". And, for the record, I haven't supported this candidate; I haven't yet had time to thoroughly go through CT's contributions, though I am keeping an eye on the RfA regardless. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Miranda, if you're trying to torpedo this RfA (seems to be the popular thing to do nowadays), I should probably mention that you should either try much harder or refrain. No offense intended, but... please, there are quite a few AGF violations here. Few of your complaints indicate that Crazytales would actually make a bad editor, let alone a bad admin, although there has been quite a bit of FUD and misinterpretation of policy. Maturity is an issue to be considered, but (in my humble opinion) not in the manner you are considering it. This is not to see that Crazytales would make a good admin (I'm not *that* familiar with his activities on-wiki), but from this alone I am not convinced he would be a bad one. I apologize if I am being too frank here. Cheers, GracenotesT § 06:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gracenotes, please quit doing this. I and many others do not have time for those type of remarks. I have already made my statement. Let it be. Miranda 09:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Miranda, stop being this.--trey 23:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I feel that User:Crazytales still has a lot of maturing and developing to do before becoming an admin. Their average edits have been on the decline for the past few months and it seems that they only revert vandalism. While this is an excellent trait for admins, it does not warrent the need for the tools. I think more involvement in actual article development and editing will be key. Also, two failed attempts prior to this RfA does not give a good precursor to this nomination. - Andrew4010 08:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain in more detail what you mean by needs more maturing? Also how do you address the very recent edits to the article proper that are not semiauto reverts. Additionally, I'm not sure how you apply two failed nominations as anything other than an opportunity to improve. Thoughts? Navou 13:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As an admin you are supposed to demonstrate a level of high regard and respect for the position that you hold. While the job can be taking lightly, you still need to set an example for the other users that the Wikipedia Project is something that can not be taken lightly. While I do like the attempts to improve after failing RfA twice, I believe this user still needs more experience in the namespace before attempting to revert vandalism. This experience could be valuable for CrazyTales to be more decisive in determining if something is truly vandalism, meets criteria for speedy delete, or even AfD. This is nothing personal, but my own opinion by look at their contributions. -Andrew4010 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am strongly opposed to this candidate's request. Regardless of what the nominator or the candidate have implied in their statements, Crazytales certainly doesn't add any meaningful content to articles. In fact, he rarely edits them at all. Since February he has about 150 mainspace contributions, and while I'm not sure I've ever referred to an "edit count" in an RfA, this statistic is telling in that his encyclopedia contributions have been rather overstated. This sort of snarky behaviour is not the entire reason for my opposition, of course, although it's certainly worth mentioning, especially as Wikipedia doesn't need these types of people clicking extra buttons (in fact, we should eschew these sorts of requests, as the people making them do not fully realise our goals). "These types" does not refer to what are colloquially known as "wikignomes", of course. They refer to people like Crazytales, who are immature bullies (while I haven't been on IRC in some time, I've found him to lack any semblance of social graces and am a bit stymied as to how he's allowed to kick and ban people from channels, which he does at a rate of reguarlity, often just to show that he is able to do so). While IRC stuff of course has no tangible bearing on Wikipedia itself (as an entity), it is certainly relevant in character assessment, as has been shown recently in other venues on-wiki. Apologies for the strong language, but I feel it is necessary, as quite a few of the people supporting his request are people I have a lot of respect for, and I feel that they have been misled by this fellow and his nominator. gaillimhConas tá tú? 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the restructuring of #wikipedia, I've had my access removed. I do admit i was a bit loose in using it. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While it may in some cases be an indicator as to behavior and maturity, I believe that Crazytales is applying for Wikipedia adminship, not IRC Operator status, and as such, we should be looking at his behavior on Wikipedia, not IRC. Given that, what you have left is that he has a low amount of mainspace contributions, according to some edit tool. Did you consider his other account when reporting "150 mainspace contributions"? As far as I can see, that's the only substantial arguement you're presenting here. WHeimbigner 03:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That only adds about 15 edits, none of which are particularly substantial.[1]--Chaser - T 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose as per gaillimh. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose as per maturity issues described above. — N96 22:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    Note: This user joined Wikipedia on 9th June, about 15 days ago. Majorly (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose The applicant's response to question 6 is unacceptable. WP:IAR is not a license for brazenly abusive administrative action. — Republicofwiki 04:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC) — Republicofwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Indef. blocked user. Miranda 04:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How does his answer to Q6 imply that he would brazenly abuse the tools? What is incorrect about the example. I'm not making the connection, thanks. Navou 10:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maturity issues as per Gaillimh -- Y not? 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose due to maturity concerns and per Gaillimh. Sean William @ 15:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I'm not sure about this candidate, for reasons outlined above in the oppose section, but I do feel that the candidate should be ready for the mop. I honestly don't know what to thunk. Stwalkerster talk 11:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now Could you give the reason for the sharp decline in activity for 2007 as compare to the previous months? DGG 17:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was somewhat bogged down with school and internet connection difficulties in late 2006 and early 2007. Now that school's over and my internet's fixed, I'll have more time to contribute. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 18:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that was what i guessed from the timing. -- but I notice something else: on Q6 you said that IAR meant one should ignore rules whenever that was good for the encyclopedia, which seems a little over-broad (the example you gave, though, was a perfectly appropriate use) Could you expand a little further? DGG 16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, found CT's response to Q6 troubling. I would suggest that the response be modified to more narrowly constrain the cases where an editor, especially an admin, can ignore an established policy. "good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia" could be construed quite broadly. --Richard 17:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His wording did catch me a bit; the answer as it stands is not unreasonable (unless you assume bad faith in interpretation). However, no assumption (whether good-faith or bad-faith) will be required if Crazytales goes into more detail. I agree with DGG here. GracenotesT § 07:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with it? It's nearly the exact wording of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. (messedrocker • talk) 05:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, the answer is reasonable (by no means against the spirit of IAR). However, I should note that rephrasing does not show understanding, and while I do not doubt that Crazytales understand IAR, a bit more analysis would assuage me muchly (not a word). GracenotesT § 14:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I like most of what I see, but the maturity issues raised by several editors leaves too much of a bad taste in my mouth. Sorry. Jmlk17 05:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral This is a request about which I am truly ambivalent. There is nothing so glaring as on its face to disqualify Crazytales from adminship, but there are several minor issues—most troublesome for me, I should say, is not that the candidate may not have the mature demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite propitious, but, instead, that he appears to embrace a broad understanding of IAR for which a consensus of the community does not exist; I cannot say that I am entirely certain that he might not, qua admin, substitute his judgment for the collective judgment of other editors expressed in an insular discussion but in consideration of broader policies and guidelines to which the community has acceded, or might not, in any event, act in a fashion inconsistent with the idea that adminship is ministerial in nature (viz., that admins act only to divine for what action a consensus exists and then to effect such action)—that speak to his fitness for adminship, the cumulative effect of which is to lead me to believe that I cannot conclude with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive; neither can I say with any confidence that Crazy is likely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally) the tools or otherwise to have a net negative effect on the project, and so I !vote neutral. Joe 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Way too few edits to make any reasonable conclusions. Neutral. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category