Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cryptic C62

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Cryptic C62

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

Final (39/34/6); Closed by Rlevse at 21:43, 05 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I've come upon situations like this before, and I'm sure I'll see them again. As an occasional RC Patroller and a participant in various drives, such as the aforementioned biographical DOB correction drive, I am exposed to lots of pages. Although errors such as the Arch Hall incident are somewhat infrequent, the number of pages I view and edit ensures that I do come across them from time to time. I came to the conclusion that, for my own convenience and for the efficiency of the project as a whole, I should be granted request1 administrator privileges. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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

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

Additional question from Keepscases:

4. In several places in your user page, you direct users to pornography-related articles without making it clear that's where the link goes. Why is this?
A: I believe Neurolysis sufficiently answered my question below, but just to reiterate, I know of no links to pr0n-related articles. I linked to the Pornography FAC because it has some very witty comments on it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Tan | 39 21:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find one pornography-related link, and it isn't to an article. It links to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pornography/archive1. — neuro(talk) 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here too. Townlake (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, that isn't an article. Second, it's not related to pornography. Third, both that page and the sentence in which I link to it explain precisely its purpose. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Featured Players" page has a "this" link to Wikipedia's Pornography article. Keepscases (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ja that is a bit puzzling. Dlohcierekim 15:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Ched:

5. On your user page you mention Finished Projects', could you explain what you mean by finished? (Accepting the review items that have closed as self-evident)
"Finished" does not imply that the article itself is finished, for a Wikipedia article is never finished! "Finished" means that I have brought it to whatever level I was aiming for (DYK, GA, FA) and don't plan on contributing anything further. In the case of translations, "finished" means I have translated as much of the article as I can understand and have added the page to the appropriate Wiki. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6 As a self-nom, have you requested and/or received any coaching from any of the existing administrators? If yes, could you tell us your experiences in that project.
I have neither requested nor received admin coaching. As arrogant as this may sound, I generally don't ask for mentorship or lessons in any of my pursuits. I much prefer to explore on my own and simply ask questions when necessary. As fun as it is to play guitar, there's also that extra special something there for me and people like me, that little boost of confidence that comes with the pride of having learned on my own. It may seem silly to try to justify a lack of coaching with a story about guitar playing, but my experiences on Wikipedia have followed the same pattern (as I'm sure it has for many others). I didn't have everything spelled out for me nor did I ask to hold someone's hand, nor did I try to do everything all at once. I simply experimented with different aspects of Wikipedia, chipping away, slowly assembling (what I hope to be) a firm understanding of Wikipedia as a whole. The admin tools are simply the next step in this slow but exciting process. It would seem silly to me to try to break away from this pattern that I have enjoyed and which has, in my opinion, been quite successful for me, both on- and off-wiki. To those who I have struck as being arrogant either in the past, on this RfA, or even in this very answer, my apologies, but this is how I think, and this is how I work. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Imperat§ r(Talk):

7. Can you explain why the Wikipedia community should place trust in your policy knowledge despite your lack of edits in that area (such as WP:UAA, WP:AfD, etc)?
A while back, I asked for rollback privileges and received them. At the time, I did not dedicate a very significant portion of my time to RC Patrol, nor did I know a whole lot about rollbacking. However, I asked for the tool because it would provide a boost in efficiency for the times when I did do RC Patrol. Upon receiving the tool, I continued about my activities as usual. I came upon a situation in which rollbacking would come in handy. I read the relevant guidelines and policies to make sure that I was doing the right thing, and I did it. To this day, I have (to my knowledge) only used rollback incorrectly on one occasion, one in which I misinterpreted an addition as being vandalism.
I also asked for permission to use WP:AWB and received it. Again, I didn't know a whole lot about AWB, nor did I have a grand plan to become an avid AWBer. It simply seemed like a convenient way to complete a tedious task (changing "gamma ray burst" to "gamma-ray burst" in a series of articles). Once granted the permission, I read up on how to use it and when not to use it, decided that I was acting appropriately, and used it.
The situation is precisely the same here. If ever I were to decide to branch out into an area of admin work with which I am not familiar, I will be sure to thoroughly review all relevant guidelines and policies to be sure that I am making the correct decision. Perhaps the question on everyone's mind is now "But Cryptic, what if you're lying and you use the tools more than you said you would?" Well, if that happens, just call me liar and I'll give up the tools. Adminship is not a title and it's not something get into a tussle over, it's just a convenience (at least to me).
8. Yes, I am aware that this is a dry question, but what is the difference between a ban and a block? Please include specifics, such as mentioning hard blocks, etc.
Crackers are dry, too, but they're still tasty. A block prevents edits from being made from a user or a specified IP address. This is most often implemented in the case of persistent vandalism after sufficient warnings have been given. A "soft block" allows logged-in users to edit from a blocked IP, such as in the case of public computers which can be accessed by many different people. A "hard block", on the other hand, prevents everyone (besides admins) from editing at that IP. This is used to prevent vandals from creating accounts simply as a way of getting around a soft block. Generally speaking, blocked IPs and users are still allowed to edit their own talk page (so they may appeal the block), unless the IP/user has repeatedly abused the talk page. A ban, on the other hand, is a revocation of editing privileges as the result of a dispute resolution process (such as ArbCom), but a ban does not technically prevent the user from editing. Bans are often specific to the topic or article around which the dispute resolution process was centered, but this is not always the case. Blocks can be used as a measure of enforcing a ban, but they are not the same! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Give the criteria in which a username would be unacceptable.
A username should not give the false impression that the user has privileges that s/he does not, meaning it cannot include "admin", "bureaucrat", "steward", nor should it end in "bot". Domain names and email addresses are prohibited. Usernames should not be chosen for the purpose of imitating other user names (such as "CharlieSoxFan" and "Char1ieS0xFan") or of real people. Although many user names are based off the real name of the user, in cases in which the user's name is the same as or very similar to a very famous name, the user should either make it clear that they are not the famous person or should choose a username that does not imply any connection. Usernames gnerally should not be the names of companies/corporations/groups/whatever because use of Wikipedia for the promotion of any such group is (obviously) prohibited. Although Wikipedia is not censored, usernames should not be offensive, nor should they be an attack on any person or group of people (such as racial slurs).
10. When is a non-free image allowed to be used?
Generally speaking, a non-free image should only be used when there is no free alternative that serves the same purpose. In other words, if there is a free image that can adequately illustrate a subject or point, it should be used before a non-free image is used. In this case, the non-free image should include a rationale which explains why it is being used and which insures that it complies with all of the non-free use guidelines. There are also specific instances when non-free images should never be used, such as high-resolution commercial photographs, as these could potentially prevent the author from profiting from their work.

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

11. As an admin, is it ever appropriate to block or threaten to block an editor who asks for a second set of eyes to review your actions?
Of course not! Every single area of Wikipedia benefits greatly from multiple perspectives, why should admin work be any different? Also, I'm willing to AGF and not take it personally when someone questions my actions. Besides, even the editor in question asked to review my actions in a snarly, snarky, mean way, the worst they could receive for it would be a an informal warning. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Stifle

12. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a building which is still standing be used on Wikipedia? (Assume that there is appropriate freedom of panorama in the country where the building located.) Stifle (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that particular non-free photograph has its own article (such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima) or if the image, because of the way it portrays the building, is the subject of well-sourced and verifiable commentary, it may be used. Also, while the building might still be standing, it may have also changed significantly in appearance since the photograph was taken, and a new free photograph would not be able to adequately provide the same historical context as the old non-free photograph would. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
  • You have 2k edits in approximately three years. Why is the activity rate so low? miranda 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, 2962 is closer to 3k than it is to 2k. Anywho, if you take a look at the graphs available on this edit counter page, you'll say that I went through two periods of almost total inactivity. The first was from September 2006 through December 2006. This was shortly after my failed nomination of Westport Country Playhouse. I was stupid and heartbroken, so I got bummed out for a while and didn't edit much. The second, from July 2007 through January 2008, was probably because I was doing an internship during that summer and just didn't get back into the habit of editing until midway through the school year. If you take out those chunks of time, my ~3000 edits have been made in a cumulative 25 months, not 36 months. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If you look at some user pages and talk on Wikipedia, such behavior does exist. miranda 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but not being funny, why does the fact that it goes on mean I should budge position and support it? Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Before making any sort of judgement calls, people need to look themselves in the mirror, first. This is just a website, not a social club. miranda 20:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've got a problem with me Miranda take it to my talk not this RFA. Pedro :  Chat  20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the things that I love about the internet (and especially Wikipedia) is that anyone can be anyone they want to be. Because users generally have a fairly large time window in which to formulate responses to statements, they have the opportunity to communicate more effectively and calmly than in real life. My user page is a reflection of my real life personality, not my Wikipedia self. If you really are worried that I am arrogant or self indulgent, I invite you to peruse my conversations with others on Wikipedia to try to find any indication of those characteristics. To the best of my knowledge, you will find none. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A fair reply, and I note Tan's comments above. This may well be a cultural thing, noting that you are from America. In the US it may well be that your comments are just big bold statements, and perfectly fine. In my part of rural England they look worringly akin to "I can do anything - including block you without thought or delete your article without care - 'cause I can". You clearly state above that your user page is a reflection of your real life personality - well I for one would hope you real personality would be the one you use to edit WP. For these reasons I do not trust you with +sysop. Apologies, but this isn't a vote, simply my thoughts. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I may be somewhat out of line with this, but if "this isn't a vote", would it be kosher for you/me/us to move this discussion to the General Comments section so as not to imply that it is a vote? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a big long reply lined up - but I really don't care. Strike the whole lot if you like. Frankly with < 850 odd active sysops we need all the help we can get these days - and there are plenty of people already with the bit who are far worse than any "arogance" I might see in your user page comment. Do what you want mate - I couldn't give a toss. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it must be a cultural thing. In the States, the idea that one can do anything he/she puts his/her mind to is widely held and universally promoted. I'd never have understood "I can do anything" as reflecting arrogance; I read it as blithe and, to the extent it is substantive, an expression of a gentle confidence and optimism. The diametric constructions follow, I imagine, from a difference over "I can"; you read it as "I have the power/right" and I read it as "I have within my capacity, through effort". For that we might reasonably blame the period March 2003-January 2009, during which "We can do anything" represented a vision of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny. I don't know, though, that it's fair, in the absence of evidence that the candidate has operated (or would operate as an admin) with arrogance, that we resolve an amibiguity in favor of the more pernicious construction; I, for one, am inclined to AGF and conclude (unless, I would note again, a deeper inquiry reveals independent grounds on which to base conclusions about the candidate's temperament) that the statement is an innocuous one, and at worst to suggest that, because a user must never be afraid to question an admin (who is, of course, a servant of the community) and because some might misunderstand the "I can" language, the candidate recast the line. 68.76.159.202 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, I don't think many people find it humorous. Look at it this way: There are thousands of people who have contributed to a featured article in some way or another. For you to brag that you are one of approximately two people who have had a relationship during that time could be viewed as uncivil to some people. I don't want to force you to do anything about it, as it is your page, but if you agree with my assessment, I'd tag it for U1. Tavix (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will do that. I had intended for lots of active (wink wink) FA writers to add their names to the list as a jab to the stereotype that encyclopedia writers are incapable of conversing with members of their preferred sex. However, no one really noticed the page (except Rmrfstar, the list never grew, and it seems now that people were offended by it more than anything. It's not worth getting into a tussle over; it was never meant to be anything more than a silly little thing. U1 it is! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised how many people on the internet have lives (Hell, I can't remember how many editors I know who are married). The people who usually don't are precisely the people who claim others don't.--Pattont/c 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't referring to "the people who usually don't" constitute an instance of "claim(ing) others don't"? --Teratornis (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Strong support. Hell yes. Good experience, no red flags, clearly states why he needs the admin tools and how he will use them. I disagree with Pedro's assessment below - either the statement is sarcastic, in which case I don't care; or he likes to brag, in which case I don't care. It's probably the former, but either way, I don't see how this impacts whether or not we trust him with the bit. Tan | 39 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Totally agree with Tan. miranda 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Count me as in agreement with Tan (and Miranda). No problems that I can see here. --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seems fine to me. I read the statement on the userpage, and I interpreted it as humorous. I don't see how it's arrogant or why it indicates that Cryptic C62 will turn into a bully upon being granted adminship. Acalamari 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Looks fine to me. The line that worked Pedro up i took to be humour, which i think is invaluable in an admin. Nothing indicates any likelihood to go nuts with the tools, no blocks and looks like he expects to avoid the hotspots, at least to start with. --GedUK  21:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per Tan. SimonKSK 21:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No worries. Artichoker[talk] 21:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked and has various awards on userpage. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - iMatthew // talk // 22:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Serious scientific contributions, good use of edit summaries and communicates well. Some personal banter and braggadacio that seems a bit brash and American to me, but the clean block log and my trawl through the candidates contributions, talk page and talk archive reassure me that the editing attitude is OK, a quick look through your deleted contributions didn't unearth any skeletons either. As for the opposes, a reassurance from the candidate that links to potentially offensive sites will be more appropriately labelled in future would be appreciated. WereSpielChequers 23:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I have no problems supporting this Triple Crown winner. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - I find that statement on his userpage to be nothing more than humorous, but regardless, Cryptic C62 should be a fine administrator. As always, we have to ask ourselves if we can trust the user not to abuse the tools, and the answer is yes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Lean Support - I'm leaning support because I somehow didn't bite your head off during our dispute, which means that I didn't find a reason to not like you then. So, if that was then, and this is now, well, yeah. Plus, you know about Candide, so that is a bonus. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per Juliancolton. LittleMountain5 02:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I see no major red flags to suggest that this user will abuse or even misuse the tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support Wizardman 06:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support User has good edits and a good distribution over many areas of WP. I'm not worried if Cryptic (or any potential admin) won't be using tools their fullest potential or doesn't "need" them - clueful editors like this benefit from having the tools, even if they're not 24/7 wiki addicts like (we know who we are). FlyingToaster 08:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Won't delete main page. Might poke fun at Most Glorious Revered Founder if provoked. Would do good work, I feel. Not stuffy. --StaniStani  16:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. He may put some humor on his user page, but I don't think he'd do it on the Main Page (except maybe on April 1). Good record of contributions, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. Cool3 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support. The oppositions appear to be flimsy and petty. I am quite sure this user can be trusted and we should take the first step toward reforming the RFA process right here by promoting this candidate. Jehochman Talk 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    RFA has been getting steadily better, as evidenced by the fact that we haven't had a rationale as insulting and off-base as this one in quite a while.Striking since Jehochman is being nice and striking :) How was my rationale flimsy and petty? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that comments like the one I just made sometimes violate DICK, but after spending a month studying RFAs, I've realized how much energy people put into doing research and then saying the minimum necessary to get the job done, and I see a lot of that same care in both the support and the opposition once again in this RFA. I mean what I said above literally; I'm racking my brain, and I can't remember a recent RFA where someone threw insults in a blanket fashion at the entire opposition; I'm going through all the 2008 RFAs again this weekend, and I'll keep a lookout for that. That kind of language was from the bad old days of RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel that you have made a rude comment, then strike it. The remark you left on the candidate's talk page was bothersome to mealso unhelpful. You have stated your opinion, as you are entitled to do. Now stop badgering and attempting to intimidate those who disagree with you. I looked at the reasons stated in the opposition and found none to be convincing. The reasons there, judged as a whole, are poor reasons. They are flimsy and petty. That's how I feel, but I am rather liberal about RFA and will only oppose for strong reasons. Others may have different standards than I do. That's perfectly fine. Jehochman Talk 22:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me reinforce my poor, meta reasons: I have worked closely with the candidate on Gamma-ray burst. He is one of the finest editors I have met, with high standards, attention to detail, and integrity. I am quite convinced he will make a fine administrator, if not now, then later. I recognize that others who judge the candidate based on limited interaction might come to a different conclusion in good faith. Jehochman Talk 23:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really glad you wrote that; I understand that you're angry about how Cryptic is being treated. I can support you this far: some of the opposition is saying that the candidate is arrogant, and I'm having a hard time understanding how we can correctly diagnose ego problems by looking at a few pixels on a screen; people are more complicated than that. The reason I'm not getting offended is, I'm translating what they're saying to this: he sometimes sounds as if he might be arrogant, and communication problems are very relevant to RFA. I didn't ask the question on Cryptic's talk page about withdrawing to badger him, I asked because I didn't know where his head is at; this must be difficult, and past some point, nothing is served by piling on. But he responded that he's in a positive mood and learning a lot, so we're fine, so far. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Absolutely. One of the best workmates I've had the pleasure of collaborating with in ages.  GARDEN  22:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I think so. I think we need admins that keep a low profile. Hayley»(talk) 00:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. support because my WP:NONEED oppose was a poor argument after all :) fr33kman -s- 01:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support: I know Cryptic in real life and can say quite assuredly that he can be trusted with all of the admin tools. Cryptic is a dedicated and responsible editor who will only be able to help our project more with a "mop" in hand. It's that simple: giving him adminship will help the project. Cryptic does not act in an "arrogant" fashion beyond posting witty sayings on his user page. He is a quirky person, but his editorship is impeccable, and admins are not supposed to be boring, which is what the oppose votes are asking him to be. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support—while on the one hand it would be nice if Cryptic C62 phrased some things in different ways, I don't see a significant chance that he will use the tools inappropriately. I don't see any evidence of significant misconduct, so I trust that that will continue to be the case, mop in hand. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Should do nothing but good with the new tools. User seems sound of mind and can write content with the best of them. No prior incidents that would leave me to vote otherwise. §hepTalk 01:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support User is extremely unlikely to break the Wiki or delete the mainpage. Other than that, the user is civil, clueful and shows no negative character traits that I associate with poor admin candidates. I see no reason to oppose. Trusilver 10:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support User is extremely competent, know what he is doing, and will be a great addition to wikipedia. Fahadsadah (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Experience is in question, but I am supporting solely to make up for the couple of opposes based on a userpage joke, which I believe they have misconstrued. Chick Bowen 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support -- cheerful, does useful things around here. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 08:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support userpage content doesn't bother me in the slightest (I understand it is a matter of interpretation, and AGF with the 'With the right amount of work, I can achieve any goal' one), edit summary usage is fine, also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 09:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Valuable contributor, good answers to questions. The opposes, some of which are barely articulate, focus on perceived character flaws based on misinterpreted humour and cultural differences. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per Nihiltres. PhilKnight (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Poses no threat to the project. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support There are some very legitimate concerns in the Oppose section, but I think granting Cryptic C62 the tools would be a net gain for the project, as long as he (and don't take this the wrong way) grows up a bit. This RfA seems unlikely to pass at this point, but that might actually be a blessing in disguise. If it doesn't, Cryptic can take a few months and prove to everyone that the maturity concerns are overstated. faithless (speak) 05:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. While lack of project space edits are a concern, but strong article writing is key, as it gives editors a perspective on all of the key wikipedia policies that vandal fighters and AFDers who usually pass a RFA without much problem lacks. I really want the oppose section to reconsider, we need more article writers administrators. Also the userpage thing isn't a big deal. Secret account 14:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - I'd recommend that must of the opposers go read the humor article. Multiple times if necessary. Neither the "featured players" business nor the "I can do anything" should have any bearing on this. I'm not sure why people are being so uppity. The user appears intelligent, well-meaning, and willing to learn. The user also appears to want the mop as a matter of practicality and I have no reason to believe this user will misuse the tools. Oren0 (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to several at once: you're all right, there's less of a meeting of the minds on this candidate than we've had in a while, which will make for an interesting discussion after the RFA. The bottom line is that the candidate says he's doing fine with all the drama, he's gotten a lot of very positive support (including anger at the opposition, which also probably makes the candidate feel good), the RFA community has asserted its right to ask for improvement in various ways before handing out a mop, and there seems to be a lot of support for the idea that he'll pass in the future if he pays attention to the more constructive suggestions. No animals were harmed in the making of this RFA; all is well (with the process, although individuals retain the right to be pissed off). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously people can oppose for any reason they choose. I just think that some of the reasons given are silly. I'm not trying to personally attack anyone, nor should Cryptic take these opposes personally. But seriously, opposing because of the "featured players" comment? Oren0 (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support No red flags, I think yes for Cryptic to be a sysop. Ginbot86 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - I agree with WSC. I doubt that Cryptic's adminship would detrimentally add to the entropic processes within The Wiki; I think it may be a net positive, actually. I wish you a favorable statistical outcome. —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Sorry, not yet. Also per Pedro. -download | sign! 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose The opening on his user page makes him sound egosticital (I know I spelled that wrong).--Giants27 T|C 20:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    egotistical :-) The opening line seems like a joke to me (and to many other editors). If you look at the talk page of the user and his (I might be making a gender assumption) interactions with others, I don't see this as an issue. Stuff like this comes across as polite and shows that he asks questions rather than just bull dozing his way through (and there are numerous such examples). --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 02:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Not sure candidate understands the CSD process, based on nom statement and answer to Q1. Townlake (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of the CSD process is thus: A non-admin adds the CSD tag with the relevant criteria, an admin who sees the tag (either by happening upon the page or by checking Category:Candidates for speedy deletion) can, if he/she agrees with the user, delete the page. Alternatively, if an admin finds a page s/he deems to qualify for CSD, s/he can delete it outright without having to add the CSD tag, so long as s/he mentions the relevant criteria. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those are practical steps, but there's more to it than that. Townlake (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, never too late to learn. What other steps are you talking about? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I applaud your eagerness to learn, and I'm not ignoring your question, but it's simply not answerable in this forum - too complex. I recommend you get your hands dirty with CSD tagging, and review the essays and other insightful CSD-related stuff at It's Spartacus's user page, then come back for another RFA - if this one does not pass - with a CSD record to evaluate. (And I hope you're taking this in the constructive spirit I intend; I appreciate that you want to volunteer your talents to help this way.) Townlake (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose You want to work at AFD and CSD, but you have little experience with either there. Your work is good so far; when you've got more experience in those areas, I look forward to supporting. Useight (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, where on this page do my words imply that I want to work at AFD? I have no intention of working at AFD, as explicitly stated in my response to Question 1. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I misread that sentence. Struck portion above. Useight (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per pedro. Arrogance and dismissiveness is your off-wiki personality? All right, I can buy that. Oh wait, you have a "raccoon-like ability to adapt" as well now? What happened to keeping it off-wiki? It is completely impossible to entirely seperate off- and on-wiki personalities, and if elements of your "off-wiki" personality as described on your userpage are going to leak into your "on-wiki" actions (which they eventually will) then you would not make an appropriate administrator. Ironholds (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I really like some of his recent work. But he has a "listen to me, I'm always right" way of talking that really causes problems when it's coming out of the mouth of an admin. I'm not saying he has a character flaw, and I might support him next time he runs, if he has worked hard in the meantime. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of me being able to defend myself and for others to see your point, would you mind finding/linking to examples? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to look farther than this page. "To the best of my knowledge, you will find none"; really? Also, your reply to Townlake. If you need more, I can give you more, but I'd rather not. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really not sure how to defend myself here, neither of those two seem arrogant or offensive to me. The first is simply an honest and open invitation for anyone and everyone to dig through my dealings and bring about examples of poor conduct. I say again: To the best of my knowledge, you will find none. I'm not saying that everyone else is wrong or stupid, I'm saying that I'm confident in what I've done. As for my response to Townlake, what's wrong with that? Clearly he knows something that I don't know (but I should), and I want to learn. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You indicated on your talk page you're doing fine and learning a lot, and one of the supporters doesn't think much of my rationale, so I'll keep going. If you don't see the problem with your response to Townlake, would an analogy help? "I don't think you know RFA well enough." "Of course I know what do to at RFA, I answered the 3 questions, and then transcluded." It's the kind of response that deflects rather than answers the implied question. When you're an admin, people will constantly be saying things hesitantly, and not telling you everything they're thinking. If you give quick, over-simplified answers, it's not going to just cause problems for you, it's going to cause problems for all of us when people complain that admins won't listen to them. On the other point, "you will find none", i.e. no indications in any of your contributions that you might be arrogant or self-indulgent, I would never vote for someone at RFA who didn't have at least some indications of arrogance and self-indulgence :) A certain amount of self-love is necessary for a long and prosperous wiki-career; if you wait til someone else strokes you before you do anything, you won't get much done. The trick is knowing when it comes across as too much, and being willing to ask if you don't know. Here you have a room full of people saying that it sometimes comes across as too much, which suggests that "you will find none" might be an overstatement. From your talk page, it sounds like you're keeping a positive attitude; good. Take some of the opposition arguments in; it's good stuff. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to quibble, but your example of "to the best of my knowledge ...." as being indicative of an 'I'm always right' characteristic (or even arrogance, though, of course, you don't say that) is, IMO, not a good one. All I can see is someone saying "I've tried my best to conduct myself in a way that is not arrogant or self-indulgent, and I can't think of examples where I haven't done that in a reasonable way." Just a thought. I scanned his edits on user talk pages and found a reasonably reasonable person - matter of fact, asks questions and seeks advice when necessary, and definitely doesn't exhibit a 'Cryptic C62 knows best' personality. Admittedly, I've only scanned the talk pages and could have missed the smoking gun but I am having a really hard time understanding this whole 'arrogance' thing. --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 02:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Editor_review/Dank55 from last summer is an example of how it's sometimes "too much". He's been getting better; another 3 months of similar progress, and I'll be much more comfortable handing him a mop. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Hmm, I think it is interesting to note that Cryptic said he has no intention of working at AfD when this and this seems to say otherwise. Also, if the only reason Cryptic wants the tools for is because of CSD, I really don't see much experience with the process to show that he is ready for them. Tavix (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was never my intention to imply that I had never ever participated in an AfD, and if that's the message that got across, my apologies. My participation in AfDs is a very rare and random thing; it is not an area of Wikipedia that I regularly participate in purely for the sake of doing it. Just to clarify: I have no intention of regularly participating in AfDs nor of evaluating consensus and closing AfDs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, thanks for clarifying. I kind of assumed that's what you meant, I just wanted to make sure. My main concern, however, is my second point. If you are going to go around doing CSDs, I feel you need more experience with them as I don't see any proof of you dealing with them regularly. Tavix (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I could make a glib comment or a 'per above' but I won't. The userpage is worrying enough that I would want to see more from him than than the spurt of editing in the last month (Indeed, the last few days, before the self nom). The user seems to indicate he wants to use the mop to 'sweep' up infront of him, and with such concerns and such a minor use of tools, combined it makes me say 'Not quite yet'. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for my own information, where does it indicate that I've had a spurt of activity in the days prior to this RfA? The edit counters I look at all graph edit counts by month. Also, if such a spurt exists, it is probably due to my participation in Wikipedia:Biographical_pages_with_several_incompatible_dates_of_birth over the past few weeks, for fixing 200+ entries requires making 200+ edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic C62 (talk • contribs)
  9. Regretful Oppose You seem an eager and good editor, but for someone who says he wants to do speedy deletions as the only thing he wants the mop at all, you have virtually no experience in that area I could judge from. I simply cannot evaluate how you will use the tools if granted and, sorry for that but, I don't like to support someone I cannot predict at all. Regards SoWhy 22:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Even though you appear to be a decent article contributor, I noticed a problem with your lack of participation in the Wikipedia area. For example, edit count doesn't show me a single policy with more than 13 edits. I suggest withdrawal and re-nominating after 2-3 months in which you have had participation in WP:AFD, WP:UAA, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and others. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose; your statement "I am one of the few Wikipedians to have improved an article to Featured status and maintained a relationship with a real person at the same time" is insulting to the entire WP:FA community; and, indeed, to the entire Wikipedia community as a whole. Hence, you do not show an attitude becoming of an administrator. It Is Me Here t / c 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That statement was pure humor. He's linked to the article on Francium, an element. Folks should check their facts carefully when commenting negatively at RFA. We owe it to each other to be kind, not to hurt feelings with misplaced criticism. Jehochman Talk 22:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Regretful Oppose Excellent contributions, but I don't see enough administrative/ maintenance/ policy experience. His attitude worries me a little bit, "I love myself. I can do anything... I am one of the few Wikipedians to have improved an article to Featured status and maintained a relationship with a real person at the same time" rings of arrogance, sysops are ambassadors for Wikipedia, and that type of attitude might come off as bitey or uncivil. Branch out into XFD's, vandal fighting, and whatnot, give it a few more months and I will be very enthusiastic to support. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sysops are decidedly not "ambassadors for Wikipedia. They are just users with a few more buttons on their screens. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - Not to cause anyone to get "bumned out", but "anywho", this is one of the weakest and most self-serving arguments for adminship I have ever seen. He/she may othewise be a good editor, but definitely not admin material. Ward3001 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - Not seeing enough experience in the areas the candidate wants to work in. That said, I take the 'insults' quoted above to be jokes, to be honest, but if they aren't I think this user has the complete wrong attitude. — neuro(talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - I think you are a great editor who does very good work on articles and helps build Wikipedia. You stay out of trouble and you know what you are doing. However, you simply don't seem to have any real use for the mop, and your answer to Q1 above clearly indicates that. I see not much rollback use, not a lot of deletion requestions, etc. There are already people in place to deal with the few requests for admin help you make and I can't seem to find a need. Sorry! fr33kman -s- 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if they perform just one admin action after getting the tools, they will be of benefit to the encyclopaedia as an administrator - I don't see how seeing 'no need' is a concern. — neuro(talk) 02:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NONEED –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine! :) (how can you argue with two of the most respected users around?) :) fr33kman -s- 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are they, anyway? ;) — neuro(talk) 09:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - I believe that you have good intentions, Cryptic C62, but arrogance (per Pedro) and low experience will not do if you want to become an admin. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - There is nothing more I can comment on than that I share the sentiments of others who have opposed your nomination. I do not feel you are ready yet to handle the admin tools. --Ozgod (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Sorry, too many valid concerns raised above. — Aitias // discussion 13:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Per Fastily.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per inexperience concerns and Ironholds. Also concerned by q 11, where User:Pocopocopocopoco is pursuing a grudge against Jehochman who warned him for forum shopping ("asks for a second set of eyes"). That the admin candidate here may have "fallen" for this is concerning, but obviously Cryptic's answer is wrong in any case, as if a user asks for a second set of eyes and also does blockable things, blocking is appropriate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we caucus on this RFA's talk page at WT:RFA#Questions about those awful, awful admins about how to handle problems like this one? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Sorry, but I go with the many valid opposition comments above. Sorry. America69 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Arrogance. Heaven knows we don't need more BITEy admins. Sam Blab 20:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Unfortunate Oppose The sentence "I came to the conclusion that, for my own convenience and for the efficiency of the project as a whole, I should be granted administrator privileges" is just way outside of the humility and maturity I would want/expect from the candidate. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first read this oppose, I thought to myself "...that doesn't really sound arrogant." But when I went back up and reread my entire self-nom statement, I realized that you are quite right and that I made an error: I ended with the statement "I should be granted administrator privileges" because I had incorrectly remembered writing, at some point, an explicit mention of going through the RfA process. I realize now that without saying "I decided to go through the RfA process", simply writing "I should be granted administrator privileges" does indeed come off as arrogant. I realize that at this point, I'm unlikely to change anyone's mind on the arrogance issue, but I figured I should explain this anyway. Struck and rewritten. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per question 7 and some other concerns above. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per It Is Me Here. Shameful. JPG-GR (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per all of the above arrogancy issuses and lack of experience in mose administrative areas. Yellowweasel (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Per arrogance, lack of experience and WP:NOTNOW. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose -- Mainly due to his arrogance, a an admin should not have that.--₮RUCӨ 19:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Like User:WereSpielChequers, I couldn't find any skeletons in this editor's deleted contributions either. The problem is though, I couldn't find any experience. I cannot endorse a user getting the delete button with just 3 CSD taggings - whatever the user page. Simple as that really, sorry. WilliamH (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. "(...)for my own convenience (...)I should be granted administrator privileges". I think it is problematic that the candidate didn't immediately realize that this may come off as arrogant to some. decltype 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me for butting in here, but I keep reading this sentence and, though I can see that some people would interpret it the way you are, I don't think it's true that anyone (particularly a speaker of Commonwealth English) would naturally anticipate that reading. "Should" is the subjunctive of "shall," indicating a hypothetical future state dependent on a certain condition--the sentence can quite naturally mean, "It would be to my convenience and the efficiency of the project if I were granted adminship" which may seem a little underwhelming as a justification, but not arrogant, I don't think. Chick Bowen 00:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, but it seems like you're assuming that I personally interpreted it one way or another, and that's not really what I said. If you didn't, my apologies. The points you make are valid. decltype 06:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose This user has displayed anything but the humility required of an administrator. Tin Whistle Man (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented votes by vandalism-only account sockpuppets. Somno (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I'm sorry, but CSD is the main area you refer to in the first question, and I really can't see enough activity there to support your adminship. Consider reapplying in several months time when you have more experience in this area and others relating to the tools, and I know I'll give pause to re-consider. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Simply not experienced enough. Radio Tramp (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented votes by vandalism-only account sockpuppets. Somno (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose I hope it is just a question of inexperience, but anyone who really does think that administrators simply should routinely delete by Speedy rather than place tags for other admins to reviews has an unrealistic idea of his own accuracy and good judgment. Obviously there are some really necessary times to do it, but they're not all that common. DGG (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - sorry, but not yet ready for the mop, perhaps another time. I'm very nervous about the user's deletionist tendencies. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose on the grounds of comments on userpage. The actual unpleasantness itself is one thing, but that Cryptic didn't think to delete the comment long before an RfA suggests even poorer judgement than would be required to have written it in the first place. Also, not too happy with the "I only want the tools in case I need them" line, combined with lack of experience in administrative role-y areas. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose for now based on lack of of more rounded experience. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral Interesting candidacy. Opposes have reasonably good arguments, supports... not so much. Seems a bit overeager. What is this page for? flaminglawyer 22:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That explanation is incoherent and not useful, so I'll just scratch it out... flaminglawyer 22:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Moving to Support for the candidate's self-confidence and sense of humor. Still thinking this one over. As a mere dabbler in the ranks of editors, I applaud this editor for stepping out of the shadows and volunteering to do more work. --StaniStani  01:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not mental. 850 active admins = need some more. However after sleeping on it I can't get over that user page comment. Also the FA comment and sub-page are less than impressive. Neutral it is. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a hard time deciding? Watching that unfold made me laugh. Thanks for keeping it fun. Useight (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm delighted you found it fun. I found it considerably less than fun - trolling, bullying, snarky, revengeful, hate filled and spiteful would be a few comments that spring to mind when I think about the early hours of this RFA. I'm fairly convinced the candidate was even less pleased than I - and for that I apologise. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Touché. Some early comments could definitely be described by some of those terms, especially for someone involved in that whole escapade. I think some people just get too emotionally involved. I try to live by the mantra "Heart on fire, brain on ice" and by this I mean something along the lines of passionate but logical and neutral. I'd recommend this motto to anyone. At RFA especially. Useight (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - After seeing this RfA in its early stages, I was strongly inclined to vote a strong oppose. However, given that text does not convey the "tone" of voice, and that it's often a fine line between arrogance and confidence - I decided to post a couple questions. I appreciate the answers, and have decided not to oppose - however, I still believe that the candidate would benefit from a little more wiki-seasoning before receiving the tools. In any event, I wish you luck Cryptic. ;) — Ched (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Because of the attitude which others in the oppose section have described as 'arrogant'. I don't know if this is exactly arrogance but this is certainly not something I'd like to see in an admin. Even a new an inexperienced user should be able to approach an admin without being afraid of blown apart for making some mistake. This kind of attitude will do just the opposite. An admin should always have a helpful and inviting manner; if you step out of that line even a bit, people are likely to find that intimidating. This is a user I would have supported if not for this matter. Also as someone in the discussion said, maybe it's a cultural thing and I find it more troubling than others. So for these two reasons, I prefer being neutral than actually opposing. Chamal talk 04:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral leaning support A great user who just needs more experience in the admin related areas and/or more substantial article building. I saw only a few edits to the admin areas. Username related work is of no interest me in a candidate who wants to do CSD work. AFD work dovetails into CSD. AIV does as well, because you sometimes wind up blocking article creators that are creating vandalism and other problem articles. There are two broad paths one can go by to win my trust for RFA. One is the article builder/creator specialist who has done a substantial amount of encyclopedia building and also demonstrates knowledge of the block/protect/delete policies or enough common sense to trust with the tools. (I see a hint of this, see question below. Most of what I saw was Wikignoming.) The other is the admin related specialist who has substantial experience in the admin related areas and has also done wikignome and/or article building to a lesser degree. (Your user page says you've created 16 article. I only saw three. You also list some FA's/GA's there. Can you point me to significant edits to those?) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly:
    I would be happy to provide diffs/edit counts for some of the other articles (Hydrogen, Helium, Alaska Steamship Company) if you'd like. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Some of the opposes give me cause for concern, and policy knowledge isn't especially good as indicated by the answers to questions. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cryptic_C62&oldid=1091463745"