Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cryptic

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

Cryptic

Final (73/1/0) ended 02:55 12 November 2005(UTC)

I accept, and am more than a bit embarrassed by Durin's effusive praise. —

Cryptic (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Support per above. --Durin 13:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. I was so shocked that Cryptic was not an admin I nearly fell out of my chair. Very strong support. Thanks for doing this, Durin. encephalon 13:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, yes please, for sure, per Durin. -Splash^talk 14:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. OMFG You are not a admin Support Excellent work in AFDs --JAranda | watz sup 21:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - will make a perfect admin, no question about it. Owen× ☎ 23:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. {{subst:admin-cliche}} --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong Support. A great user who will be a great admin. Canderson7 23:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Short, cryptic statement of support. ~~ N (t/c) 23:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support but not enough edits ;) --
   (?) 00:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Support completely deserves this, I had no idea he wasn't one. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support
    talk | 00:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Yeah yeah... Redwolf24 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Enthusiastic support! Kirill Lokshin 00:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support --
    Communicate!) ^<Contribs> 00:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
15. Support. Good experiences with Cryptic, no reason to oppose. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. He isn't one? Really? No, seriously? *jaw drops*--
    Black 01:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
17. Support per nom. --Holderca1 01:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support and First person getting my new award! Private Butcher 02:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Michael Snow 03:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Wait wait wait... Wasn't him an admin already? Support. --cesarb 03:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support excellent user, does good work, Durin's nom was rather convincing.  ALKIVAR™ 03:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. --Alan Au 03:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support, RFA Cliche No. 1. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Vote is barely necessary, as everybody assumed he was one. Xoloz 03:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support of course Dlyons493 Talk 03:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
27. Cool. JuntungWu 04:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 05:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. I trust Durin's analysis, and this guy's bot seems great. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{06:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
30. Support as per nom.≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 06:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support per nom. --Pamri ^{• Talk • Reply} 07:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. And don't be embarrassed, it's accurate. Grutness...wha? 10:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
33. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support this very experienced contributor. Marskell 13:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, of course. -
    Mailer Diablo 15:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
36. Support; believe he would not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support
    x 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
38. Support RfA cliché #1 -- Psy guy ^(talk) 18:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
39. Clear unfuddled support. Again... he's not an admin already?! Wonders never cease. :) Jacqui ^★ 20:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Thought you were already an admin, as did many people apparently.
    PTalk29, 20:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
41. Support after viewing "worst edit ever". If that is the worst, and you're concerned enough about it to mention it here, that is commendable for both its transparancy and taking Wikipedia standards seriously enough to regret it. Jkelly 23:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. This guy is offering to do more work for us. I say let him. Go get those backlogs! :) Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support without a doubt. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support per amazingly convincing nom. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Someone who actually transwikis articles. It was a great relief when he started helping out with that (and I feel more than a little guilty about having stopped altogether).
    t 22:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
46. Support 172 | Talk 23:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Dakota ^{t e} 00:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support, RFA cliché #2 (whatever that is). Alphax ^τεχ 00:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. BD2412 T 03:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support  Grue  05:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. - ψ (ElAmericano)
52. Support - I like being #50 Tony the Marine 06:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support, appears ready to be trusted w/admin tools. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. Excellent contributor. I have seen Cryptic active in the important transwiki work, which can often be a bottleneck. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. Good editor, no issues, give him the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
56. Have to support a fellow AfDer. Tintin 03:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. utcursch | talk 03:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. --
    talk} 12:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
59. Support, support, a thousand times support. Maybe two thousand times. One of the most clearcut should-be admins since Jimbo. A taste extravagansa at a reasonable price. Four an a half stars out of five. Coming soon to theatres near you. Lord Bob 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. will be a good admin. Youngamerican 17:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support - 'nuff said. --Ixfd64 18:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. Hall Monitor 18:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
63. Extreme one-more-vote-won't-change-the-outcome support. I admit it: I thought you were already one of us. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support MONGO 02:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Martin Osterman 14:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - Yay! Sheep vote! No, seriously Durin, you should nominate more... --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support.
    Thunderbrand 17:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
68. Support. Yup, what they said. Alf ^melmac 02:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Obivously --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support most definately. And for good measure: thought you already were one!. :)--
    Talk 11:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
71. Support. Lets see now, voting down near the end of this ballotting would make me a "low hanging fruit" but just the opposite by Durin's POV. Whatever, it is a pleasure to pile-on for this excellent candidate. --hydnjo talk 19:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
72. Extreme cryptic support for reasons already given above. Jonathunder 23:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - Indeed. Sango123 (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose too much of a deletionist.--Silverback 16:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   What's your point, Silverback? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I dont get that comment I think shes more of a illusionist than deletionist --JAranda | watz sup 22:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

• Use of edit summaries is 98% over all edits. Average number of edits per day is 37, 45 over the last 30 days. --Durin 13:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Now that Crypticbot's reduced the time it takes for me to find and list orphaned afds from about an hour and a half to fifteen minutes a day, I intend to go back to what I was mainly doing before getting involved there - new pages patrol. Being able to speedy the worst of the nonarticles that show up instead of just tagging them will be a relief. I also intend to help out with the perpetual backlog at

copyright problems

, instead of just adding to it.

Unlike many other new admins, I don't see myself clearing out afds in the foreseeable future, unless the backlog gets to be really ridiculous. Afd bothers me, and part of the reason I wrote Crypticbot was so I'd feel less obligated to comment on the orphans I find. It's very easy to fall into a spiral of "Delete, unverifiable", "Delete, self-promotion", "Delete, fancruft", "Delete, I saw a typo in it a couple revisions back" if you don't watch yourself, and as someone who's added very little content to Wikipedia, it's troubling to find myself voting to delete others' contributions. Afd's also one of the least friendly places on Wikipedia, and it's contagious.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I'm certainly glad that orphaned afds get listed within a day now, instead of hanging around for literally months as they sometimes used to. As my frequent "No opinion"s on relisting them show (pre-bot, anyway), I may not care if a given article is kept or not, but I do have an interest in keeping them from having a permanent afd tag stuck to them, scaring off would-be contributors. This was also my motivation to clear out a six-month backlog in the post-VFD transwiki queue (something else I've been neglecting lately, alas).

I do want to make it clear that, though my main namespace edits may look impressive to editcountitis sufferers, there isn't much substance to them - largely typo fixes, occasional wikification, and even more occasional cleanup. My most recent edits to articlespace are flooded by a spurt of cleaning out {{

R from title without diacritics

}}, which could have been done just as easily by a bot. Edits contributing new information are all but nonexistent; if I was less of an ignorant lout, I wouldn't have kept coming back to Wikipedia in the first place.

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 don't get stressed by things on the wiki. I come here to relax, and I actively avoid conflict.

A conflict I could have dealt better with was with

FPC

, despite several users reverting him and deleting the template, I don't think anything I said could have calmed him down, but I should have at least tried.

If you're looking for my worst edit ever, though, it's this personal attack. I can only plead lack of sleep and frustration with my browser suddenly crashing every fifteen minutes.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.