Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crum375

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Crum375

Final (88/4/1); Ended 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Crum375 (talk · contribs) - Crum375 has been editing since May 2006 and has accumulated 5,000 edits overall, including 2,000 to articles. He seems very mature and level-headed, and has shown himself to be an excellent editor, who understands and respects the content policies. He has a calming effect on talk pages, taking time to explain his position carefully to opponents and seeking consensus for his edits. As well as creating and writing articles on aviation safety, which seems to be his main area of interest, he has been active in helping to maintain and explain WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:VANDALISM, and has in general become a respected member of the community. I'm confident that he'll be an ideal administrator. Musical Linguist 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Crum375 01:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I expect to help mostly in article moves and merges, soft and hard protection of pages in specific cases of edit disputes and troll/vandal attacks, some troll/vandal blocking, etc. Being able to access these features directly will reduce the load on the other admins at AN3, ANI, AIV, RPP etc. Of course I will be careful to avoid taking admin actions on pages I actively edit.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Many of my contributions to article space are in the Aviation Safety area, of which three that I like best are LANSA Cuzco Crash, LANSA Flight 508 and Avjet Aspen Crash. I am also proud to have brought 3 of my articles to Good Article status. Another pleasing effort for me was my work at Wikipedia:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format, where I helped create a dedicated guideline for inclusion criteria, format, style, etc. Yet another satisfying effort was in the current event Gol 1907 entry, where I made substantial contributions in content and guidance, and which was subsequently plagiarized(!), including images that I uploaded, in the January 2007 issue of Aviation Safety magazine (which I consider a significant compliment, though attribution to WP would have been nice ;^)).
Also, I feel ultimate satisfaction in my prolonged 8 month effort on the BDORT entry (see Talk:Yoshiaki Omura and its archives), where I started as an informal mediator, then switched to an editor's role, and had to hold the fort, often alone, against determined, aggressive, tendentious editing by a group of COI-special purpose accounts and sock puppets. The dispute in that entry went to ArbCom, which ended up vindicating the neutral non-COI wikipedians, while perma-banning the tendentious and disruptive COI editors from the related entries and Talk pages. (See also the Yoshiaki Omura case's brief summary on the Signpost.)
Some of my other contributions can be seen here.
In addition to the above, I do a fair amount of vandal fighting, which I expect to continue, to keep my share of the load.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been involved in conflicts mostly in relation to the BODRT entry I mentioned in A.2. above. My expanded statement in the ArbCom case gives an overview of my involvement there.
In general, I have never posted an angry or uncivil message or edit summary, even to blatant vandals or trolls, despite being a target of a prolonged barrage of insults and allegations by the COI group that was eventually banned in the YO case. I consider WP:CIVIL our most crucial cornerstone, since without civility and mutual respect, productive collaboration grinds to a halt, and the overall WP experience stops being FUN, which is the main motivating force of many/most of us here, myself included.
Optional Question from Sharkface217:
4. Do you believe it is proper to ask a candidate for RFA their age? Would the age of an RFA candidate affect your decision to vote for them? Should age be at all taken into account when voting for a prospective admin or should the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia?
A: I think asking for the age is OK, but I personally view it as a piece of personal data that should be kept private, along with general anonymity. I do not think that age per se is a criterion. I can imagine a fantastic 10 year old with maturity and experience, as well as a young-acting 100 year old with all her faculties still intact, and of course everything in between. I do think that maturity (in terms of behavior) counts, and experience, both on and off wiki is important too. Overall I believe in your final alternative that "the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia". Thanks, Crum375 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Optional Question from BigDT:
5. You were blocked 2.5 months ago with a block summary of "Edit warring on Yoshiaki Omura". [1] Can you discuss the incident that resulted in a block and what, if anything, do you wish you would you have done differently?
A: While working to maintain the stable version that was undergoing mediation, which was under a constant barrage by various COI-advocate sock and meat puppets, I tried my best to maintain stability and keep the version constant while we were debating the issues in mediation. At one time the mediator unexpectedly left for a few days, and one of the COI-advocates started reverting to a pro-YO version. I reverted him 3 times, issued a 3RR warning to him and stopped. He kept reverting 2 more times and was reverted by another editor, after I left. An admin who noticed the reversions decided there was 'edit warring' and blocked the advocate (who had by then 5 reversions and is now perma-banned from the article and related pages) along with myself. I had never been blocked before (or after) and have never received any warning of any kind by anyone, and in any case was not actively editing at the time. I consider this a case of accidental 'friendly fire'. During the subsequent Arb case this incident was possibly alluded to by Arbitrator FloNight, who participated in the Arb case. I do believe in trying to aim for 0RR or 1RR when working in a collaborative atmosphere if at all possible, but sometimes, in rare cases when faced with trolls or COI advocates, you need to maintain stability with up to 3 reverts. I am also wary of 'gaming the system' with 4 reverts over 25 hours etc. and consider that poor behavior, but this was not the case in that situation. I was not a happy camper when blocked, and it did cause me significant distress, but after seeing FloNight's message, and the final ArbCom finding that was clearly unequivocal and unanimous against the COI advocates, I feel that incident would enable me to be very discerning in the future when I have to block someone myself. And as always I stay away from excessive reversions if at all possible, even when under the 3RR limit.
6. What is wheel warring? Under what, if any, circumstances would you consider reversing the actions of another administrator?
A: Wheel warring occurs when admins undo each other's actions, such as reversing blocks. I consider it extremely damaging to Wikipedia, and have expressed my strong opinions on it in the past. I would only consider reversing another admin's actions if the admin expressly agreed to it, or if the situation was a clear and unequivocal mistake and the involved admin is inaccessible. Otherwise, I would try my best to reach the blocking (say) admin and in general would not reverse unless the admin is reached, is able to defend his/her actions, and there is a wide and clear consensus among a number of other admins on WP:AN to override the action. Also, if I had a direct involvement in the original case, I may simply recuse myself and let other admins take action. I believe in such situations it pays to think ahead - try to predict the fallout and outcome of such a reversal or wheel war, and the possible long term damage to the project and decide whether it's really worth it.
7. What is the purpose of "fair use" images on Wikipedia? When may a non-free (or "fair use") image be used in an article?
A: The applicable Wikimedia and Wikipedia policies regarding fair use images are explained here and here. In a nutshell, we normally prohibit images with fair use licensing except in some special circumstances. To quote from Kat Walsh's letter:

There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.

IOW, if we have (for example) a historical image, which we cannot realistically hope to get under a free license, and it is needed for educational purposes to explain the article, we may use it under 'fair use'. If there is any reasonable way to obtain an equivalent image with a free license, then we need to use the free image instead.

Optional question from llywrch

8. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 04:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A: Actually I hope to be able to continue writing and improving articles, as well as participating in discussion threads as before. I expect to use the admin functions also, but interweave them if at all possible with my normal content improvement and discussion edits.
Optional question from ST47Talk
9. You've been here for months, made thousands of edits, and devoted hundreds of hours to Wikipedia without pay or and tangible reward. Above you said why you wanted to be an admin, but why do you want to be a Wikipedian? What was your motivation for joining, and for staying?
A: I had and have several motivations for being a wikipedian. First, I truly believe in Wikipedia's vision of a "world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."[2] I believe in the concept of openness and global collaboration, and believe that Wikipedia, by presenting well sourced information in a neutral and balanced fashion can help lead the entire world into peace, harmony and progress. To me participating in and contributing to this lofty goal would more than justify my own investment. In addition, I actually enjoy working and interacting with people here, many of whom are talented, knowledgeable, highly intelligent, kind and personable, and I also enjoy the challenge of researching well sourced published information and presenting it in an informative and engaging, properly balanced neutral fashion. Of course not all is fun - fighting COI-advocates, sock/meatpuppets, vandals, trolls etc. takes a toll, and getting blocked by 'friendly fire' (as I mentioned in A5) was no fun either. But I must say that reading the 'Support' votes below, has been an unprecedented emotional experience for me. I will address this separately when this RfA is over, but I must already thank all those people who posted such kind comments. If up to now my job here was mostly 'thankless', it is now anything but. These comments are so humbling, touching, flattering - I had tears in my eyes reading over many of them when posted, and still do now. I would say that the community's support is very much appreciated, and it alone is more than enough compensation for any of my efforts here. And I am well aware of the many other tireless contributors, many of whom have been here long before me, and who contribute vastly more than me in both quality and quantity, for whom I myself am, and all of us should be, eternally grateful. Crum375 03:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Nominator support Musical Linguist 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Looks good. – Chacor 01:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom and his own answers. Good luck and enjoy! gidonb 01:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support reasonable, respectful editor, and knowledgeable of policy. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support an editor that has contributed admirably to upholding the principles behind our core content policies. Most deserving of the support of the community. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support looks good.--John Lake 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support – Crum375 has demonstrated clear and consistent commitment both to Wikipedia’s goals and to its ideals. He has been sensible, intelligent, level-headed, fair-minded, infinitely civil, and even more infinitely patient and committed. I expect he will be in every way an admirable administrator, and that Wikipedia will be in every way fortunate to have him. GenghizRat 02:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. qp10qp 02:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. An excellent editor who cares about the content policies, and who always stays civil. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support looks like great admin material. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. Of course :). Yuser31415 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Sounds like a good user to me. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - I believe he will make a good admin. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - Good candidate. -- Renesis (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support - He has an extensive article writing history. I had read the article on LANSA flight 508 before (it's fascinating, by the way). As Fred Rogers once sang, "These are the people in your neighborhood." YechielMan 04:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Good answers to the questions, I see no reason to oppose. Dionyseus 05:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Tough stand on WP:OR on PETA related articles. As for the block, I think it's nice to have someone an admin who's been on the other side of the system. --Selket Talk 05:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support I don't see any problems with this editors' contributions to the project. (aeropagitica) 06:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support I think this editor would be very responsible in his use of administrative tools.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support per the answers to the questions. Candidate shows a good knowledge of policy and shows willingness to take the responsibilities of an administrator. --Dakota 06:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support You look like a well rounded wikipedian! Corpx 07:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 08:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support; I can see no grounds for opposition, and he looks to be a potential asset to the latrine-duty squad. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Good answers. David Underdown 09:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Excellent editor, good knowledge of the policies. Level headed. -Localzuk(talk) 10:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support great adminship candidate. Good main space contributions. - Anas Talk? 11:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. Well, it's a shame about the previous 374 Crum's, but support anyway. >Radiant< 13:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. A fine candidate; no serious issues raised. Marskell 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. Proto::► 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support seen him about doing good stuff, opposing comment seems irrelevent to me. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - Kudos for having the persistence to hang in and make sure that an article on a fringe medical therapy met Wikipedia's standards, and kudos being involved in an ArbComm case in which nothing negative was said by the Committee about his participation. I think this clearly demonstrates the candidate's ability to be an effective admin. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - especially per John Broughton's comment. --A. B. (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support I worked with Crum375 on the Gol 1907 article (albeit in a minor capacity) and was impressed by his commitment to the use of reliable, verifiable data and his work towards making the article encyclopedic rather than editorial, quite a feat considering events were still actively progressing. I've no doubt he will use admin tools wisely. Fvasconcellos 18:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. I'm learning a lot about civility by looking at how this user handles conflicts, and I like his answers above. --Merzul 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support excellently civil candidate.-- danntm T C 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support - per article work and unlikelihood of abusing administrative tools. FCYTravis 19:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support per above. Cbrown1023 talk 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support this well qualified editor for immediate mop-wielding, TewfikTalk 19:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support for a fully qualified candidate. Strong overall record and the diffs raised by the oppose and neutral commenters do not concern me. Newyorkbrad 19:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support per above. Addhoc 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support per nom. A solid candidate.--Mantanmoreland 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. See no issues. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support will be a good admin --rogerd 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support More than qualified. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support Can't imagine misuse of the tools will happen here. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. The opposers raise valid arguments, and although I agree with what was said by gadfium, I personally am not willing to oppose on that basis. --Deskana (request backup) 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. Seems more than qualified. Coemgenus 16:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  49. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. I have been given no reason not to trust user's judgement. Good Luck! -- Avi 19:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Crum375 has done a superb job in easing the complex disputes over BDORT. I don't see how the opinions expressed in the Everyking RfA in any way disqualify him. -Will Beback · † · 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  52. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support - Metamagician3000 00:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
  54. Strong support I've worked closely with Crum375 on occasion and can only say he's one of the best - balanced, conscientious, temperate, knowledgeable and humane. Tyrenius 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support - <<-armon->> 04:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support -- Shyam (T/C) 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support - impressed by the answers to the questions. —SaxTeacher (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support, meets my criteria.--TBCΦtalk? 17:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support. Impressive candidate and nice answer to questions, particularly No. 5. Rockpocket 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support. I've had dealings with this user before, and he is as excellent as described. I wish I had nominated him myself—something I don't believe I've ever said before on an RfA. -- SCZenz 23:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)23:34, Friday, 16 February '07
  62. Support, excellent user, though I have to admit it scares me to contemplate an editor who has never "posted an angry or uncivil message or edit summary". Is this user too good to be true? Will depths of cackling insanity be revealed once s/he's adminned and the mask is snatched off ? I'll go with "no," for now. Bishonen | talk 00:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
  63. Support. WjBscribe 05:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 12:43Z
  65. Support I'm sure this user will help Wikipedia with extra tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support One of the finest editors to be found. Brimba 01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support, good editor. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support seems to be trustworthy and a good editor. Darthgriz98 03:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support seems very good Johnbod 04:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support Understands what being an admin is about as has read the material. Has dealt with an ArbCom request and has done mediation, so understands conflict resolution. Is someone who contributes to the article space (and was plagiarised!!!!), so definitely think this is good. has a brag sheet of articles contributed to - always a good sign :-) Great reasoning as to why he edits the project - for fun and for the pleasure of seeing an article's quality increase. Definitely one who will make a great admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  71. Strong Support A fantastic editor that genuinely cares about the project and has shown a true commitment to core Wikipedia values and policies. He will use his admin tools well. :) FloNight 12:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support per answers 1 and 9, this user needs the tools and has been here long enough to understand the wiki. ST47Talk 12:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support per nom. Elizmr 13:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support; solid nomination, and the oppose votes don't convince me otherwise. — Deckiller 14:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support Very strong candidate, no hesitation. IronDuke 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support - Very refreshing view on WP:3RR.Bakaman 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  77. Strong Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  78. Jaranda wat's sup 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support. PeaceNT 14:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support--Seems more than Qualified..--Cometstyles 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support -- I think this user has demonstrated the eventemperedness (the 3RR block incorrectly received, in particular, is a good example of that) and devotion to duty that are the hallmarks of a good admin. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support Demonstrates knowledge of policy, and has done great work so far. Nishkid64 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support. Opposers have a point, but this guy is clearly deserving of adminship. Plus the consistency in his edit count shows he won't just fall off the radar.--Wizardman 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support Very deserving of adminship. His answers to questions were good. I can see that what the nominator says does occur. His edit count shows his dedication. Yes, opposers have good reasons for being ones, but still, this person is deserving of adminship! Canadianshoper 03:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  86. Strong support per nom. Sarah 15:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Duplicate of #5. Essjay (Talk) 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  88. Support semper fictilis 00:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, anyone who thinks that an admin can't be effective without using the admin noticeboard really doesn't understand how Wikipedia works.-gadfium 05:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    Fair go! The board is more than useful. Before it was made, it was hard to coordinate on things. Now that we've grown so much, I'd hate to see what would happen if we no longer had it. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    Can you link to a diff of what you are talking about? Thanks. --BigDT 05:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    Crum opposed in Everyking's RFA on the basis that he could not be an effective admin while banned from any part of Wikipedia. Everyking was a highly effective admin for a long time while banned from various articles. Not having access to the admin noticeboards is not necessarily a handicap for an admin, since the majority of admins do not use the noticeboard. This shows a lack of knowledge of how admins perform their duties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadfium (talk • contribs)
    I went and took a look at his comments ... I don't think Crum said or implied that he couldn't be effective - just that being a partially banned user was contradictory with being an admin. In other words, if we don't trust someone to edit some part of the site, why do we trust him with the tools? --BigDT 06:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    Opposing on that sole basis seems a bit overblown. For one thing, while you may disagree it's not a completely absurd position, no matter how you take a look at it. Pascal.Tesson 04:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per the above comments.ERTalk 16:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per gadfium. —freak(talk) 05:33, Feb. 15, 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per gadfium.--Newport 12:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Thank you for your replies to my questions - after reading your explanation for the block and looking at your contributions from that time, I find that to be very much a reasonable explanation and no reason to oppose. But one thing bothers me a tad bit - this comment you made to Amarkov [3] on my RFA. Of specifc concern is the bit about admins understanding "the editors they are policing". The job of an admin is NOT to be a police officer. An admin has three buttons that are not given to all users for security reasons. That's it. Admins are not the security force - we're the janitorial force and have no more right to "police" than any other editor does. --BigDT 06:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with your points about an admin's role. In general admins should simply be there to support the regular editors and help them with various administrative tasks. In some cases, typically with trolls and vandals who are not regular users, or some users who become uncivil, some firmer action may be needed, but even then, my own inclination is to try to nudge them towards productive and civil behavior. I believe that actual firm steps of blocking should be used as a last resort. In addition, I feel that admins should keep editing and creating content, so as to continue to be a part of the encyclopedia building process. So the 'police' analogy is somewhat inaccurate, and as you say the admin's role is more as part of the support cast, to help maintain a productive environment for the contributing editors. Thank you for your comments. Crum375 06:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
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.