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

Withdrawn by candidate at (0/10/1) 22:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

(RETRACT) CrazyInSane (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself, User:CrazyInSane, to take on the task of being a Wikipedia administrator. I registered in 2005, having previously contributed anonymously. Over the period of my time with Wikipedia, I have dedicated much time to revamping and copyediting mainspace articles, and have also contributed to recent edit patrolling, where I've nominated articles for speedy deletion, or for general consensus deletion. I've also contributed to WP:AN/I

To get the hairy stuff out of the way, I was blocked 6 times between 2006–2007 (not since then), one of which was an indefinite block (on July 30, 2006). I appealed that block and succeeded in having it reduced to one week. The reasons for my blocks were mostly related to my editing regarding the usage of the Anno Domini and Common Era notations within Wikipedia (a debated issue all-around, see the Jesus article for the biggest example). I have since eliminated using any such biases when editing here. In fact — although it may be irrelevant to this matter — I have more or less become an agnostic within the past few years, rendering my biases perhaps more neutral overall.

In requesting for adminship, I welcome both support and constructive criticism equally. If you oppose my request for adminship, I ask that you please kindly suggest what it is I could do to become more eligible for being an administrator in the future. I greatly appreciate all discussion and comments; particularly from editors I have had the pleasure of corresponding with over the past 4 years :). Thank you all. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan mostly to help with WP:3RR and edit warring matters, speedy deletion and recent changes patrol, and WP:AN/I to get myself situated in the Wiki community. I also am looking forward to protecting against vandalism as much as possible, and help keep Wikipedia as accurate and clean as possible. And of course, backlog. :)

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

A: Here I revamped the entire simsub article, making the article cleaner, more comprehensible, and added plenty of references. I also created this article recently, and have contributed greatly to this article and this one, as well as several others [1][2]. I've also created plenty of new stub articles, always with references and good structure— my most recent of these is here. My other-space contributions are certainly not as high as my mainspace edits, but I do certainly plan to contribute greatly outside of main article namespace and respective talk pages if I am granted adminship; and even if not. I ask that you please review my contributions for more detailed information about my editing, as I may be omitting some perhaps important recent work that I've done.

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: Certainly. There have been conflicts in the far past, given my blocks at that time, and recently there have been some minor disagreements, mainly relating to whether mention of Canada is merited in articles concerning American television programs. These conflicts have mostly been with User:Ckatz, who, if invited to discussion here, can certainly address. In the future, I will always ensure to propose changes on the respective talk page before being too bold, and will always engage in discussion with any established users before reverting their edits.

Additional optional questions from Missing Ace

4. Given your record of getting blocked for using WP:SOCKs can you give an honest list of all accounts you operate, blocked or otherwise.

A: A list of sock puppets that I have used can be found here. These are the only ones I can remember using, and I have not used a sock puppet account illegitimately since 2007. I hope this can be forgiven, as it has been 2 years. I do apologize for the disruption I may have caused.

It may be unduly pedantic, but the question asked for "a list of all accounts you operate", without specifying "illegitimately" or otherwise. Are you currently operating any other accounts at all? Groomtech (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I was perhaps too vague with that response; I am not currently operating any sock puppet accounts, period.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

5. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: Absolutely; when a contributor either edits anonymously or signs up for an account they have the right to be heard, the right to have their edits as equally considered as anyone else's before being reverted or contested, and the right to be treated civilly and politely before anything is assumed of their intentions. Good faith is a key component of guaranteeing rights to all Wikipedia contributors. To uphold these rights to Wikipedia contributors, I will ensure, whenever possible, to defend contributors when they are being accused of defying the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. As I have learned myself through past troubles, a fair trial is something that should be guaranteed and accorded to everyone, even if they've already been indefinitely blocked (see: me).

Additional optional questions from King of Hearts

6. How do you believe you have learned from your past mistakes?

A: First and foremost, I've learned that WP:NPOV one of the most fundamentally important policies at Wikipedia, and that you should always consider your own biases before you contemplate contributing to Wikipedia. As I've grown through these past 4 years (I was 17 years old when I first began here), my biases have changed, but so has my perspective on editing at Wikipedia. Previously, I would usually just come here to seek out what I thought didn't make sense, without thinking about what others might feel or what may have been decided as part of Wikipedia policy, and change it to what I saw more fit. A prime example is my AD/CE edit conflicts, where I would often seek out articles that had originally used "AD", but that were changed to use "CE", and would change them back. The policy on era notations is the same today as it was back in 2006; both systems are acceptable, but one shouldn't be changed to the other without prior consensus. I've learned to ignore my biases (though they've lessened recently as result of my agnosticism) when editing at Wikipedia articles, and have focused more on being a productive member of the community. I no longer come to Wikipedia to put what I believe is right, I come here to make Wikipedia more informative and welcoming.

Additional optional questions from Jclemens

7. Which is more important: keeping Wikipedia accurate or following established editing rules (e.g., avoiding edit warring or Sock'ing)? Why? What insights have you gained into these areas since your most recent block?

A:

8. Why do you list vandal fighting as an anticipated administrator action, when you don't seem to have a significant number of edits to WP:AIV?

A:

Optional question from Cyclonenim

9. Could you elaborate on the circumstances of your blocks for those of us with no previous encounters with you?

A:

10. Have you had any conflicts with users which have resulted in being threatened with a block, particularly within the last year?

A:

Question from ϢereSpielChequers

11 Looking at your talk page and archives you've had quite a few images deleted - some as recently as this May. Would you care to comment on this?

A

• Links for CrazyInSane: CrazyInSane (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for CrazyInSane can be found here.

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

• Editing stats posted on talk page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose - Lack of project space experience and history of tendentious editing. Sorry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Historically, yes, but I would like to think that my editing within the past year or two has been quite neutral. I encourage you to review my more recent edits, particularly the edits involving article revamping and copyediting. But anyhow, thanks for your input. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 20:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll do that, but I'll likely remain unconvinced given your scanty Wiki namespace presence. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose - This concerns me deeply (the original diff, not you removing it, although that does pose more questions). Despite it being 3 years ago, you seem to have broken several rules around here by being blocked numerous times and having used a sockpuppet to try and get round it. When realising Knowledge Seeker was inactive, why did you remove the comment you left? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but until I know for sure I think I'm going to have to oppose this. Feel free to explain, it won't be considered "badgering". Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. OpposePer Above.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Obviously it is very difficult to remember my precise thinking at the time of this edit (2006), but I know that I had created the sock puppet account so that I could notify Knowledge Seeker about my block situation (since I was blocked from editing his user talk page), since I felt that the block was unwarranted. Certainly creating a sock puppet account to do so was a juvenile decision, but I felt I was being unfairly targeted at the time. As for the reason I removed the comment, I honestly cannot recall; but I assume from reviewing the immediately preceding edit that it was because I had just realized that Knowledge Seeker would never be returning to Wikipedia to read it anyway (although he since has returned). I hope this helps clarify things. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Seem like a good editor, but your view on WP:NPOV (as seen here) worries me. -shirulashem^(talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. For a user with such a tarnished history, I don't see any compelling reason to take the dive and give you the mop. You don't appear to have an urgent need for the tools, and don't plan on doing anything really special with them. You can still be a good editor without being an admin, and you can report vandals to AIV, lurk at AN3 and help give opinions in the more difficult disputes, etc. But unfortunately, I don't know if a user with your history can have the community's trust with admin tools. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose due to Cyclonenim's diff. The use of sock puppets concerns me, as any administrator should know that sockpuppeting for the purposes of block evasion is completely unacceptable. (edit conflict) MacMed^talk_stalk 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per above. One two three... 21:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per MacMed. Sorry. America69 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per the gut feeling I got when I looked at the block log. Sorry, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 21:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose so I can get a few words in before someone SNOWs this closed. You're controversial and have a pretty bad block log, while at the same time being only moderately active, and only contributing in marginal ways to the encyclopedia. For me to support you in a future RfA, you would have to be 1) Nominated by someone respectable, 2) have a great track record of recent activity and contributions, to include at least a few GA-level work, 3) have a good track record of recent contributions to administrative areas, so we can see what you'd do if given the tools, and 4) have no recent issues of incivility, controversy, or the like. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Moral Support Here for the moment, am waiting for some question answers and may move either way in response to them. I'm prepared to disregard blocks and other problems from more than a year ago, both because I believe in redemption and because pragmatically I'd rather that a user with a problematic history redeems themself than starts clean. However the BC/BCE discussion mentioned above indicates to me that you may still have some intolerance to some of your fellow editors. Also not quite happy about the F word userbox. ϢereSpielChequers 21:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I assume that you are referring to the conversation regarding BC/BCE that I recently was involved in during March 2009 at Talk:Common Era. If so, I understand your concern regarding it. So, two things: (1) I do notice a negative tone in my demeanor there, and I'm thinking it was because I was basically just feeling left out of the circle in terms of Wikipedia; I felt that nobody was recognizing my contributions lately. It was a kind of speel, but I meant no offense to any potential atheist Wikipedia contributors. It is just that in my opinion (we all have them), CE is a neologism that should not be used in Wikipedia. (2) However, I believe that it is clear in my comments at that talk page, particularly in this diff, that I would never let my bias dictate my mainspace edits. Particularly from this text: "Although my bias would have me agree that CE is indeed only a neologism used by those who wish to proliferate its use, it is undoubtably acceptable for use on Wikipedia, based on editor consensus. As it stands, Wikipedia policy allows editors to use either the AD or CE notation when editing, but ensures that each article is consistent in which notation is used.". Please let me know if you have any follow-up inquiries. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (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.