Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CryptoDerk

CryptoDerk
Vote here
 * (21/0/1) ends 01:46, 30 September 2004 (UTC)

CryptoDerk's been here for some time now, and he's very intelligent and a good grunt worker. He's also helpful on IRC, and has done good work on various articles. Furthermore, not even blankfaze can oppose him, he made his 2,000th edit today! (see his contributions for the irony) ugen64 01:48, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I accept. Thank you.  (So they don't have to hunt, my 2000th edit was to blankfaze's talk page).  CryptoDerk 01:50, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Support


 * 1) ugen64 01:48, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Looks good to me. &mdash;Stormie 01:55, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Good enough... Good user... Good edits... Good person... Gets good vote squash 02:10, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) He passed every question of mine except favourite drink (the correct answer was 'tea', not 'coke'). Regardless, he is a decent user. - Mark 02:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ffirehorse 02:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Denelson83 04:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 21:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Strongly support. --Lst27 00:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) {&Alpha;&nu;&#940;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu;} 07:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Good-natured and a good grunt worker. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:32, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
 * 11) By all means. &ETH;&aring;&ntilde;&eta;&yuml;&szlig;&ocirc;&yacute; | Talk 22:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Danny 04:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Merovingian &#1124; Talk  15:29, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14)  – Andre ( talk )  21:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) 172 07:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) -- orthogonal 03:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) I'm impressed by CryptoDerk's gruntwork, and we all know that Wikipedia couldn't be what it is without contributors of that type. For sheer dedication alone, the nomination is deserved.   &bull;  &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  04:30, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
 * 18) I come out of the darkness that is post-Ivan Pensacola solely to support you! In all seriousness, though, good, responsible, cordial, delightful user.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  07:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) CryptoDerk is adminnable JFW | T@lk  23:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) &mdash; Matt 13:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) I've seen nothing but good edits from this user, many of them anti-vandalism maintenance. Will make a good sysop. &bull; Benc &bull; 15:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Netoholic @ 03:32, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC) - I personally dislike edit counters and admin nomination fishing.  CryptoDerk was (largely) inactive since April, and only re-appeared on WP about a month ago. I take issue with the April 3-4 run of around 750 stub message insertions (using some alphabetical list), followed immediately with a 1000 edit brag on his user page.  User's first edit was only on March 29th.
 * 2) * This, sir, is absolutely the stupidest vote I have seen in months. This is Avala-ish stupidity we're talking about.  Whilst I suppose it is well your right to oppose someone on such silly, baseless, semantic grounds, it is thoroughly stupid, and I am obliged to note that.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  07:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) ** I have tried to amicably both request that the above comment be removed for the sake of civility, and have tried re-factoring it myself. I choose to leave it here now in the hopes that others will see that commenting about the validity of other user's votes is damaging to Wikipedia as a whole.  As anyone can see, I have altered my vote, based on new information, and my vote may be "stupid" - but speaking to another user in this manner is positively deplorable and firmly against policy.  No person deserves this sort of treatment, and I hope that people here can learn something from this - particularly our new admin candidates.  -- Netoholic @ 23:28, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Netoholic @ 07:56, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC) -- CryptoDerk has been (largely) inactive since April, and only re-appeared on WP about a month ago. I take issue with the April 3-4 run of around 750 stub message insertions, followed immediately with a 1000 edit brag on his user page. I'm changing my vote, though, because I like his answer to my challenging comments, both in this vote and regarding his Poker players articles.

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I'll probably be watching #enrc.wikipedia a lot more to catch speedies and vandalism. I'll also carry through with general admin tasks (e.g. execution of decisions on VfD, copyvios, etc.).
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I guess that'd have to be my current "project" on poker players. World Series of Poker used to be filled with red links, and Category:Poker players had 2 or 3 people in it.  Now most of the WSOP and Poker Hall of Fame people have articles.  I've created User:CryptoDerk/poker as a way to keep track of the progress on them as well as listing soon-to-be additions.  I've also reached out by posting messages on several article and user talk pages to get people involved.
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A. No edit conflicts, except with anonymous vandals sometimes.  Really I'm a pretty laid back person.  If I ever do get angry, I'm pretty quick to take a step back, cool off, and get someone elses opinion.  I'd be pretty quick to drop a note on a users talk page if I disagreed with something they were doing so I could better understand why they did it.

Comments
 * Regarding Netoholic's comment, I wasn't admin nomination hunting, I was just trying to be funny. Yes, I had a period of inactivity -- I still regularly browsed wikipedia, and contributed when I could -- because I was writing my Masters thesis.


 * I helped with the stubs because someone requested it. I apologize about the "edit brag", which is why I ended up removing it a while ago.  I can't change what I did in the past, but it wasn't vandalism or anything that hurt wikipedia.


 * Anyway, I do, in part, view this RfA as a good way to get constructive criticism about myself and my contributions to Wikipedia and the community, so thank you. CryptoDerk 03:53, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the response. I guess my feeling is that if your stub message edit spree was to aid "someone", then why stop as soon as you hit 1000 edits? -- Netoholic @ 04:07, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)


 * Oh, well there was a bot that kept filling up the stub page. After a while the links that were picked up by the bot were those that somehow triggered the bot but didn't need to be fixed.  That's probably why I didn't do any more in general after that, also after that I moved on to patrolling #enrc.wikipedia and reverting vandalism.  I may have been focused on the 1000 value, but I look back at the edit brag on my user page shamefully, hence the removal.  I am certainly in no rush now for edits, nor shall I ever be again.  Thanks for taking the time to respond. CryptoDerk 04:26, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know CryptoDerk well enough to vote, but I have to say I never knew people had such a negative view of "edit brag" comments on the user page. I have a number of them, although not for boasting purposes -- rather, I find it useful to look at my arbitrarily chosen milestone edits to consider whether I'm doing what I should be. I'm glad I don't have to stand for admin with that on my record, particularly since apparently having the "brags" in my userpage's edit history is damning enough evidence even if the statements in question no longer exist on the current version of the page. I hope someone will explain to me the problem with such things, and in absence of a good explanation, I hope people will not use it as a determining criterion in judging whether someone is worthy of being given admin status. Jwrosenzweig
 * Well put, my good man. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  07:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)