Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Consumed Crustacean

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

Consumed Crustacean[edit]

Final (61/16/4) Ended 23:52, 2006-08-20 (UTC)

Consumed Crustacean (talk · contribs) – This editor has almost 3000 edits, with a fair amount in Wikipedia and Talk namespaces. He has been around as a registered user since April 2005. He is civil in talk messages and generally gets along well.

CC has done a lot of administratorish work like reverting vandals with warnings, and participating in AFD.

I believe Consumed Crustacean is unlikely to abuse administrator tools and would benefit from having them. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-13 10:41Z

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept this nomination. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:51, 13 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: Closing *fDs, dealing with speedy deletions, and other things with a significant backlog all interest me. Administrator tools could also be very useful in my patrolling; page move vandals who edit the original article have foiled me with my standard abilities and required that I wait awhile for an admin to show up and fix the problem; I could also respond more quickly to blatent vandals who pass their test4 and continue to distrupt things. Administrative powers would also allow for me to respond better to things posted in the deletion review, which I'm starting to grow somewhat fond of. The idea of these mundane chores excites me, for whatever strange reason.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, I helped hammer out limits to the number of external links in the Spore (video game) article, despite much protest from people who it turned out owned the sites that they were repeatedly adding to it. That made me happy, as I do have a distaste for advertisements and for particularily long and useless External links sections. I've also helped clean articles such as James McCanney, which consisted of a large number of quotes and general rantyness taken directly from the subject's website.
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: I've had a relatively stress-free time on the Wikipedia, the worst things tend to be vandalism to by userpage, childish insults, or blatant vandals. I don't let things get to me, unless I'm in a very rare, sour mood in real life. Ed Poor did annoy me, after pulling me into a personal war of his due to a nonsensical page move to an article in my watchlist. I attempted to reason with him, but it wasn't really to any avail. I did get somewhat close to uncivility, so when he decided not to keep messing with said page I unwatched his talk page and didn't pursue it or him further. I was probably just in one of the previously mentioned sour moods, but I decided to not pursue him or the issue further when he stopped changing the page. Besides a limited amount of bias on my userpage, I keep it all in the real world and try to let none of it leak into here.
Optional Question 4 from - CrazyRussian talk/email: What's with the anti-scientology message? What's the point?
A:
Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 08:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user Consumed Crustacean (over the 2919 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 445 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 16, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 27, April, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 47.71% Minor edits: 53.89%
Average edits per day: 25.38 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 346 edits): Major article edits: 82.18% Minor article edits: 69.01%
Analysis of edits (out of all 2919 edits shown on this page and last 1 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.03% (1)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.55% (16)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 12.85% (375)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 1 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 27.88%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 21.99% (642 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.1% (3 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.31% (9 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page moves: 0.92% (27 edit(s)) (16 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.45% (13 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 1.71% (50 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1357 | Average edits per page: 2.15 | Edits on top: 12.95%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 16.58% (484 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 6.75% (197 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 11.24% (328 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 55.16% (1610 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 28.5% (832) | Article talk: 14.22% (415)
User: 3.77% (110) | User talk: 26.55% (775)
Wikipedia: 26.17% (764) | Wikipedia talk: 0.51% (15)
Image: 0.14% (4)
Template: 0% (0)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.14% (4)
Username Consumed Crustacean
Total edits 2798
Distinct pages edited 1327
Average edits/page 2.109
First edit 13:09, 27 April 2005
 
(main) 789
Talk 411
User 91
User talk 746
Image 3
Image talk 2
Template talk 2
Wikipedia 741
Wikipedia talk 13
  • I realize I havn't been perfect in my utilization of edit summaries, though I have for the past while been trying to use them for most every edit to the articles. I've been a little lax in discussion pages, and in the Wikipedia namespace. However, I have found and checked the nice little preference to warn me when I use a blank edit summary, and I will strive for 100% from now onwards. I also feel I have an intimate knowledge of the Wikipedia's policies. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of recent fears of sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ladodgersss), I request that caution be taken regarding new accounts, specifically those created during the RfA and even more specifically those created after Compressedair83's block. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support, as nominator. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-13 10:42Z
  2. Support - I see no reason to oppose. =) Kalani [talk] 00:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support ~ trialsanderrors 00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per Kalathalan. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` // STATEMENT // 00:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support User seems civil, dedicated....good enough for me. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as meets my standards and this is supposed to be no big deal. Insightful on AfD, no incivility, what more could I ask for? Ifnord 00:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support An admittedly cursory review of Crusty's DRV work convinces me of his{?} readiness for adminship. :) Dlohcierekim 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Further rationale. OOPS, Almost forgot, thanks for the reminder. User has clear expertise in *FD that outweighs considerations of edit count and other criteria. Given the backlog at *FD, his abilities are already needed. Giving him adminship now will benefit Wikipedia I believe requiring a Featured Article of RfA candidates is overly strict but does not accurately gauge their suitability to be admin's. It artificially raises the bar for their editing ability while not addressing suitability in the areas of containing vandalism, *fD, or copyright. The backlogs in WP:AFD and WP:DRV, and those involving copyright problem images are affecting the quality of Wikipedia. More admin's are needed to deal with the backlogs. The greatest threats to Wikipedia are legal-- litigation has been brought or threatened because of libelous content added by vandals, notable subjects having articles about them removed as not notable, and use of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder. The need for admins with demonstrated knowledge and expertise in these areas outweighs the need for more Featured Articles. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 12:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, looks like a good admin candidate.-gadfium 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I've been impressed with many things Consumed has done, including gently correcting my misconception about strawpolls. He'd make a fine admin.--Kchase T 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Would make a good admin. Dryman 01:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per above--Musaabdulrashid 03:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. DarthVader 07:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Looks good to me, and I love the name! TruthCrusader 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. My contact with you has been entirely positive, and I can certainly believe that you'd make a good administrator. Good luck. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 11:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support run into him frequently in WP:AFD. Seems like a wothwhile editor to me, just check the box that says "prompt me to leave an edit summary". ViridaeTalk 11:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak Support, I never like candidates with a relatively low amount of article edits, especially those who has not been able to improve articles (no 1FA, but at least 2GA). Other than that, he will be a good admin for the tasks he has indicated. -- ReyBrujo 11:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My english is not so good (as pointed in my talk page some time ago), so I want to be sure: is this summary a sarcasm? -- ReyBrujo 04:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean the "I did? Oh yes, wops", it was more a thought stream (it took me some time and a history check to remember) than anything. I occasionally post odd things like that. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was referring to the summary, the part that says I apologize for having morals relating to potentially dangerous organizations. -- ReyBrujo 05:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it was sarcasm, although somewhat snarky. I am honestly somewhat afraid of those folks. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. — FireFox (talk) 11:45, 14 August '06
  19. Support meets my criteria, though wikibreak seemed a little long -- Tawker 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. G.He 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. --Kbdank71 16:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Looks good to me. Excellent userpage by the way. — GT 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm disappointed you changed your userpage. A great many Wikipedians' user pages contain polemical statements/userboxes, including admins, and nobody punishes them. Just because you are "on trial" here should not mean you bow to opposers' demands just to get their vote. — GT 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I may re-add my position or that link, once I figure out how to do it in a less provocative way. Having it the central element of my user page might irk some people. I completely understand that. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done so. If it still offends or profoundly bothers anyone, please inform me. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I like to think that CC realised there was some good advice on this RfA, and wished to act on it immediately, not standing on pride, nor even being afraid that people would think he'd done it just to get support. In other words, a responsive and responsible individual. Tyrenius 12:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Go for support. --Bigtop 17:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Semi-weak support low edit count, but user does not look like he/she will abuse admin tools. CFIF (talk to me) 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per nom. --Gray Porpoise 21:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per nom, appears on my watchlist doing good things. bd2412 T 22:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Already doing some of the chores, give 'im the mop! Vsmith 01:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Does good work and will do more with the mop (I like the new userpage better, BTW). Eluchil404 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support based on experience in areas where additional admin resources are needed. I'd urge that whether or not this nomination succeeds, CC do some additional article work, as participation as an editor is the most enjoyable part of this project and also would help keep an admin plugged in to the needs of other users. Newyorkbrad 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support He needs the tools for what he is doing and he's doing a great job of it. I didn't so much mind the userpage, and he immediately changed it to accommodate those who may have been offended. Stubbleboy 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per above. Michael 05:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support JoshuaZ 05:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support doesn't seem likely to abuse the mop. --digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 15:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support -- Georgianis | (t) 16:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The vote by a permbanned troll is stricken out. `'mikka (t) 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone logged into an account is allowed to vote, unless there's a reason to suspect sockpuppetry. Quill E. Coyote 07:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The user's motivation for this support vote seems to have been purely to enlist my help in a dispute he/she was having. Let it be. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Where in policy does it suggest that a user's motivations have anything to do with whether or not their RfA votes are valid? It's very unbecoming of a candidate to tamper with their own RfA against policy, even if it's to invalidate a support vote. Quill E. Coyote 07:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that it's specified anywhere in policy (RfA is just a process), though it is common practice to strike votes of permablocked editors. The easiest solution is to quit arguing about this vote and let the closing bureaucrat decide whether to count it.--Kchase T 08:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's another case of someone getting blocked because they're suspected of being someone else with only circumstantial evidence. Checking his talk page he tried to appeal but no one want to help. Reggae Sanderz 08:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is faily obvious, but please don't strike votes, just comment on them and indent them. - Taxman Talk 02:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support . --Irpen 07:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Merovingian - Talk 07:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per lack of convincing (to me) objections, and general apparent good sense. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support- Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. SynergeticMaggot 19:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, oppose votes aren't convincing at all.  Grue  12:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per Grue. Mackensen (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, editor not likely to misuse the tools. -- DS1953 talk 21:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I don't find the oppose reasons strong or convincing enough to date. I think the candidate will do useful janitorial work which is badly needed, and has also handled himself extremely well in conversations relating to this RfA. Tyrenius 21:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support consistent with my RfA standards and per Tyrenius and Grue. Joe 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support Great work on AfD, and anyone who raises that much ire among the sockpuppet community has to be doing something right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 50th Support Although a touch concerned about the points raised in the oppose/neutral sections, I don't think they're enough not to support you. Good luck! --james(talk) 13:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Concerns below don't seem to merit opposing to me personally. Experience seems adequate. I count the trolls' (or troll's) effort to screw up the RFA as a point in his favor. -- SCZenz 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I like his username. ~ c. tales //dirty little secrets// 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, no points of particular concern under opposition. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Opposition unconvincing... I don't really care about edit summary usage that much, one seems to be based on not understanding what "<3" means (???) and as for the scientology thing, he's apologized and fixed it, seems sincere, what more can we ask? WP:AGF situation here. --W.marsh 21:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your last point, and AGF would suggest here that people have different conceptions of whether it's advisable to have admins who declare on-wiki their personal anti-(religious;racial;ethnic;political)-group beliefs. People have been buried here for displaying a "pacifists make great target practice" userbox, to name just one episode. There are some of us who take this more seriously than others. Please don't accuse of AGF violations lightly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken... I'm sorry if it came off as accusational (I didn't mean it that way). Back to the issue, I'm aware of the precedent, but personally I think that if someone has said they're sorry and they won't do it again, and it's reasonable to think they're sincere, AGF (to me) means that the issue is in the past, it's a lesson learned. But it's a personal judgement call, I understand not everyone accepts a simple RfA-time promise for reform, and I don't think AGF demands that they do. --W.marsh 00:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support He'll be a fine admin. Dionyseus 02:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. support Pete.Hurd 03:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Consistant with my standards, and I'm not convinced by the opposition. BryanG(talk) 05:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support as per Starblind. --Allen3 talk 18:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support because I was wrong about the 3RR revert rule thing. Love, Coyote (t) 20:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- In case no one else noticed, this is Quill E. Coyote with a new signature. Not sure it matters. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 22:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. --SB | T 05:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Weak Support looks OK. I've read the oppose votes and they are not strong enough to make me oppose.Voice-of-All 19:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Fails my criteria. --Masssiveego 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hate to say the same thing as Massiveego, but oppose under 1FA criterion. -- Миборовский 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    People still use 1FA? Wow... --Rory096 18:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose activity since CC returned from a gigantic absence (July '05 - May '06 with minimal contributions in the interim) fails my experience criteria. Would appreciate if CC explained the absence. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And what's with the anti-scientology message? What's the point? - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The observation on the contributions history needs to be clarified. He edited from the end of April 2005 till August 2005 with around 400 edits. Then there was a gap till mid-December 2005, with edits then and in January 2006. No edits in February, 6 in March, 1 in April, but approx 2500 edits since May. Tyrenius 20:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I appreciate the candidate taking ownership of the edit summary usage problem, but I see other issues that cause me concern. He doesn't seem to have engaged much in article writing (if he has, he should be pointing it out in Q2), which I think teaches editors as much about Wikipedia as fighting vandals and deleting things. One needs to know as much about adding things as removing them. Also, his userpage suggests that he is here with an agenda, which doesn't become anyone, let alone an administrator. I am open to being convinced otherwise. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    May I comment that I have not so much as touched the Scientology-related articles, besides possibly a couple typo edits? I do not POV-push. That I can not express my personal opinions on my personal userpage seems a bit crude. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal statements that could be considered polemical. -- ReyBrujo 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, a perfectly valid point, and the reason I've removed the statement. I am far from the only one with statements unrelated to the Wikipedia, even if other's are less controversial, but I won't pursue it further. I know when I'm wrong ;) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the statement being removed. But.. it wasn't just a statement, was it? Previous versions linked to a YTMND site, with instructions on how to use Wikipedia to "google bomb". What is that? --Aguerriero (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did? Oh yes, wops. It wouldn't tecnically work with the Wikipedia anyways (the suggestion was more for other sites), and I thought it was a bit abusive to even think about suggesting it, which is why I changed it to simply link to the YTMND with no suggestions. I did so within an hour. I was going to change the link to not simply say Scientology as well, but the link was added to the spam blacklist and the only possible thing I could do was remove it, which I didn't feel like doing at the time. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well thanks for taking the time to explain this to me reasonably. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Changed to weak oppose. I'm very sorry, but the lack of edit summary usage within two days of this RfA as well as the link on your userpage "Scientology kills" have given me little choice but to oppose. Admins are often seen as the "face of Wikipedia", as incorrect an assumption as that may be, and the phrase "Scientology kills" may very easily scare off pro-Scientology users. Additionally, I'd like to see more main namespace edits. That being said, this user is a wonderful one and I will whole-heartedly support in a few months if more self-restraint is evident. Srose (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Sorry, but policies like the 3RR revert rule are just too important to be subverted. Quill E. Coyote 03:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about, exactly? To the best of my knowledge, I've never violated the 3RR. Are you reading someone else's contributions? I notice that you warned a different user about 3RR violations; have you confused this user with myself? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Consumed Crustacean. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-16 07:23Z
    A note to closing bureaucrat: Troll's vote. `'mikka (t) 19:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A note to closing bureacrat: As you're more than welcome to investigate, I'm not a troll. Love, Coyote (t) 20:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it germaine to note Quill E. Coyote has < 50 edits? :) Dlohcierekim 04:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Love, Coyote (t) 20:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, CrazyRussian's observations worry me. —freak(talk) 12:33, Aug. 16, 2006 (UTC)
    And what's more, the candidate's failure to respond to those, particularly the latter, is very unbecoming. The anti-scientology messages are begging to be asked about - and if you, CC, choose to hold such opinions and display them as prominently as you do, you should at the very least be prepared to explain your conduct to give us a chance at AGF. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The absence was due to a personal matter. As for the scientology concerns: I'm not perfectly sure what you are inquiring about, since I did address this discussing with another user. I dislike Scientology as part of my personal set of morals, not unlike those which several users display on their userpages. I realize that the previous message was a little over the top, but that's why I had removed it and replaced it with "Scientology Kills". This is, incase you did not notice, the name of the website to which I linked. I didn't do this sooner because the particular site was added to the blacklist (people were repeatedly adding it to the Scientology article and others), which prevented me from making any edit that did not outright remove the link. Also, as I've previously made clear, I do not have an agenda on the Wikipedia. I have never made an NPOV violating edit, not even ones in disguise. There's no way I would even think of abusing the admin tools, since I know it would be easy to shoot me down and render this entire, lengthy process completely useless. I simply didn't realize that people would take such offense to content on my userpage. Now, I do. This conduct has never, and will never leave that page. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose With apologies to the candidate, I have a very bad feeling about this adminship and the potentional for abuse. I'm very troubled by some observations and am worried about other factors. Yanksox 21:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yanksox, could you elaborate? For example, it's unclear whether you're referring to your own observations or those made by others on this page. Thanks.--Kchase T 23:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a combination of observations I have made and the opinions of other editors wishing to oppose. Yanksox 00:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Ohnoitsjarnie 03:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not User:Ohnoitsjamie. It appears to be an impersonator. Can an admin please handle this?--Kchase T 03:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the user and stricken their vote above. JoshuaZ 04:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Oppose. User persistantly vandalised my page, insisted it belonged to another user. Reggae Sanderz 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Now, this is the first one I've found to be outright unfair (edit: okay, there's Coyote as well). It was not vandalism, it was the addition of a "sock suspect" template, which was added simply while a sockpuppet investigation was going on. It's standard procedure during such things, and a sock investigation is standard procedure when several brand new users appear at once to support an article that established users are voting overwhelmingly to delete. Since the user was not found to be a sock (they moved on after the AfD), the matter closed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the presence of new user's wasn't the sole reason for my calling the investigation, though. The original creator of the article had tried to sockpuppet by just changing his signature, which raised my suspicions. Again, I don't have anything against Reggae Sanderz, the situation was just incredibly wacky. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reggae Sanderz' third edit was voting in Osbus's RfA, where there were several meatpuppet votes. He signed up two minutes before that vote, and says on his userpage that he created an account to participate in RFAs. Draw your own conclusions.--Kchase T 05:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was visiting this page and I managed to stumbled on the RFA page (because I wondered why some users can remove pages and I cannot). I found out only some users can do it and by requesting the tools you have to put your name on this page. As I stated on my page, I stumbled upon this and voted, but I made other edits as well. Perhaps you should of read my userpage more carefully. Reggae Sanderz 08:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per CrazyRussian. This comment concerns me also.--cj | talk 05:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Love, not war" concerns you? I was attempting to peacefully cease my involvement in that particular piece of discourse. I still have no idea what he/she is talking about, and I was getting no where in the argument. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do correct me if I am wrong, but I interpreted the "<3, not war" comment to mean "less then 3 reverts is not an edit war". If so, then yes, I'm concerned. Otherwise, I apologise, but maintain my opposition on the basis of CrazyRussian's comments.--cj | talk 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have been more clear about that than the simple edit summary I used. <3 is smiley for a heart that has popularity in a few forums/games. You have to tilt your head to the right ;). I still respect your opposition grounds in any case. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I had thought post-haste that it might have been an emoticon, but was still unsure. I'm a little groggy, so my powers of discernment aren't what they should be :).--cj | talk 06:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose It's one thing to have and mention your personal opinions, but it's another thing to be offensive. Saying "Scientology kills" and "Scientology eats babies" is exactly that: offensive. -- tariqabjotu 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can and have learned the limits of my userpage. Following the RfA (I don't want to unfairly effect it), either way it ends, I'll even have the page and its history deleted if you think that will make it less offensive. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I think this user has a lot of potential, but I am concerned about the low number of mainspace edits and large gaps of participation. I also am concerned about the trumpeting of highly insensitive language on the user page, which suggests that one might apply that bias in Wikipedia work (now, if it were off-site, I'd give it much less weight). These adminship decisions from each of us are necessarily risk assessments, and my concerns are enough to consider this adminship as too risky for the Wikipedia at this time. However, I would be happy to reconsider in a few months if these concerns are dealt with. Also, perhaps consider checking "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in your preferences--it's a very helpful tool. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Oppose because of Consumed Crustacean's "Another brand new user" comment above. He already seems to be getting a power trip because he's been a Wikipedia editor longer than others, so he probably just wants to be an Admin for the additional perceived power rather than the chance to do good. - Dollarsign$ 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Vote of perm blocked user stricken. ViridaeTalk 11:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Brand new users voting on RfAs is considered very unusual, his comment (I assume) was to notify the closing bureaucrat that the vote was from someone who had just signed up and was potentially a sockpuppet. ViridaeTalk 09:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying that Viridae, I have changed from "Strong Oppose" to "Oppose." - Dollarsign$ 09:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't strike votes, just indent them and comment with evidence. Thank you. - Taxman Talk 02:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I really think edit summary usage needs to be better, and more experience editing articles would be good. TomTheHand 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose For a number of reasons per Yanksox, but to be more specific, I am opposing largely because of the inappropriate usage of Wikipedia to voice discrimination against certain religious beliefs (had this been an issue when the candidate was a new user, I wouldn't think twice about it, but given that the candidate had a "Scientology Kills" message on his user page two weeks ago leads me to think that this is not a user I want becoming an administrator). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose I don't like this user's tendency to call any edits he doesn't like vandalism. It seems very unprofessional to me. Also, I don't see why someone who wants to be an admin should have strong anti-anything messages on his or her userpage. Dimension31 03:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to cite an example of your first critiscism? ViridaeTalk 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, as you can see here [1] Consumed Crustacean deleted song lyrics and described them as vandalism. They may or may not have belonged there, but describing them as vandalism is simply ludicrous. Just look at his or her contribs page and you will see a lot of other similar examples. Another slightly related complaint: Consumed Crustacean likes to post "Please do not compromise the integrity of pages" as part of his or her edit summaries. That phrase just reeks of buzzword-laden self importance. He or she should run for a political office, not Wikipedia adminship. Dimension31 05:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is because he uses a special monobook.[2] While I personally hate edit summaries that do not explain why a change was reverted, or much worse, use a generic message like "rv", "reverted", or "reverted vandalism", I do not think it is his fault. The phrase you talk about comes from the same script. -- ReyBrujo 05:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This set of copyvios, to "Hannah Montana" articles has been happening repeatedly for several days. This, after the users have been {{nothanks}}'d. The edits tend to use the same format as well (much blank space), and the latest one seemed to try to deflect the copyright violating by mentioning that they're not the full lyrics. That makes me think the same user may have at least done it twice. I did use the "Good faith reversion" on the second copyvio I reverted today, but it's hopefully somewhat understandable why I used the "Revert vandal" function on the first. The message about "integrity" and all is simply part of Lupin's script. I don't particularily love the wording myself, but it's dang useful. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to note the similiarity in this user and Ladodgersss' editing. Normally I would not stray from WP:AGF quite so much, but it's gotten to be somewhat tiresome. I doubt they're the same person, but they may have some relationship. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how any alleged relationship would have any effect on my power to vote. Your last comment seems to meet your definition of vandalism. Also you somewhat address one of your spurious "Revert vandal" edits, but none of the others (such as [3]). My "Strongly Oppose" vote stands, but if you show signs of improved "Revert vandal" usage I will be open to a different vote in the future. Dimension31 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, diff sans context. The Wii article has been plagued by IPs adding in phoney or rumoured release dates. This one added specifically misleading text making it sound like it was really confirmed. It really bordered between Good faith and not, but I felt it leaned more towards not. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep on writing about specific cases that I only give as examples. Those specific cases are not my complaints. I am complaining about your general trend of dismissing certain edits you don't like as vandalism, and you have not addressed this complaint and continue to sidestep it.Dimension31 07:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Users will always rollback unconstructive edits - vandalism or no vandalism. As pointed out above, the resulting edit summary is due to the script CC uses. ViridaeTalk 07:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to seem overbearing, because ReyBrujo and Viridae's comments have been informative, but couldn't Consumed Crustacean have chosen to not use that automated system with non-vandalism related edits? Note: I am using one less indent with this comment than the preceding one to make it readable without racking up even more indents. Dimension31 08:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the specifics of the script but speaking from experience, when on RC patrol I tend to come across quite a few unconstructive edits that I wouldn't characterise as vandalism. I will roll them back either with the simple rollback button (I use vandalproof) which leaves an edit summary of "reverting edits by User to version #### by User using VP" this could then be construed that the user whos edits I rolled back was vandalising - which is not always the case. I also rollback non-vandalism contibutions with the custom rollback, leaving my own edit summary, to which vandalproof adds "using VP" to the end - which leads to the same problem as above. What I am getting at is that users on RC patrol will frequently come accross uncontrctive but non-vandalism edits which they feel need rolling back and the quickets way to do this and continue patrolling is within the script or program currently being used. ViridaeTalk 08:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong oppose per comments by user above, assuming bad faith on votes by new users. Just because someone is a new user doesn't necessarily mean the account belong to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axiomm (talk • contribs)
    Considering the level of abusive socks that have shown up, I think there is a healthy suspicion of new users commenting on this particular RFA. I personally wouldn't hold it against him. Syrthiss 18:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User:Axiomm's previous edit was over a month ago, and has previously been involved in RFA irregularities [4]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-19 19:39Z
  16. Oppose due to assumptions of bad faith and less-than-civil treatment of Reggae Sanderz. Cynical 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral, for now. I have crossed him in CVG-related articles, and his edits have always appeared to me as good ones. However, no active email, which I agree is necessary for administrators. -- ReyBrujo 01:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. -- ReyBrujo 11:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I completely forgot that I hadn't confirmed my email address. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I know CC addressed poor edit summary usage above, but as recently as August 9, s/he has neglected to use summaries (see the history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in ancient Greece). Srose (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to weak oppose. Srose (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. I would like to see more actual article edits. Themindset 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - looks pretty good, but I'd like to see more edits in the main space before supporting. Will look very seriously at supporting next time if the RfA fails this time round and s/he becomes a bit more active over a few months. Metamagician3000 11:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I'm between neutral and support here, but I'll have to go neutral on you. I personally think you have too few main article edits, but you have a decent size of edits in the namespaces of wikipedia and user_talk. If you get above 1,000 main page edits, I'd definitely throw my support for you. --Nishkid64 01:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather disconcerting... there are cases when trying to get something deleted two minutes after it's creation is prefectly valid, but when we have what is a perfectly reasonable article (in my opinion, at least) written by an established editor it seems rather hasty. That and the rather rigid adherence to Google results bother me. But, I wrote the article, so I am probably blowing it out of proportion. Either way, I felt I should bring it up. Incidentally, I find opposing over edit summary usage to be incredibly tedious and stupid, so please rest assured that my lack of support here has nothing to do with that.--SB | T 06:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (changed to support)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sorry for that. It was certainly hasty, and I've tried slowing down with more recent edits; it just makes it somewhat more difficult to keep track of articles to see whether they are actually being fixed. If anything, this RfA is certainly pointing out the areas where I can improve :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 'Neutral per everything above. Wikipediarules2221 23:32, 18 August 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/Consumed_Crustacean&oldid=1147963337"