Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cremepuff222

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

Cremepuff222

FINAL (84/2/0); Scheduled to end 23:49,

I would like to bring up one past mistake of mine that will probably confuse those that look at the deletion log of this page. On one of my first days of using Wikipedia I thought that I could somehow trick the community into giving me administrator privileges. The request was never transcluded onto the main RfA page though, and a nice guy had it deleted for me.

Lastly, I would like to confirm that I am in fact male. This misunderstanding once escalated the heat of an argument I was in, so don't be confused with my girlish-sounding name. :) *Cremepuff222* 00:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: The areas I would partake in would consist mainly of blocking malicious editors, protecting heavily vandalized pages, and deleting pages qualifying for speedy deletion. Come the ninth, page creates from IP users will certainly bring about pages that need to be deleted promptly.

In addition, the various XfD pages have become so clogged lately, and I have had experience in those areas. I will probably ease into more complex situations and issues after gaining some experience with the extra tools. I have commented on and followed many debates at AN and ANI, so this would be another place that I would hang out in.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I have made many contributions to Wikipedia, most of which fall into the "wikignome" category. I go on many anti-vandalism sprees in my spare time as well as tagging new pages. In the article namespace, I have made content additions to a couple of articles including

Hearst Papyrus

, the latter of which I was surprised to receive my first DYK on. In addition, I enjoy copyediting and fixing grammar errors as Ryan said in the nomination.

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: Yes, I have been involved in a situation with another user. After signing my then-important-autograph book with Jimbo's signature, I reported the user to ANI, a poor and rash decision on my part. The argument grew heated, but luckily

adopt-a-user program

, helped mediate the argument and we eventually got over it. I would like to express my greatest apologies to this user if you read this RfA, and I admit I was rather childish in that situation.

Optional Questions from Hdt83

4. When should

WP:IAR

be invoked, if ever?

A: The policy for IAR is pretty concise, stating "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." It should be applied to situations just as the policy says; if the "rules" don't allow one to do something, but consensus or common sense says you should, go ahead and do it.

5. What are your views on allowing page creation by anons?

A: Extending the ability to create pages to anonymous users has its pros and cons, but I would have to say my stance is against it. There will certainly be some good-faith page creates by anonymous users, but after experiencing their edits while on RC patrol, I am positive that the majority will be intended to harm wikipedia and its readers. The allowance of IPs to create pages was more than likely the deciding factor in my acceptance of this RfA. The various CSD categories are bound to become backlogged come the ninth, and I would be happy to assist in cleaning them out.

6. Which article or page on Wikipedia do you best enjoy reading and why?

A: Hmm, I would have to say science and math-related articles interest me the most because those subjects interest me most. I enjoy reading other users' essays on various Wikipedia policies as well.

7. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 08:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I'm not really aware of a policy simply about unblocking, but

WP:BLOCK

pretty much explains the unblocking procedure. It states that one shouldn't unblock a user without contacting the blocking administrator. I do intend to follow this policy as there was definitely a reason behind blocking the user, and since Wikipedia is governed by a system of consensus, it is important to generate a solution with the other administrator.

Optional Questions from MindstormsKid

8. If you came across a user who was unfairly blocked, but was being really rude to everybody, what would you do?

A: Well, "being rude to everybody" is certainly against Wikipedia's policy of

no personal attacks

, so I would more than likely block the user or post a thread on ANI to gain consensus of others.

9. Let's say this happened: You came across a user who had done serious damage, then got unblocked and did even more damage. He says he really won't do any more damage, and please unblock him. He says that at the slightest bad thing from him, please block him. What would you do?

A: One thing IRC has taught me is that people who say this often will continue doing disruptive things. This can be applied to Wikipedia as well. The user would likely continue vandalizing if unblocked, and if not, he or she can create a new account and start over again.

10. If a user was following you around everywhere in wikipedia reverting your edits, but giving reasons for the deletions and seeming sincere. You found out you had just become administrator. Would you try to reason with/find out what was wrong with the user. Or would you jump to your admin tools immediately, what would you do in that situation? --businessman332211 05:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Links for Cremepuff222: Cremepuff222 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• See Cremepuff222's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cremepuff222 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Uber-Support Great user. Knowledgeable and trustworthy. —
   omg he's back 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Support Beat-the-nom support for an incredible user. :-) —Animum _{(a rag man)} 00:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Great user, contibutions are excellent. Candidate should do great things with the tools. —
   BAG 00:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. support Nothing to suggest user will use tools improperly. Great contributions. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support No evidence user would abuse the tools. Good luck. GDonato (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Über support Great user!
   Go green! 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. I strongly support this nomination. Cremepuff222 is an excellent user, and listen to advice as well. I know because I and a few other users reviewed him many months ago, and he went from a good editor to, as I said above, excellent. Acalamari 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 01:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support (Gah!!! edit conflicted). I believe I got acquainted with this user back in
    Motto of the Day, and they've really matured greatly through what I've seen. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Support--
    U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. Strong Support! Cremepuff222 has been helpful, nice, and overall everything Wikipedia wants. Go Cremepuff222! MindstormsKid 01:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Sounds good. -- John Reaves 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Are you sure this is your first RfA? —
    ₂O —  01:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I'm fairly certain. :) *Cremepuff222* 01:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support looks ideal - all the best --Pumpmeup 01:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support because he called me a nice guy. But seriously, he has lots of experience in a wide variety of admin related areas, plenty of common sense and he's a thoroughly nice guy himself. He will certainly be a great asset as an admin. Will (aka Wimt) 02:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have common sense, I have uncommon sense... *Cremepuff222* 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18. Support Great editor who is extemely helpful and civil. Now, where is his mop and bucket. AngelOfSadness talk 02:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong Support One of the easiest supports I've ever given. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Do I have to give a reason?
    (Ni!) 02:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
21. Support For sure.--Werdan7^{T @} 02:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. I have mainly interacted with this user over IRC, and all such interactions have been very positive. I also trust he will not do anythng naughty or stupid with the tools. --Mark (Mschel) 02:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Ρх₥α 02:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support No reason not to. A great vandal fighter as well. --
    Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Hey, why did Siva1979 support Cremepuff222 for being a great vandal fighter while opposing my RfA? I was a good vandal fighter as well.

    talk 03:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    You should probably ask Siva on his talk page, it's not really appropriate to ask here. GlassCobra 05:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This was more of a joke-like question. Several people opposed me JUST because I did not do many mainspace editing at that time. I have seen one RfA successful even if Siva opposed that one.

    talk 13:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    NHRH, peoples standards, and oppinions sometimes change. Maybe his stadards on adminship have changes? I know that some of my standards have changed. Like, for an example, I used to be a "exreme deletionist". Now I am more "moderate", though still a deletionist. Cheers!--

    SJP 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

25. Strong support Anyways, I've seen this user around since last spring, saying thank you to me when I warned one vandal (I will get mad if this RfA is unsuccessful).
    talk 03:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
26. Support All round great editor. Phgao 03:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. My experience of Cremepuff has always been positive. I think he has the necessary experience to make a good admin. WjBscribe 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Thought you were already an admin! GlassCobra 05:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support I trust Cremepuff222, why not? PrestonH 05:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Jmlk17 10:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow Jmlk, you have actualy supporting someone :) Since your standards are high, and you are supporting this person I am sure he will make a great admin! Cheers!--

    SJP 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

31. Support. Odd, I was thinking just last night about nominating Cremepuff :) anyway, having scanned through the recent
    Anthøny 10:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Strong support —DerHexer (Talk) 11:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Very Strong Support I have had nothing but positive interactions with this user. He is very friendly, mature, and has not shone any signs he will abuse the tools. This is, honestly, a no brainer. Good luck!--
    SJP 12:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
34. Support, yes, all good here.
    ☎ 13:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
35. Support — you go, girl! :-P --Agüeybaná 13:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - one of the most caring and trustworthy folks I have come across here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Let's get this over with. Trustable chap, no concerns at all on my part. — Dorftrot
    tel⁠ 15:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
38. Well if
    Neil supports. :) No issues here, may review of the contributions reveals nothing... problematic. Mercury 17:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Support. No issues/concerns here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support - No reason to suggest this user would abuse the tools. However, I'm not sure about the experience. I came close to opposing on the basis if the majority of the mainspace edits being what look like semi-automated edits, but the support from others I respect, and the essays, swung me back into the support camp. I would suggest some more mainspace experience with heavy editing of a single article before taskling anything like complex vandalism or trolling. Carcharoth 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for that comment, Carcharoth. I'll be sure to get going on some articles soon. *Cremepuff222* 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

41. Support - Andy^reply 17:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong support - having seen this user around the wiki and, though more casually, chatted on IRC with him, I am confident that he has and deserves the trust of the community and therefore should be given the mop. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Strong Support YES! Smokizzy (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 21:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support, per Mikka's "professional police" reasoning, except in reverse. I strongly believe that we DO need "professional police" here, if only to maintain order amongst all the chaos that a project of this size can become. K. Scott Bailey 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong Support — per nom. --
    t|c|b|cn) 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
47. Support--MONGO 05:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - per nomimation and brilliant AGF user demonstrates. Rudget _{Contributions} 15:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - responses to R below are very encouraging. Admins need to be proof against this sort of thing. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - Fair, experienced, useful editor. I could list lots of diffs about how fair this editor is towards creators of articles nominated for deletion. While we don't always agree at
    WP:AFD, I like the method of operation. Bearian 17:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
51. Support - Great track record of user interface. Very important in most effective administrators. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support per R. My understanding of the situation he opposed regarding is that Cremepuff made a judgement call off his own back to ensure stability of an IRC channel. That shows sensibility to me. Oh yeah, and he's good on-wiki.
    inp23 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
53. Not an admin already? Do I need more explanation? :-) Stwalkerster talk 22:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. Responses to R demonstrate maturity and stability.–Crazytales talk/desk 00:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Strong Support – He has a great attitude towards Wikipedia and life in general, and he does a lot of good work. Nothing more I need to say. — madman bum and angel 00:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support - an experienced vandal-fighter who could use the extra tools. While there could be more experience in terms of time and article building, the tools of an Admin are like a mop and a bucket, and article expansion is not necessarily required. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Edit-conflicted support! Cremepuff222's solid contribution history and civil demeanor leave me with nothing to critique :) ( arky ) 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support — I see no indication that this user will use the tools in anything but a mature and responsible manner. Everyone should have tools, and only technical considerations prohibit this from being a reality. --Haemo 04:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - yup! A vandal fighter but with a balancing dose of AGF. Trustworthy and with a very strong nom from Ryan - Alison ^❤ 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
61. Support unreservedly per above. I trust Cremepuff will use the tools well and wisely, although his name always makes me hungry! --
    Farosdaughter 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
62. Support Always reasonable and conscientious in his contributions. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. We need more Admin gnomes, and XFD Admins. Do good with the mop Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. 2 DYKs gets you over the line in my book...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support - Absolutely fine with this candidate. My only hesitation is that I think the answer to the question about IAR is a little superficial - I'd like to see a bit more demonstrated understanding of it (can you expand on it?) but I have no reason not to wholeheartedly support this nomination. I trust Ryan, and I trust Cremepuff. (OK, that's a sentence I've never typed before). - Philippe | Talk 03:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Per Ryan's admin coaching results. Looks like an outstanding candidate.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support seems to know what s/he's doing. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Really strong support If I'd only know sooner I could've made people jump on the bandwagon...--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Obviously to be trusted.
    Talk 05:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
70. Support The opposes are unconvincing, and I trust Ryan's recommendation. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. As a side point, personally I have utter disdain for IRC. I see no reason why anything Wikipedia-related should ever need to be discussed there; we should always aim for 100% openness and transparency, and where privacy is absolutely necessary we can use e-mail. So if it were up to me, we would abolish the various "#wikipedia" IRC channels altogether. But anyway, returning to the main point: I supported R's RfA despite his alleged "immaturity" on IRC (which I have no way to verify, because of the secretive and duplicitous nature of the IRC medium). Likewise, I support this RfA for an all-round excellent candidate. I am disappointed to see that R (who of all people ought to understand the frustration of seeing a trivial or pedantic oppose vote) has opposed for such a poor reason. Walton^One 17:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support per above, don't exactly understand the point of Mikkalai's oppose. --
    desat 18:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
73. Support – kind, level-headed, and contributes to content/maintenance thereof. Admin-gnome away, Cremepuff :)
    Gracenotes^T § 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
74. Support The calm exchange with R below reinforces my decision. east.718 at 06:04, 11/9/2007
75. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 06:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support, I'm almost surprised I forgot. Wizardman 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support, good answers, calm under pressure, can't see anything wrong here. Woodym555 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support - nothing to suggest the tools will be abused. A decent set of contributions, although mainspace edits are a little low. But the Wikipedia-space participation and interaction with others and experience as an admin coachee under the tuition and guidance as someone as knowledgable and helpful as Ryan Postlethwaite, make you a good candidate. Lradrama 15:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Strong Support - Cremepuff222's history suggests nothing but goodness, maturity, and stability (sorry Crazytales :/), thus there is no reason to vote against him. --tennisman 16:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support As per track and Newyorkbrad.Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support I don't see anything brought up that would really indicate CP would abuse the tools. I trust Ryan's judgment and know that if he trains someone via admin coaching, they've been taught well. I've had contact with CP on IRC, and found him quite helpful (cloak issues, general IRC commands questions, etc, completely non-Wiki related items). While I do understand R's concern, I happen to feel that IRC actions and behavior should be left at the Wikipedia door. I've seen many an editor act quite differently on IRC than they do here, and to me, it doesn't seem to be an issue. What matters to me, is how an editor conducts themselves within this project. Cremepuff went through the adopt-a-user program, and I'm sure during that time, many of the initial concerns were addressed, and cleared up. I don't really think that not having major article building experience is a reason to oppose, although I would strongly encourage Creampuff to do some work in this area, as without realizing it, a number of policies and guideline subtleties are learned via writing, and building up articles. However, there is certainly room and need for good, solid vandal fighters, and they fill a vital role. As an administrator, I'm sure that CP would stay within his areas of familiarity until gaining more experience and knowledge of the other areas, and I have absolutely no doubt that he would request assistance and advice, when delving into areas he was unfamiliar with. His reply to question 7 shows he respects the actions of other administrators, and would seek council if he disagreed. I'll just urge CP to make use of the resources here, the new admin school, the council of experienced admins and editors, and take it slowly at first (which is, of course, good advice for all new admins). But I feel that Cremepuff would make a fine addition to the administrative team. Ariel♥Gold 00:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Maxim 20:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support per the above, and what they said. IRC does not concern me, Captain Needa. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84. Post Closing Time Support So I trust it will be discounted. Excellent editor, who will be a benefit to the admin team. Pedro :  Chat  00:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose with sincerest apologies to Ryan. Okay, here is a controversial one. My reason for opposition has nothing to do with an onwiki event, but an IRC incident. I know, how evil of me to relate the two. Basically, Cremepuff222 swore to me he wouldn't do something in an IRC channel a few days ago. Yesterday he went back on that promise (once again, that promise that he went back on was doing something on IRC). That shows me untrustworthiness, and I don't want to see that on Wikipedia. Can I really think of specific reasons of how trustworthiness makes a good admin? No, but just being trustworthy is a general trait needed in one. Now, why am I bringing up something about an incident on IRC when my own personal opinion is that IRC is not Wikipedia? Because it was relevant for some to talk about something 100% IRC related, 0% wiki related in my RFA, so why should I not here? Thank you, --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Your concern is noted and appreciated. I'll work hard to gain your trust whether this request passes or not. *Cremepuff222* 02:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   IRC != wiki —

   omg he's back 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   That is indeed true, but his concern is understandable. *Cremepuff222* 02:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Tell that to the opposers of my RFA TREYWiki. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   R, the reason we opposed your RfA is your behavior at IRC. Cremepuff222's incident is a minor one at best, but you have been banned multiple times for your behavior at the IRC (I won't list them) which is why you were opposed/neutraled at your 5th RfA. IRC dosen't weigh for adminship, I know, but your behavior is way too serious for consideration. I hope you understand R. PrestonH 05:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   This is an unfortunate !vote and topic for this page, and one that I hope that User:R will change upon reflection. R, you know that I supported your adminship and was as disappointed as anyone when it didn't pass, but the remedy for what you or I might have seen as unwarranted grounds for opposing you is not to invoke similarly unwarranted grounds against other candidates and sully their RfA experiences in the process. R, I'm especially unhappy with your raising this issue here since Cremepuff222 can't even really respond to it without bringing up irrelevant matters concerning, among other things, yourself. This could and should have been raised and addressed in an entirely separate fashion. Newyorkbrad 11:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   WHile IRC != wiki, trustworthiness knows no boundaries. If R feels his trust was broken, I understand the concern. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry if my comments does seem harsh at best. I trust R with his judgement, but I feel his opinion was a little unbalanced out which is why I submit my comments. I don't mean to be harsh in anyway, but he brought a opinion because of what he did to himself. I hope this won't turn into wikidrama again. If R really feels that way, then OK, I trust his reasoning somewhat. PrestonH 15:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (outdent) Seriously. I say some crazy shit on IRC... that I would never type on wiki. If the editors can wear the WR hats at Wikipedia Review, their IRC hats on IRC, and their English Wikipedia hats, while on wiki, I see no issue. So long as the actions do not bring the project into disrepute. Mercury 17:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sheesh, R! You oppose after on little incident on IRC?! And almost every channel you go to you wreck havoc at some point?! You should be happy Cremepuff222 has not banned you forever from ##Cremepuff222! Really, if any, the only reason to oppose is that Cremepuff222 is too forgiving! MindstormsKid 17:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Everyone Makes Mistakes. —

   omg he's back 17:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Maybe RfA isn't the best place to link to a Hannah Montana Youtube video, Trey. :) *Cremepuff222* 22:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Mercury, you say people can "wear hats." I agree with that also. So, apparently I have an IRC hat and a wiki hat. Have you ever seen those hats mixed? Have you ever seen what I do on IRC, on Wikipedia? No. So why was I opposed? --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   R, I recommend you think about what you post before posting it. You may just be digging yourself into a deeper hole. *Cremepuff222* 00:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   R, Remember, this RfA is about Cremepuff, not you. Thank you! —

   omg he's back 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   (←) I know I'm not exactly the best person to comment on this, but I only have one thing to say in response to R: Common sense and what needs to be done to preserve order overrides any promise(s) made. —Animum _{(a rag man)} 00:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I personally feel that an admin has to do their job, but I agree with mercury, and anyway, I don't think I have seen cremepuff222 acting in the way R describes before, (obviously I was not there at the time) but this appears to be a one-off incident, probably caused by a memory that does not remember every single little thing, and call them back at exactly the right moment, which I think noone human will have. In other words, I think cremepuff222 simply forgot his promise, and then acted as though it didn't exist, like one would if they forgot something like a promise. I hardly think that cremepuff222 is going to go on a spree breaking every single promise he has made, that based on my aforementioned experience with him. However, PrestonH's comment is a good one, in that you seem to be more guilty of IRC offences (like PrestonH, I won't list them, because this comment is already beginning to get a bit long), so by picking up a user of an IRC offence like R seems to have done with cremepuff222 seems a bit hypocritical. I am sorry to be very blunt about that, but I can think of no other way to put it. As Mercury has already said, there are various editors on IRC that behave very differently on IRC than they do on Wikipedia, and while R has stated that he is one of them, having not really met R on wiki, but only on IRC, I am not in a position to decide whether or not this is the case or not. However, not wanting to digress too much, I feel that while IRC is not the same as Wikipedia, R's comment about this case is relevant, because it deals with trust amongst other things. I have already mentioned that everybody breaks the odd promise here and there, and that I have had no trust issues with cremepuff222, I think that R's loss of trust in cremepuff222 is a valid concern for this RfA, however, seeing that it appears to be accidental, in that it appears to me that cremepuff222 simply forgot the promise, I feel that this outweighs the concern put forward by R, especially seeing that cremepuff222 has already committed himself into gaining back R's trust (comment above). In other words, all points put forward (that I can think of at the moment, I may think of more later :P ), that cremepuff222 is well suited to the tools, and I therefore stick by my support above. :-) Stwalkerster talk 23:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Uh, not quite. Like Martinp23 said above, I had to break the promise in order to insure that nothing bad happened in the channel while I was away. By the way, that must be the longest comment I've ever seen. :) *Cremepuff222* 14:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Check out gurch's comment on an RfA a while back - his was at least 3 times as long as mine - but that is a record for me (longest comment). I could go into a long rant (again!) about how protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia is more important than a promise that I can deduce from the situation and the names of those involved that the promise was not an important one to you, or the IRC channel. Cremepuff222 still have my trust (as I said above, hardly think that cremepuff222 is going to go on a spree breaking every single promise he has made). :-) Stwalkerster talk 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It is unwise to judge Wikipedia editors on their off-Wikipedia behavior. It is unwise to pull non-Wikipedia experiences into evaluating Wikipedia performance. Judge Wikipedia editors on their Wikipedia work and interactions. Kingturtle 15:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strongly oppose. I am not yet convinced that the goal of this user is to create encyclopedia. I have an impression that this one is more for socisalizing here. When they joined wikipedia, the whole first month, like, 98% of work was creation of his user page, followed by half a month of various chats in user pages, followed by fixing redirects and fighting with anon vandals, with significant proportion of edits still in user talk pages. I firmly stand that an editor without significant content contribution and "hardened in fights with vandals" cannot be entrusted with tools that require judgement of other editors. `'Míkka 18:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   That was ages ago. Have you even bothered to check his last 4 months of edits? Yes he fights vandals, but he does plenty of other constructive things as well as that. He does wiki-gnomish tasks and does add some content. I find this oppose overly harsh on the candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Aside from my personal view that administrators need not necessarily be article writers (although it is definitely a good thing for an administrator to have), I know that for one, Cremepuff222 has even helped lead collaboration on some articles needing tender loving care, for example Brass razoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), including collaboration in real time through IRC. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   this personal view is disagreeable. We don't need a caste of professional police here. Yes, I've looked through the whole history and find the amount of content creation very low. Harsh or not, a real admin may only be figured out only how he handles his opposition, hot how he chats with IRS buddies. `'Míkka 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, I admit I used Wikipedia as a social networking tool the first few months that I registered. Like I said earlier, Xiner definitely helped me to become a more productive editor and to actually help improve Wikipedia. It took him a while, but an MfD on my userpage turned me around and I started helping out. I assure you, all I would like to do is improve the project, and I believe administrator tools would be very beneficial. Your concern is appreciated. *Cremepuff222* 22:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Mikka, I think you mean IRC. You shouldn't be buddies with the people that steal our money collect our taxes. :] --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   We certainly don't need professional police here. The candidate is volunteering to do the work without pay. That's rather different. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose per R.

   Go green! 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Is your concern because you can't trust me or because you don't like the way I handled the situation? *Cremepuff222* 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (edit conflicted twice) Jonathan, please see my comment on R's oppose (the long one): that sums it for me, but what Kingturtle has said, it's not exactly a good idea to bring IRC into Wikipedia things. If you can show a Wikipedia diff that shows that cremepuff222 cannot be trusted, to back up your point, then please could you put a link to it here to show in more detail why you opposed? This whole business of basing comments on IRC is beginning to get on my nerves - IRC is not Wikipedia. :-) Stwalkerster talk 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Firstly, I think that smilie is not well-placed (:-P). On a more serious note, if you don't like what happens in an IRC channel as a result of your own behavior (which is the only reason you can be rebuked on IRC anyway), don't go into it! Like Stwalkerster, I'm growing irked of these not-very-well IRC-based opposes, and I'm also beginning to see some maturity being reflected in the comments here... —Animum _{(a rag man)} 02:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Animum: do you want me to take the smiley face out of my sig? I thought it would spread the happiness - promote WikiLove! :-) Stwalkerster talk 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Stwalkerster: Are you trying to ping me? :-P —Animum _{(a rag man)} 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]