Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crazycomputers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Redux (talk | contribs) at 19:37, 6 August 2006 (Closing successful RfA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Crazycomputers

Final (55/13/5) Ended 19:35, 2006-08-06 (UTC)

Crazycomputers (talk · contribs) – A classic Wikignome. Generally I like to stay out of the spotlight and help tidy up Wikipedia. Recently my interest in RC patrol has grown, which is where I spend most of my time. (Also I develop tools to make this process more efficient.) I still do the occasional edit on an article, clarifying information, fixing spelling, and so on.

My self nomination is due to how often I see WP:AIV pile up, with few, if any, admins attending to it, leaving me to have no recourse but revert, revert, revert. I'm not a fantastic editor by any stretch, but I believe that I would greatly assist with the defense of Wikipedia from intentional vandals, and helping to inform users who don't know better about Wikipedia policy, and guide them as new, constructive editors.

When it comes to knowledge of policy, I am quite familiar with the specifics of vandalism: what is, what isn't, how to deal with it, etc. If I do act in other categories of adminship it will only be after a thourough review of relevant policies. I am aware that most people will want admins who know as much policy as possible, but I feel that I would be spreading myself too thin were I to try to learn "everything." In short, I know the policies I will be acting on most, and when I do act somewhere else, I know where to find the policy I will be acting on.

Ultimately, I intend to uphold community consensus, whether I agree with it or not. I am here as part of the community and to support its decisions. --Chris (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept, self-nom. --Chris (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will be leaving on vacation Friday, 2006-08-04. I will try to check in periodically, but I will be unable to devote any considerable time to Wikipedia for the duration of my trip (~3 weeks). As a result, I may not be able repond to questions between Friday and the closing of this vote. --Chris (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it turns out that my grandparents got DSL. I brought my computer to do some work on, so I should be even more active here than ever. --Chris (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Odd twice edit-conflicted Weak Support I like the fact that you're willing to spend some of your valuable time monitoring WP:AIV (you're a very active participator at AIV, which I also liked) and I appreciated and enjoyed your rather honest self-analysis. Based on that, you seem have a very level-head, a trait I highly value in administrators. The only thing that prevents me from strongly supporting your request is that you admittedly don't write or add much information to articles, which is our primary reason for being Wikipedians. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I prefer to look at is that I deal with the ugly stuff so the people who can actually write well can do their job with minimal interruption. =) I do agree with you though; I would like to be more involved with editing, bit since it's not one of my strengths, I help out where I can. --Chris (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I appreciate and am quite amazed by your ability to know your strengths. The "ugly stuff" as you put it is quite necessary and is something that I imagine well prepares one for becoming an administrator as much of the administrator duties are also grunt work. The bit about the article writing is just another important thing that I feel is good preparation for adminship as well. Thanks for commenting! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support in good faith. You've done some valuable work. A sober and experienced editor. Rama's arrow 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support While you do have a low number of Wikipedia space edits, you still meet my standards. --Tuspm(C | @) 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. - Mailer Diablo 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Why-is-this-section-at-the-bottom-and-the-questions-and-answers-at-top?-support! Misza13 T C 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The almighty template made it so! --Chris (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Why not? Roy A.A. 19:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. G.He 19:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Looks good. KOS | talk 19:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Crazycomputers has proved himself to be a very good RC patroller, his acceptance that he is not necessarily up to scratch on all of our policies stands him in good stead - a willingness to learn is far better than a delusional belief in one's ability any day. Rje 19:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support His prices are INSANE!!!!! TruthCrusader 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That from I Can't Watch This? (Or some show mentioned therein?) --Chris (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No its the tag line for the old Crazy Eddie tv commercials circa late 70's mid 80's TruthCrusader 07:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I wonder if that's what Al is referencing. --Chris (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per nom. MichaelZ526 21:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support with absolutely 100% NO cliches! I swear I'm going to get VandalSniper running, I really am. --james(talk) 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - editcount is useles for basically everything, looks great to me -- Tawker 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support support of course of course good vandalfighter, good programmer Crazynas t 02:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - very good! --Bigtop 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Zaxem 03:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Merovingian - Talk 06:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak Support I get the impression the user mostly wants admin to fight vandalism, does that bother me? Not particularly, yet the answers to my questions didn't blow me off my feet nor shock me. I can't see the user doing anything mad/destructive with admin, though I have to weak support as I believe the user only wants to close AfDs after they've got a bit of experience. As the user has quite a bit of experience vandal fighting, I've looked at their edits and had to agree with the actions taken in most cases. And I have to agree with the nom, I also sick of giving vandals {{test4}}, they continue and I report them and 30+ minutes later they are finally blocked, or not blocked because it's too late and they've stopped vandalising. I suspect the user will be a fine addition to the anti-vandalism force. Charge! --Andeh 10:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. DarthVader 13:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - A good user. Iolakana|T 15:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. — FireFox (talk) 18:11, 31 July '06
  23. Support per Hoopydink and inasmuch as deliberative and cordial demeanor, combined with his sense that admins are not infallible and act only to interpret (and subsequent to act on) the wishes of the community, make him altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools. Joe 19:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Giving this vandal-hunter the tools to block vandals will be good for the overall project and is sufficient justification for giving him the map-and-pail. Bucketsofg✐ 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. 1ne 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support A good user who has a need for the admin tools and shouldn't abuse them. Knows his shortcomings and can learn to overcome them on the job. Eluchil404 23:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - My concerns about article edits are balanced by his RC patroling and VandalSniper. Tom Harrison Talk 00:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support no worries here --rogerd 02:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support self-nom shows a committed honest user. Seivad 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Weak Support per AndyPandyUK --Guinnog 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Pepsidrinka supports. 16:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support good vandal fighter. Stubbleboy 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Good editor, unlikely to misuse tools. -- DS1953 talk 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support A good vandal fighter. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Meets my criteria. Would have liked to see more XfD experience, but I don't see you misusing the tools. BryanG(talk) 21:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I respect someone who knows his strengths and weaknesses, and declares his intent and purpose upfront without ambiguity. We can't all be prolific authors. There's enough work to go around for everyone. Give the guy a mop. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 05:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. <?php echo("Support"); ?> WP: edits could be more varied, but his contributions to AIV are valued and I'm not afraid he will abuse the admin tools. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Blnguyen | rant-line 01:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support He always uses vandaltool to revert all vandals on articles in Wikipedia, and deserves to be an admin. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support as per most of the above Betacommand 02:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Won;t abuse tools. End of story. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support --Ed (Edgar181) 17:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Looks good to me. --Tom 02:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support: edits look consistent (mostly vandal fighting). Looks trustworthy to me. Stephen B Streater 07:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support will be more effective with tools—WAvegetarian•(talk) 09:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support: Better than many of us! --Bhadani 11:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per above. A candidate doesn't need to intend to use every tool. Newyorkbrad 19:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support makes some good points countering oppose votes --Robdurbar 21:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. He won't abuse the tools, Highway Return to Oz... 21:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I am convinced by the balance of the arguments.--Runcorn 22:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. He'll do well. Czj 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per all of the above. SynergeticMaggot 00:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weakish Support You seem very eager to help and are willing to help out with alot of needed tasks. I would like to see you take it slow or get in contact with a vet of somekind to ease into the role. I do, however, think the tools will be put to good use. Yanksox 03:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already registered at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs/Admin coaching. I think coaching will help me expand into other areas of adminship quicker and more easily. --Chris (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per WP: editcount. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Editcountitis is fatal. 1ne 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ja... your call is important to us... please leave a message... - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted counter points to the ones made here in the comment section. (Just thought I would point that out as the last few votes don't appear to have taken them into account.) --Chris (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Crzrussian AdamBiswanger1 12:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Relatively low number of wikispace edits suggests a lack of familiarity with process. Xoloz 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose as per Xoloz, unfortunately. -- Миборовский 18:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per WP space edits and his own comments about infamilliarity with some policies. Reading up on a policy 5 minutes before enforcing it as the official face of Wikipedia is not good enough in my book. Great vandal fighter though. -- Steel 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose while I could pass the WP edits some, I don't really see much in the case of article writing which the answer for number 2 leads me to. This is an encyclopedia first, I'll support in a later date with more article edits as you are an excellent vandal fighter. Jaranda wat's sup 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as per Xoloz. Thumbelina 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose, lack of Wikipedia namespace edits signifies a probable lack of process knowledge. Stifle (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. The applicant says he is interested in stopping vandalism. If this is true, then he should be more involved with AfD. Bots can pick up a large amount of the normal vandalism. The vandal-articles are another thing. The only way to understand this process is to participate in hundreds of AfD debates -- really! It wasn't until I had done that myself that I understood it (and not just Delete per nom -- really get involved). It doesn't take too long to get that under the belt. Come back when you have and we can have a look-see again. TedTalk/Contributions 23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bots pick up maybe 25% -- if that. (Rough estimate.) And that's being generous. --Chris (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per lack of exposure to community; too inexperienced to be adequately assessed.--cj | talk 03:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per above --Masssiveego 07:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose; I can't support a user who would nominate himself knowing that he'd be going on vacation three days before the end of the request. Ral315 (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know. My parents were finalizing the schedule early this week. The nom was Sunday, and it wasn't until Monday night that we knew we were leaving this week. We originally thought it might be this coming Monday. I regret that the timing worked out this badly, but I did not have prior knowledge that this would be tha case. --Chris (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ral, despite how much I love the project, I personally would let other matters come before it. I think opposing under this circumstance is a little ridiculous. It doesn't quite click to oppose for one matter when he could have a full career of quality use of the tools. RfA is a general request where we try to get a consensus on if the tools would be used or abused. Denying a request on the basis of not being able to be around for a few days seems just not sensical. Yanksox 05:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't understand how we can oppose someone on the grounds of his real life. Life comes at you, and it obviously bears a little bit more priority than Wikipedia (however cool it is). I'd respectfully ask you to reconsider your vote. alphaChimp laudare 05:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that things come before Wikipedia. Chris' comment is enough for me to withdraw my opinion, but for what it's worth, I do believe a candidate shouldn't leave knowing that they won't be there for half the nom. Ral315 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per CrazyRussian and others. A lack of familiarity with the process as a whole and a lack of time spent on the project seem to indicate that this RfA is a bit premature. --Vengeful Cynic 14:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. VandalSniper is an amazing tool, and you should certainly be commended for your excellent work on it. I'm just a little bit troubled by your Wikipedia space contribs matching up with the admin tasks you are interested in - specifically, closing WP:AFD debates. You have a somewhat limited involvement in AFD. alphaChimp laudare 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have been a bit more clear on that. When I enter a new category of adminship I intend to get my feet wet first; that is, I will participate more in AfD before starting to close things. Because I will admit right now I don't even know how to close things =) --Chris (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the courteous response. Closing AfDs isn't that hard. I'm going to keep my vote neutral because of that issue, but please don't take it the wrong way. alphaChimp laudare 17:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I'm generally pretty hard to offend. Thanks for your comments. --Chris (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral on the same basis as Alphachimp; Low WP-space edits, while not an enormous issue, just makes me unsure of how to vote here. Can't oppose, not completely confident to support. Sorry. :( RandyWang (raves/review me!) 20:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Falls short of my standards. Namely, needs more article talk edits. Will support on the next go around if this editor displays more article-interaction (we are, after all, here to build an encyclopedia). Themindset 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral you've got some good vandal fighting powers, but would like to see more contribution to the rest of the project related areas. — xaosflux Talk 02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral: I'm torn as to whether he'll be good with the mop, or he'll wait a few more months for renomination. This is because of the scenario about the the talkspace and Wikipedia edits. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:49, 2 August 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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Mostly monitoring of WP:AIV and other channels of vandalism information (IRC, etc), and occasionally sort through C:CSD and WP:AfD. I will be happy to serve in whatever capacity is required, though I will try to stick to WP:CVU related matters, as I believe I will be most effective there. My reasons are explained in my self-nom.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: VandalSniper, definately. I don't have a lot of "article-writing" edits ([1] is the last one I can recall... oh and I dealt with moving Yahoo! 360º to Yahoo! 360°), but for the area I am focusing on I don't see this lack as a problem.
Oh, and the fun case of Mitch Modeleski. I tried, with some other editors, to help this person find an alternative route to resolving his dispute, instead of legal threats, and evetually sent it to WP:ANI. (It's archived somewhere.) --Chris (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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: Not really. One case on RC patrol comes to mind. I always assume good faith from what appear to be vandals until they have proven that they do not intend to comply with policy. I usually ignore users who insult me (though sometimes I do reply -- it's hard to tell sometimes what is trolling and what isn't); I act on the faith that the community is behind my actions and will support me. Getting stressed doesn't help me, so if I feel pressure (which isn't that often) I take a break and do something else for a while.
However, as an admin, I am aware that the attacks and conflicts will only become more frequent and convoluted. But as I stated, when I act in what I believe is established consensus, I feel little need to defend my actions against others (though I will be prepared to do so if the community feels it necessary).
Optional Question from Yanksox
4. Could you elaborate further on Vandalsniper, it's use in the 'pedia, and how it came to be? Yanksox 04:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: VandalSniper was started out of my desire to have a VandalProof-like tool for Linux, my desktop platform. I'm not a big fan of using things like Wine, so (as a programmer myself), I thought it would be neat to write something that would run on Linux natively. I chose Mono and Gtk# mainly because I hadn't used them before and wanted to learn, and because I don't particularly like using C for GUI things. Using Mono also means that it's theoretically cross-platform automatically.
In the process of development I came up with some ideas for features beyond what VandalProof provided -- which is a benefit of having used it and making a mental wishlist.
If you like, you can read the revision history. (Dates of releases are in the page history.) There are currently 15 registered users not counting me, though right now the only person who seems to have got it running is User:Omicronpersei8. This is probably due to the fact that it doesn't yet run on Windows (something beyond my control at the moment), and he uses Linux too. --Chris (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Java would work Macs, Windows and Linux. Stephen B Streater 07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
C# does too. There are CLRs for most major platforms. The problem right now is that GTK+ 2.8 isn't available an Windows or OS X. --Chris (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from Andeh
5. As you have little experience on AfDs and by the sounds of it you intend to learn before closing any as an admin. I created a fake Afd HERE. Of course this isn't a subsitute for a real AfD but should help me decide whether to support or not. The dates are real including article creation time, signature dates etc but the user whom created the article is a complete newbie under the name of "wikimananana" and is the users first and only edit :P. Should the article be speedy deleted? Should you wait longer? Please explain your action(s) and why. There isn't a 100% wrong answer here, as it's mainly based on judgement and common sense.
A: Speedy per nom. Several Google searches do not even remotely support the contents of the article as it is written. If notability and verifiability of this person exists somewhere, it would do better as a complete rewrite anyway; the article doesn't contain anything accurate from what I can tell. --Chris (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. which part(s) of WP:CSD makes the article a candidate for speedy deletion? --Andeh 09:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Maybe this is showing my current state of ignorance regarding AfD. I was under the impression that a "speedy" in the context of AfD was somehow different; basically the administrator applying common sense to the issue at hand not necessarily one of the CSD.
Looking back on AfDs I have been involved in, the majority of speedies do specify a CSD criteria, though some do not (here, here, and here). This may be where I picked up that notion, but if it is incorrect then the obvious answer to #5 is wait out the five days -- and then delete when (not if) that consensus is formed. =) --Chris (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll leave the dummy AfD and article in my userspace until your RfA is over encase any other editors want to see it before casting their voting.--Andeh 10:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that WP:SNOW may apply to this as well.... just a thought. --Chris (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Lar:
7. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I was not aware of such a category, but I was pondering suggesting that if the vote is borderline based on mainly oppose-based-on-WP:-editcount votes that I would be put in such a position as you describe... a more or less informal checkup being done on me periodically. I have no objection to the idea at all, and if in my case adminship depended on such an idea then I welcome it. Being monitored does not at all impede my goal of RC patrol. --Chris (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user Crazycomputers (over the 3762 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 443 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 30, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 13, April, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 92.2% Minor edits: 99.42%
Average edits per day: 49.86 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 398 edits): Major article edits: 87.5% Minor article edits: 99.74%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3762 edits shown on this page and last 5 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.05% (2)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.61% (23)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 9.36% (352)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 31.71%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 5 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2385 | Average edits per page: 1.58 | Edits on top: 19.4%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 44.71% (1682 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 9.09% (342 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 40.62% (1528 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 5.34% (201 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 43.99% (1655) | Article talk: 3.3% (124)
User: 10.55% (397) | User talk: 33.39% (1256)
Wikipedia: 6.94% (261) | Wikipedia talk: 0.16% (6)
Image: 0.51% (19)
Template: 0.56% (21)
Category: 0.19% (7)
Portal: 0.05% (2)
Help: 0.03% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.35% (13)

Crazycomputers (talk · contribs)'s edit count using Interiot's Tool2: 

Username Crazycomputers
Total edits 3775
Distinct pages edited 2388
Average edits/page 1.581
First edit 01:42, April 13, 2005
 
(main) 1655
Talk 124
User 402
User talk 1264
Image 19
Image talk 1
Template 21
Template talk 10
Help 1
Category 7
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 261
Wikipedia talk 6
Portal 2

--Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am beginning to wonder where I failed to communicate my intentions, as most of the oppose/neutral votes seem to completely discount everything I've said, or turn it against me. Please allow me to counter these points:
    • "Relatively low number of wikispace edits suggests a lack of familiarity with process." (Comment from Xoloz but used by others).
      • I mention one specific goal that I have for becoming an admin: defending Wikipedia against vandalism, as I frequently see vandals getting away with several final warnings because there is no admin on. If you look at my edits in this matter, I think you will find that they conform well to Wikipedia's vandalism policies.
      • I did certainly mention that I might "occasionally sort through C:CSD and WP:AfD." But I also said immediately afterwards: "I will try to stick to WP:CVU related matters, as I believe I will be most effective there." If I do get involved with anything not related to RC patrol, it will be after observing and participating on the level of a user.
      • So I fail to see the point made by this opposition. In fact I am unsure how to remedy it. Shall I scour the WP namespace looking for typos and ways to tidy up pages to increase my WP: edit count? What is it that you're looking for? Obviously not just edits in WP:, as they are apparently supposed to represent some kind of knowledge about Wikipedia processes. But what if I've read a ton of WP: pages (which I have)? Where does that get tallied up? I apologize if these questions seem out of line, but I'm really not sure what to do with these oppose votes.
    • "Reading up on a policy 5 minutes before enforcing it as the official face of Wikipedia is not good enough in my book." (Comment from Steel).
      • This I attribute to a lack of communication on my part. I didn't mean that I'll be stepping over to dispute resolution, glance at the policy, and apply it. As said in my last point, I intend to familiarize myself with the processes by being involved with them on a non-admin level before starting to decide cases. (Though dispute resolution isn't something I fancy I'll be doing much, but eventually it could happen.) As stated (frequently) I intend to RC patrol and monitor AIV 99% of the time I'm here. So again, I don't see the point of this objection.
    • "I don't really see much in the case of article writing which the answer for number 2 leads me to." (Comment from Jaranda).
      • My response to the first support vote: "The way I prefer to look at is that I deal with the ugly stuff so the people who can actually write well can do their job with minimal interruption. =) I do agree with you though; I would like to be more involved with editing, bit since it's not one of my strengths, I help out where I can." I am not good at editing. You probably don't want me making massive edits to articles. Again, as my stated goal is to better Wikipedia by dealing with unpleasant elements of it so the editors can do their job better, I am again left sitting here asking myself what to do about these concerns. Shall I attempt editing, using up more time and energy on one article than a trained writer will take on five articles, to prove that I am somehow a capable writer, so I can meet this criteria, finally pass a nomination, and then return to 99% RC patrol? Must I pass the 1FA test?
    • Forgive me if I am sounding uncivil or uncool. It's not my intention. But I need you to consider my points, and if you don't accept them, help me understand why. Because I don't have a whole lot to go on right now. --Chris (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading my comments through, I notice that there is one common thread across the votes I am citing: I don't do enough different things. But I ask what the value is of requiring candidates to be competent at everything -- my time is better spent doing things that I am good at. I get the feeling that there is a lot of worry that I will misapply policies in other areas. But generally speaking I don't want to be involved in a lot of things. I want to get out my mop and polish one or two areas of Wikipedia until they shine. I want to focus my energy where it is best applied. We have other admins who are good at dispute resolution (for example) and the like, but not great at RC patrol. Generally, RC patrol doesn't require a whole lot of debate, discussion, and "process." The application of these requirements in this department will be very difficult to pass. --Chris (talk) 20:19, 31 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Crazycomputers&oldid=68054263"