Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Getcrunk 2

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.


[edit] getcrunk

Final (27/19/7) ended 19:23, July 2, 2006 (UTC)

getcrunk (talk · contribs) – My previous nomination ended ~1.5 months ago with a result of 45/15/2, but I think that I'm now ready for the mop. I have accumulated over 5000 edits, mostly in pop culture-related articles but also during RC patrol, and I feel that I could contribute more usefully with administrative tools. — getcrunk what?! 17:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, of course. — getcrunk what?! 18:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support. — FireFox 18:35, 25 June '06
  2. Support per last time Jaranda wat's sup 18:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support great user. —Khoikhoi 19:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support I've seen your work, you've done pretty well. Thistheman 20:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per above. --Shizane 22:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Supported before, support again. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per last time. DarthVader 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Rama's Arrow 00:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support per FireFox. G.He 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support as in the last RfA (which, for some reason, I thought was successful) and inasmuch as none of the opposes raises anything that would lead me to believe that overall effect on the project of this user's working with the admin tools would be deleterious. Joe 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support I've only had positive dealings with this user. Once we give him the mop, can he come over and clean up my bathroom :) ? RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support., why not?--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Merovingian {T C @} 11:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 12:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support After reviewing all contributions at the time of the previous Rfa, I voted support. I still trust Getcrunk with the buttons. -- Samir धर्म 13:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support, but, as others have said below, please provide an edit description if you are reverting something other than vandalism. BigDT 14:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support despite being an Senators fan -- as majority of opposes last time seemed to be due to the (false) belief that the username was a drug refference, also most of the reverts complained about appear to be legit --T-rex 22:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support—The Gerg 03:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, would be easy not to given the stiff opposition below, but I have no concerns that Crunk is sensible enough to keep his eyes open and his finger off the trigger while he gets used to the tools. Give it 2 months, 3 if you can manage it to act on what has been said below, and keep the good faith that your efforts will be recognized. Deizio talk 03:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support, He would be good for admin, because He always deserve it. That's the reason I support him. *~Daniel~* 04:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Changed into neutral. *~Daniel~* 02:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support I can't think of any new support reasons that haven't already been said. — Nathan (talk) / 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Good admin material. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 17:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - satisfy my criteria abakharev 04:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. – ugen64 05:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support per nominator. Polonium 18:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support, Wonderful user, always willing to help and has made a lot of good edits. -- Underneath-it-All 13:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    Note this support was made here - [1] - however, due to the google toolbar bug, the bottom of the RFA was cut off. I have restored the cutoff section and am repairing the collateral damage BigDT 19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, seems fine. --Jonathan D. Parshall 08:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose There is a possibility I'll change my mind if other established users can make a case for you, but my issues surround question one and your reversion patterns. I am somewhat troubled by the statement that the administrative tools will help me deal with vandalism and vandals directly (instead of tagging and reporting, which can take 10+ minutes to go through). That must be an exaggeration; it does not take ten minutes to revert a page and warn a vandal, even without the use of a program like VandalProof. Anyway, if you become an admin, you're still going to have to tag and report; being an administrator won't make the process significantly faster. I also get the sense that getcrunk is impatient from his odd reversion patterns, even from edits in just the past four or five days. He will often use an edit summary of rv when he's not reverting simple vandalism ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). There are also quite a few times where vandalism isn't followed by tagging and reporting ([7], [8], [9], [10]). This combined with the fact that this nomination comes less than a month and a half since the end of the last nomination worries me that he may be a little too impatient to exercise the necessary restraint that admins must have. If I see several experienced editors indicating that these actions are out of character and that he is in fact able to exercise patience, I will consider changing my statement to neutral. joturner 19:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    I admit that is a strong argument.--Andeh 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    I appreciate your points but I must note that my 10 minutes comment is in fact true; the incident that I was thinking about was this, and the issue was dealt with twenty minutes later. — getcrunk what?! 19:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    Ah okay; that makes sense. I'll see how this RfA develops. joturner 20:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ah..... Oppose for now per shooting pacifists, ludicrous username, and... I was going to say, too soon, but I am thinking, time may not cure some defects. Nobody should be without a second chance though, so I will watch this RfA closely and look hard for reasons to change my vote. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    What's even more ludicrous is opposing per a username. --Shizane 22:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    Yes I agree with Shizane, especially because his username isn't Ludacris, but rather Lil Jon. joturner 22:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    How is his name any more ludicrous than yours? ILovePlankton 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    It's the drug reference, real or perceived. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    You don't even know what Crunk is do you? "Crunk music is a specific type of hip hop music", Crunk Juice is a energy drink. How exactly does any of that relate to a drug? ILovePlankton 14:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    From Crunk: "Crunk is also thought to be derived from a combination of the words "crazy" and "drunk", or a combination of "chronic" and "drunk", referring to when someone is both drunk from alcohol and high on marijuana, at the same time." Only kind of crunk I know. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm... If it has multiple meanings then it isn't WP:AGF to think that is the main reason he picked that as his name, now is it? ILovePlankton 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    Ooh look what I found! Crunk Juice lol - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Hmmm. Oppose, I think. I've seen some pretty trigger-happy reversions and very little evidence of taking the dispute to Talk. If Getcrunk can show me some conrete evidence of working to resolve a dispute, rather than simply reverting and removing questions from Talk, I might be persuaded otherwise. The vocal profiles dispute (where, incidentally, removing them was right, since they were uncited) shows no evidence I can see of actually trying to educate the person trying to push them in, other than some rather combative edit summaries. Am I missing something? Just zis Guy you know? 21:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'd like to point out that I've never removed questions from an article talk page; if you are talking about this, that was a misplaced comment. I removed it rather than formatting it correctly because it added nothing to the discussion; the issue had been dealt with. After the reverts of the vocal profiles, I left a {{User-OR}} message on the user's talk page. — getcrunk what?! 22:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    No, I was talking about a series of questions re the vocal infobox, and one or two others I spotted. Just zis Guy you know? 23:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose because Getcrunk claims [11] that his userbox "This user thinks pacifists make good target practice" was a joke. Maybe you're not a bona fide Fascist; maybe you're just too stupid to be an admin. Sorry. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    There's no need for personal attacks. Just because you disagree with a user's actions doesn't make them stupid. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Typical Wikipedia schoolmarmery. Getcrunk jokes about killing people for their political beliefs, I call him stupid for it, and on whom does the wrath of the schoolmarm fall? Wile E. Heresiarch 15:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    You because you're the only one that violated policy. ILovePlankton 22:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    In a sense, you're right: there's no rule against joking about the death of your political opponents. Why do you suppose that is? Wile E. Heresiarch 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    Because it is a joke, and personal attacks are never acceptable. ILovePlankton 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I can't see a single reason to back this guy as an administrator. People who work on "pop culture" articles are ubiquitous, and I don't think pop culture contributions are particularly valuable; reverting vandalism on such articles seems to be almost a total waste of time. Also, getcrunk makes glib and thoughtless AfD comments and makes them far too often. Most of the time, he'd do us all a favor by not commenting. Sorry to be blunt, but I'm just being honest. Brian G. Crawford 08:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose The examples of reverting without warning and reverting edits that are not clear vandalism with a simple "rv" edit summary concern me. I would however like to hear the nominee's thoughts on this, and I may change from oppose if there are good reasons. Even though I am opposing myself, I am not impressed by what I consider hostile comments from some of the other opposing editors - let's keep this factual and civil. TigerShark 10:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    I do not believe that it is necessary to always provide large edit summries for simple reverts; I think that the reasons behind the simply marked reverts are clear when you look at the diffs (and if you are familiar with the subjects). — getcrunk what?! 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    I think i'd have to agree with Getcrunk on that one, putting long edit summaries when reverting vandalism can become quite tedious after a while.--Andeh 16:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Quick question, getcrunk: how is this vandalism? joturner 17:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    It's not. It is, however, excess detail which I saw fit to remove. There's no need for every single to be placed on the article; there is a discography page. — getcrunk what?! 17:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'd agree with Gc again, it wasn't vandalism and the song didn't get very high in charts compared to the other artists songs. But GC should've put a proper edit summary for not only this reason but so the IP user that added it knows why you took it out.--Andeh 18:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Joturner and That Guy. After reviewing some of the issues, this editor’s work, and talk page, I am a bit uneasy about this editor’s temperament and need for the tools. This editor’s answers are a bit too terse, vague, and wanting (particularly the optional questions). Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but I have this nagging feeling that for this editor it is. (BTW, while this is not a reason for oppose, it's bothersome to see this editor's sigs in red - it makes it look like this editor's userpage has not been created yet.) Agent 86 17:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Too close to last nom, and reversion techniques bug me. I hope that he will change his routine and I might support next time. --WillMak050389 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose for now. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose maybe later 64.12.116.10 20:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Indented vote by anon (users without accounts do not have suffrage in RFAs, sorry). -- nae'blis (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per joturner and others. Much of what I see speaks of a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude that doesn't sit well with me for an admin. Work on it and try again in 3-6 months. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per JzG, too soon after last nom, and low Wikipedia-space edit level suggests a potential lack of policy knowledge. I tend to operate higher standards for self-noms. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. The pacifist userbox thing did it for me ... also, I do not think it is in Wikipedia's best interests to have an administrator with a username of "getcrunk". At the very minimum, for me to support, I would need to see a username change to something more sensible. --Cyde↔Weys 00:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose as per CrazyRussian, Wile E. Heresiarch, TigerShark, and Cyde. Eluchil 07:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per above. Yanksox 16:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose as per above. Thumbelina 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per above. Petros471 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Too divise to manage conflicts--a key admin role.—Perceval 04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per above. — The King of Kings 02:30 July 01 '06
  19. Oppose per Jo Turner and some of the other concerns raised above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. A little too close since your last one. Sorry. Computerjoe's talk 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral seems to be a good editor, but definitely a bit too soon since your last RfA, per Computerjoe hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - your last RfA was only a little while ago, and I don't see your need and ability to use the tools increasing significantly since then. I don't see any compelling reason to support, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. RandyWang (raves/rants) 11:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per everyone else voting neutral. SushiGeek 12:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fence-sitter. Going to have to sit on the fence for this one. The above neutral votes are not what concern me, rather some of the oppose votes regarding reckless reversions. I don't think that any of these issues rise to the level of an oppose vote, but they do make me think twice about supporting. As for the opposers voting based on his pacifist userbox, I think that opposing a candidate based on this is patently ridiculous. Werdna (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Here's a little thought experiment for you. Substitute something, oh, I don't know, let's say "Catholic" or "Protestant", for "pacifist" in the expression This user thinks pacifists make good target practice. Is it still funny? Why or why not? Wile E. Heresiarch 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    Good job at missing the point. Pacifists are stereotyped as "not fighting back", therefore shooting at them is not hazardous, and more akin to sport/practice than something entailing risk, like actual combat. I didn't even like the userbox and I got that much... -- nae'blis (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, too soon since last nom. Roy A.A. 16:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, Same as RoyboyCrashfan. *~Daniel~* 02:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    You voted support on 27 June 2006. Are you changing your vote? If you are, you should strike out your support vote. DarthVader 01:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 21:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Getcrunk (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 146 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 25, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 31, December, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 92% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 45.49 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 481 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.06% (3)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 4.52% (226)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 24.46% (1223)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 71.45%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2182 | Average edits per page: 2.29 | Edits on top: 15.46%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 40.18% (2009 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 17.84% (892 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 33.84% (1692 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 6.4% (320 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 61.4% (3070) | Article talk: 3.94% (197)
User: 3.74% (187) | User talk: 20.68% (1034)
Wikipedia: 7.38% (369) | Wikipedia talk: 0.2% (10)
Image: 1.18% (59)
Template: 1.04% (52)
Category: 0.36% (18)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.08% (4)

Username Getcrunk
Total edits 5939
Distinct pages edited 2607
Average edits/page 2.278
First edit 17:34, August 6, 2005

(main) 3668
Talk 291
User 226
User talk 1158
Image 69
Template 58
Template talk 6
Category 22
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 426
Wikipedia talk 14
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: I see myself dealing with C:CSD because I have tagged many many vandalism pages for speedy deletion and warned many users; the administrative tools will help me deal with vandalism and vandals directly (instead of tagging and reporting, which can take 10+ minutes to go through). I can also help out at WP:AIV and WP:AN. — getcrunk what?! 18:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am happy with my contributions to Kylie Minogue-related articles, Janet Jackson and other pop-culture related articles. I think that the "community" that works on these pop music articles is great and that we've built a good encyclopedia! — getcrunk what?! 18:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
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: Of course I have been in a few edit conflicts (who hasn't!) but I think that we have worked out solutions to the problems, through discussion on the articles' talk pages. One recent "conflict" of sorts is on Beyoncé Knowles, where an anon. user claims different album sales. I found an up-to-date source and pointed the user towards the no original research policy. I think that when major reverts of your contributions are performed and no reason is mentioned, it can cause some stress, but a good solution is to just shake it off! — getcrunk what?! 18:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL questions from Hort Graz

  1. What length block would you use against a persistent vandal who uses AOL?
    A: If the IP has been vandalising constantly, I would apply a block of about 1-2 hours. If it was a registered account using AOL, I would block and then unblock any good users' IP that was autoblocked.
  2. If you block a range of AOL addresses, will you commit yourself to stay around during the block to help the innocent victims of the block?
    A: I would attempt to answer any questions from innocent users and explain to them what has happened. I'd also advise them to get a better ISP! (joke)
  3. After you have blocked an inappropriate user name, will you check the Special:Ipblocklist to see if this block is creating massive collateral damage?
    A: Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy, I would make sure my admin actions would not harm legit. users.
  4. Have you ever experienced being autoblocked because another user was blocked? Are you empathetic to those who may suffer this way, or do you not care?
    A: No I have not been autoblocked, but I feel the autoblocked users' pain; I used to use AOL back in the day. Autoblocking is a necessary evil, in a perfect world there would be a better solution.
  5. You are a soldier in Iraq, and you are under attack from heavy arms fire. Your attackers are in the vacinity of several innocent civilians. Is it better to shoot your attackers even though you may kill some innocent civilians, or should you refrain from shooting?
    A: Ideally I would not be a soldier in Iraq, however for the purposes of answering this question I'll play along. Depending on the importance of capturing those enemies, I would make the decision.

Optional Questions from Nobleeagle (Talk)

Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?
A: I think that vandals are the part of Wikipedia I dislike the most. Obviously being an admin would make fighting vandalism easier, but certainly not life.
Q: Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important?
A: I don't consider them as important as the quality of the edits.
Q: Do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.
A: No, I don't have specific criteria when voting. I tend to look at each user's case and make decisions on them seperately.
Q: Lastly, what is your largest wiki-weakness? This is your view and doesn't need to be based on the comments placed by oppose or neutral voters.
A: I think my biggest weakness is that I don't like to ask for many favours from others. I'd rather that I be able to do things (e.g. reverting/blocking) myself. I guess that could mean that I take on too much?

Username question from User:BigDT

  1. One point of clarification relative to joturner's point above about your username ... is your username in any way, shape, or form drug-related? I always assumed it was when you used to sign as "getcrunkjuice" ... although tonight I actually looked up the word and found out that it is a kind of music. Is this correct or is it a drug reference that I'm not picking up on? (I have no problem supporting as long as long as it's not drug-related.)
A: No, my username is not drug-related! It's a reference to crunk music. the "crunk juice" was a reference to a) the "crunk juice" energy drink by Lil Jon and b) his Crunk Juice album. Frankly, I am rather surprised and amused that User:Crzrussian assumed that it was drug-related!
Thank you for the clarification. BigDT 14:13, 26 June 2006 (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.