Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steve Crossin

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

Steve Crossin

Closed as Withdrawn by user at (43/18/4) at 22:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) – Steve is an editor I would like the community to consider for cleaning up around here. He began his wiki-career back in February of 2008, and has contributed over 22,000 edits to our projects. Steve's growth here has not been without controversy. He was forced to sit out a ban for several months over a year ago due a lack of judgment in regards to the use of another account. While he suffered through the ban, he reflected, learned, and matured into an exceptional member of our community. I've personally worked with Steve on a couple articles in the 24 project, and I've learned a great deal about collaboration from him. Steve is an organizer, a motivator, and a calm voice in the face of storms. The highlights of his efforts as I see them are:

• Contributions to WP:AIV (650+), and the protection of the 'pedia
• His organizational skills in improving the 24 project at Wikipedia:WikiProject 24
• He has spent untold hours and effots to resolve disputes as a member of WP:MEDCAB
• When I asked for help in assisting a new user, Steve not only jumped to help the editor - he adopted a proactive approach; started and developed an adoption program to assist those in search of help. (see: User:Steve Crossin/Adoption/Policies ... and I'll let him direct you to the other sub-pages.

The bottom line is that Steve has from day one been enthusiastic about our project, he's made mistakes, suffered the consequences, and learned and grown from them. He is a highly dedicated wikipedian, strong, compassionate, understanding, and mature beyond his years. We desperately need the dedication and devotion that Steve has shown to our community, and I fully endorse him having a couple extra tools to facilitate the improvement of our project. — Ched :  ?  01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thank you for your nomination, Ched. I just want to add that I'm not overly concerned about the outcome of this RFA. Failing isn't a death sentence. I figure I can pitch in a bit more with a few extra buttons, but I'll still help everywhere I can otherwise. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: The main reason for me running for RFA is to help with the massive pile of work that needs to be done that is the admin backlog. I figure that there is a shortage of active admins, an excess of work to be done, and I feel I'm capable to help. In particular, I'd initially work at AIV, and RFPP, but likely expand into other areas like XFD and CSD. I realise that my contributions in some of these areas aren't as expansive as some would hope, but my previous experience in dispute resolution, where we have to help guide and determine consensus, might indicate that my ability to judge consensus, as well as interpret policies, would expand to areas outside DR, like XFD.

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

A: My triple crown for Martha Logan, Ziegler Polar Expedition and a collaboration with another user on a featured picture restoration would probably be the highlights of my article edits, though I've also done serious article and maintenance work with regards to articles related to 24, as well as the work i've done in maintaining the 24 project. I've helped create some high use templates that are still in use today, most notably {{AIV}}. I've also done quite a bit of help with other users resolving their disputes at WP:MEDCAB, the largest dispute relating to Prem Rawat. I've also helped maintain an adoption program. I am, at heart, a metapedian, and behind the scenes work is my expertise, but I have been known to do article work, too.

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: Not many come to mind, apart from the time when I was banned, which I detailed upon below. I have, from time to time, had conflicts with a user over the 24 articles, and I have at times become frustrated. Over time, the best way I learned to resolve my own disputes is to implement the same measures I implement when resolving other people's disputes. Negotiate with them, offer compromises and discuss matters calmly, or ask for outside input. I'd probably do the same in the future.

Optional question from Ched

4. Steve, you were involved in an incident that involved you using another editors account over a year ago, and as such you were banned from WP. Can you explain what you learned from the experience, and describe how it affected you and changed your approach to editing Wikipedia? — Ched :  ?  02:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A: At the time, it seemed like a great opportunity, and I took advantage of that "opportunity", without seriously looking at the consequences. I disregarded the fact that there was so much to lose, and so little to gain, which I later realised. I took for granted the trust that the community had in me, the trust my friends had in me, and abused it. Whether or not I misused the admin tools was irrelevant, they weren't mine to use and I shouldn't have in the first place. It affected me a great deal. Being banned was one of the worst things I'd ever had to go through, merely because the privilege to edit is revoked. It's quite isolating, and carries quite a deep stigma. It's changed my approach to Wikipedia in a big way, I don't take editing for granted, and fully realise that no matter what the short term "benefits" might be, in the long run, it's just not worth it.

Just to outline the incident, I was banned for six months for sharing accounts with two administrators, and using their admin tools. The full discussion took place here, if anyone requires further details. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

From memory, I once edited outside my ban, using an IP. It was a vandalism revert. diff I got told off for it, and was told that I was to ask an administrator to review anything I thought needed looking into, which I did from then on in. Something else came up on Simple English Wikipedia. This happened around a year ago (not long after my en ban started). From memory, an editor approached me and asked me to do something on their account. I had serious reservations about doing this, and at the time, I felt rather reluctant to do anything. They gave me their password, I didn't ask for it. I logged in and logged out. It's something I regret. I discussed this with someone afterward (not sure if I can or should mention them, but they know who they are) and they admonished me for it, basically explaining that I needed to take care to not be taken advantage of by other editors, and to do my best to rid myself of the label I had received, a bad editor. I have worked hard to do so, and I have learned a lot from my mistakes. Do I regret my past actions? Of course. I do apologise for not mentioning this before, but I had forgotten about it - it happened so long ago. I recalled the matter when Roux mentioned it below. I realise this may attract more opposes, but I'd rather have everything out in the open. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

5. Under what circumstances would you speedy delete an article with an {{underconstruction}} tag on it?

A: It would depend on the article. If the title, was, say "Joe Bloggs is a wanker" or "Askhglkjhdsg", then it really wouldn't matter if an under construction template was on it or not. If it had a more reasonable title, such as "Mary Lewis" or something that was obviously real, I'd examine the content of the article, and see if there were any serious issues with it, such as blatant and unrecoverable vandalism (if the article was only vandalism) or a BLP violation, where said BLP violation was the only content on the page. I'd search Google News and search engines to see if I could find any references to start an article on the subject. If I could, I'd blank the article and work on it myself, otherwise, I would delete the article under the appropriate CSD criteria. If the article had notability issues, I would do a google search and look for references. I'd generally not speedy something with an under construction template with notability issues, simply because articles don't need to be completed all at once, and there's a chance the editor may still be working on it. I'd possibly consider moving it to their userspace so they could work on it further, and help them where I could. Pages that had an underconstruction page for a lengthy period of time with no editing, I'd post the user a question in regards to the article, wait a day or so, and send the article to AFD otherwise. There's no deadline on Wikipedia, and as long as there are no major flaws with the article, it doesn't need to be deleted immediately. I feel we should favour giving newbie editors time to build their article, as opposed to deleting everything so fast. It can be quite frustrating for new editors, as I've witnessed first hand. Apologies if I've rambled on a bit.

Additional optional questions from Juliancolton

6. Do you believe sysops should be universally trusted? Please explain.

A: Candidates go through the RFA process to see if they have the knowledge of policy, and how to apply them, as well as to ensure they have sufficient experience to make difficult decisions. I take people who pass RFA as the community saying "I trust your judgment, and that you will do the right thing". While some RFAs pass with a higher ratio than others, the message is still similar. I think that, unless admins later on "play up" and give cause for the community to lose their trust in them, that administrators should be universally trusted. We either hand a new admin all the tools, or none at all. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from User:Cool Hand Luke

7. In your answer to 4, you admit logging on to another user's account when they gave you their password in simple—several months after you were blocked on the English Wikipedia for similar behavior. Which account? Is there any discussion about this incident?

A: I've had to ask around, as this incident did occur quite some time ago, and I had forgotten some of the details. The user was Swirlboy39 (talk · contribs), the date where I logged into their account, I am told, was 27 October, last year. I did make an edit but I am unable to pinpoint which one. I have contacted the Simple Wikipedia checkuser who ran the check when the incident happened. This was never raised on wiki.

I realise that these are serious errors in judgment, and rightly so will probably torpedo this RFA. I have learned a lot from my past mistakes, and hoped that my behaviour since after my ban would indicate that I've learned from my mistakes and changed my ways. Either way, I will let this RFA run it's course, if only to receive more feedback from the community.

Additional question from Keepscases

8. You are currently involved in a discussion on the talk page of Jeff G. As an administrator, would you allow that user to retain his rollback privileges?

A: At this point in time, no, I would not remove their rollback, as the incident happened a few days ago, and removing their rollback now would be more punative then preventative.

At the time that I saw this report and removed it, I'd do what I initially did, left a note on their talk page, asking for an explanation of their reverts, why they believed such reverts (six of them, none vandalism) qualified as vandalism, and why I shouldn't remove their rollback, for misuse. Their reply, where they basically blamed the Huggle tool for their errors. I was unsatisfied with their explanation, and the fact that they were unable to differentiate between what is and is not vandalism, so I would have removed rollback from them.

Additional question from JamieS93

9. Can you confirm whether or not you edited or made any log actions on the user's account at Simple Wikipedia, noted in Q4?

A: I can, yes. They had no log actions in october.

General comments

• Links for Steve Crossin: Steve Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Steve Crossin can be found here.
• Regarding the expanded Q4, whilst regretful that he made those further slip-ups I can't but fail to be impressed with Steve's total transparency. I'd also note that popping in as an IP to make one revert (one assumes you were reading the article at the time, or whatever) may have been against the letter of your ban but I doubt that the spirit of a ban (which is presumably to make Wikipedia better in whatever way) is violated by removing vandalism. Pedro :  Chat  11:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• It's highly unlikely that this RFA has any chance it will pass. I was going to let the RFA run it's course, but I don't want to waste any more of the community's time. Could someone please kindly perform the procedures to close this as withdrawn? Thanks. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Time to put this one back to work. ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
2. (ec) Support Per answer to Q4, shows that he understands his mistake and has moved on from it. I highly doubt that he'd abuse accounts again.--Giants27(c|s) 03:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm hoping the tide this week is one of understanding and second chances. This user did his time, continued to make great contributions despite any 'stigma' and I am extremely confident that he will make a good administrator. I would also like to say that his willingness to admit the mistake beforehand shows that he is doing his best to show transparency and good character. Here's to second chances and I strongly support. Law _{type! snype?} 03:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support I have been leaning this way, and the answer to Q4 reaffirmed my rationale for supporting Steve: He has learned from his mistake. He did a very irresponsible, immature, and ultimately, stupid thing. However, he did his time, and sat out his ban peacefully, and without trying to use sockpuppets to evade it. For months since, he has made constructive contributions, not only to articles, but also to AIV, and discussions. In what is normally considered recent history by RfA voters, I see no major issues. So I ask myself and others these questions: Has Steve learned from his mistakes? I think so. If he has, is this enough? Arbcom gave him a ban, a punishment that I can sort of say that I know how it feels, since I had no computer for just half a month last year, and no internet for a month a few months ago. But I can still only imagine what it must feel like to be able to see what is going on at Wikipedia, and still not participate in it for six months. I believe that he has been punished enough, and since he has learned from his mistakes, there is no reason to think that he would abuse the tools. Is there any reason unrelated to the ban to not give Steve adminship? I find no reason, but I am open to comments from others.--Res2216firestar 03:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   So, he stole adminship and going without six months is enough to show that he deserves to be awarded with it? That is some of the worst backwards logic I've ever seen. He was banned for the very essence of this RfA. It cannot be more clearer than that. Your logic is to say that if someone attempts to rob a bank of a million dollars and they are sent to jail for 6 years, that if they come out and don't rob a bank, we should then give them a million dollars as a reward for not trying to rob the bank. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

5. Essentially per Res2216firestar, who has said it better than I ever could. Javért ^☆ 04:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Would make a good use of the administrative tools. @harej 04:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
7. I'll support Steve. I'm surprised that he'd been banned for 6 months, I'd never imagine him to compromise somebody else's account. It was a terrible mistake, but one I'm positive he'll never make again. He's been and will be a lot more cautious in making decisions. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Provisional, weak (very) support. Will definitely revisit later. Please don't withdraw this if it goes poorly until you think you have exhausted all possible feedback. Protonk (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Res2216firestar. Here is someone who did something stupid, and has come back to earn the tools the right way. As a "reformed vandal" myself, I'm going to say support. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Steve is hard worker, and we could use his skllls in the admin area. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. While there have been problems in the past, Steve seems to have worked through them and moved on to become an excellent contributor. Based on the answers given above, I think Steve has learned his lesson, and due to his experience, will make a good admin. I also agree with the comments from Law and Res2216firestar. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. I believe the lesson has been taught and learned (the hard way). Will Steve having the tools benefit the project? Yes. No doubt there. I'd hate seeing people piling opposes because of that single event, disregarding the rest of Steve's records. -- Luk ^talk 06:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Support knows his shit. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. It was a learning opportunity. Perhaps of epic proportions. But I don't believe writing off any good faith contributor forever does us any good, and I think it's fair to say Steve is ready and able to resume his work as an administrator. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

    Resume? I've never been an admin :) Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps he's referring to when you were logged in as one. Two, in fact. Cool Hand Luke 13:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

15. Strongly As someone who intended to nominate. The community has, rightfully, shown that the comment "none will pass RFA in years" is clearly not what we want. Forgiveness is a good choice at times. Further, Steve clearly learnt from the event, didn't leave, didn't go using SOCKS or RTV. He held his hands up. We need a few more admins who can realise when they've made a grievous mistake and meet it head on with honesty, transparency and dedication. Further, rather than focusing on the negative aspect, if the password sharing incident had never happeneed Steve would have passed RFA months ago given his clue, quality editing and capability.Pedro :  Chat  07:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
16. Per Res2216firestar. I think we can trust him. Pmlineditor^Talk 07:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
17. Strong Support. Steve has made thousands of good edits. The fact that there have been no major incidents since being unblocked about 6 months ago clearly shows that he has repented his ways, and should be trusted with the admin bit. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. I'm trusting that there is genuine remorse for mistakes made in the past, and am willing to give Steve the benefit of the doubt. Therefore support on the basis of the many, fine contributions. Esowteric+Talk 09:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
19. Just don't do anything stupid this time, eh? Stifle (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - Has had very good interaction with the community and puts its needs first. Pleasant to deal with, knowledgeable and fair minded. Has learned from his mistakes and moved on. I believe Steve would make a great admin. GainLine ♠ _♥ 10:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
21. Has grown incredibly maturity-wise. I feel he is now more than ready to take on the tools. ceranthor 10:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
22. No concerns here. Valid judgment issues were raised but I've never seen evidence of anything malicious amid all the problems that came up last year - and since then Steve's been a generally excellent Wikipedian. Could definitely do a worthwhile job with his own set of admin tools, he has long since proved he's here for the good of the encyclopedia. ~ mazca ^talk 10:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Strong Support. I have had the opportunity to sit down with Steve in real life and discuss his views on Wikipedia, its policies and his role amongst the rest of the community. He explained to me the details revolving his participation and the unfortunate circumstances that led to his ban. I have honestly come to the conclusion that he is not only trustworthy, he is a really valuable asset to this community. Steve: thank you for sharing your views with me. You'll make a great and wise sysop, brother. Godspeed --In continente (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

    Note for bureaucrat: user has minimal contributions. Majorly talk 18:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

24. I wanted to wait until NW revealed what they wanted to say, but it seems it's already there. I don't think something that happened a year ago should be held against you, especially when you have since demonstrated that you can be trusted. I really like your answers to the questions, and could find no concerns looking through your contributions. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
25. Obviously.  public GARDEN  13:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
26. Support per Lar. --John (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - Too many Wikipedia editors are incapable of either admitting when they are wrong or apologizing when they screw up. Steve has done both. Much like Lar above, I feel it is high time we put Steve to work with the mop and broom! — Kralizec! (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
28. Support The opposes aren't 100 percent convincing to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - Seen him around. Apparently, he was banned, but, unlike others, admitted he was wrong, and went on to useful contributions.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - Absolutely. This user was an asset to the Simple English Wikipedia, and while he was there, he acted completely level-headed, calm, collected, and rational. All good traits for an administrator to here. Here, he has kept the same attitude and also has been able to deal with all new drama in a dignified manner. Answers to the questions are brilliant. Yes from me. Razorflame 15:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. Any other editor, I'd oppose big-time for the account sharing stuff. But this guy is too level-headed and contributes too much to this project. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
32. Per Stifle. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
33. Support - per Lar. AdjustShift (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
34. Support meets my personal qualification criteria - not a wanker or a bullyboy, not a member of ARS and have experience in plenty of areas. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Res2216firestar said it better than I ever could. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 17:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Tempodivalse [talk] 18:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
37. Support This is a long read, but after looking over edits and reading through all the discussion concerning the ban, I think he can be trusted with the tools. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
38. Strong support iMatthew ^talk at 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
39. Edit-conflicted Support I was on the fence here. While Majorly's oppose voiced my original concerns well, I agree with Law's more. To echo him, "Here's to second chances". I think we're in the clear here. hmwith☮ 19:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
40. Support. I'm not convinced by the opposes. And I'm convinced by Res2216firestar. Tim Song (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
41. Support  On due reflection, after weighing the past against the present. --StaniStani  20:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Absolutely yes! Great candidate. No worries. America69 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Yes, a great candidate and does an excellent job on WP:24. True, he made mistakes, but it's time to let it go.--Lan Di (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No way, no how. You cannot be trusted, period. You were banned for sharing an admin account, and while you were banned you did the same thing on Simple. And if memory serves, you did sock around your ban; I believe Deskana or Lar has the relevant information. There is no way for you to regain the trust you squandered. → ROUX ₪ 04:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   As far as I know, there were no similar issues at simplewiki. Perhaps you could clarify this? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   I don't know if I have the logs anymore, and I am using my roommate's computer due to a dead monitor and lack of spare cash to get a new one. The information came from someone who knew Steve and was confirmed via a steward. It was handled quietly and he wasn't banned. → ROUX ₪ 04:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   I didn't sock after my ban. I created another account, Samekh (talk · contribs), which I used on Simple Wikipedia, and never used it here. That account was known to public. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   That is not my understanding. → ROUX ₪ 04:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Just realised what you were referring to, this edit as an IP. I did make that edit, it was the only instance I made an edit, and I got told off quite severely for it. That was my only edit, and it was wrong, but it was so long ago that I overlooked it. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   It's not really overlookable, particularly in light of the other issues. I believe NW has readier access to the evidence than I do, so I'll be waiting for him to post it. → ROUX ₪ 05:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   To clarify, I only know of the matter secondhand, so I am waiting on the editor who does have access to the evidence to wake back up again. In any case though, even if I am wrong, the other part of my oppose still applies. NW (Talk) 05:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Well there we go, per Q4--though it's not the entire story, obviously. You were banned for X, and while banned you did X again. That's the definition of 'haven't learned your lesson and cannot be trusted under any circumstances.' → ROUX ₪ 11:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Adding: "From memory, an editor approached me and asked me to do something on their account. I had serious reservations about doing this, and at the time, I felt rather reluctant to do anything. They gave me their password, I didn't ask for it." Shows a breathtaking refusal to take responsibility for your own actions. You had serious reservations? Then say 'no'. → ROUX ₪ 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose - Sorry Steve. I think you are a good editor, but I don't believe that adminship is the correct course of action here, after only six months after the ban. There is more I want to say regarding Roux's oppose, but I want to wait to clear it with the appropriate parties first. I'll be sure to expand on this within a few days. NW (Talk) 04:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Well, you have gone out and said it in Question 4. You were banned for X, and while banned you did X again. Sorry, but I can't trust you as a sysop if you are willing to do that. NW (Talk) 11:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I've read WP:AN/Archive164#Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing in its entirety and can only hope that Sam Korn's comment there ("None of them will pass RFA in years") proves true. — Athaenara ✉ 05:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
   Addendum: the other two did regain tool access: PeterSymonds here and Chet B Long (now known as Coffee) here (Chetblong is presumably someone else). — Athaenara ✉ 06:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Well, considering Peter and Chet are once again admins... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   (I was editing my addendum when you initially replied here.)
   What do you mean by "considering"? — Athaenara ✉ 06:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   I think perhaps what Julian meant was that it is not possible for Sam Korn's comment to prove true given that two of the necessary conditions can no longer be met.  Skomorokh  06:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   And further (though I'm extrapolating), he might have meant that the statement being empirically false could hint that it wasn't too wise a characterization. Protonk (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Chetblong is the same person as Coffee, though. Jafeluv (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Let's see if I have this straight:

   • After his use of PeterSymonds' and Chet B Long's admin accounts came to light on WP:AN, Crossin was banned from September 27, 2008 through March 27, 2009 (log).
   • Symonds and Long resigned their adminships under that cloud in August 2008.
   • Symonds' 2nd RfA passed in January 2009. In July 2009, Coffee (formerly Chet B Long and Chetblong [more?]) was resysopped after an arbitration amendment which was based in part on Symonds' resysopping.

   While I have no opinion about Crossin as an editor, I would not entrust the responsibilities of adminship to him. — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

4. Has already demonstrated very very poor judgement. Question 4 is very worrisome.. this easily refutes those who assert that he has learned. Lessons like this tend to fade over time.. if he didn't learn it immediately after the first incident, what makes anyone think he's got it now?? Maybe he's too nice a guy or something- but if this means he can be easily manipulated by others into doing stupid things, the last thing we want is him having the buttons. If he's not yet an adult, I'd be willing to consider this question again, in 5 years or so, whenever he's grown up. If he's already an adult, then I find it hard to believe this problem will ever improve. Friday (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   For the record, I can testify that he is a legal adult. JamieS93 21:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Hmm? I'm interested in actual reality, not legal fiction. In the country where I live, the legal system pretends (for most purposes) that 18-year-olds are adults, which is patently ridiculous. Friday (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   I'm referring to that legal system, too. It was simply "for the record". ;) JamieS93 21:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

5. Steve seems overly compulsive and thin-skinned even by admin standards. Sock puppetry shows is a sign of addiction.H Bruthzoo (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Steves reply to Question six takes too much for granted..assuming you have the trust of the community is a step too far. imo. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Sorry, no. Steve still does not have my trust after coming off his ban, and I have lingering worries about maturity issues as well. GlassCobra 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose per most of Roux's statement, though I'd prefer to not say "never". Getting banned for doing something... then doing again within a few months, especially something as dumb as account sharing, strikes me as incredibly stupid. Please come back some time later with a longer good track record. I'm willing to forgive errors, but there's only so many errors someone can make before the line is drawn. Majorly talk 18:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Strong oppose - absolutely not. He's not to be trusted, has caused problems on other wikis, and has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment. From past experiences, I simply cannot trust the guy, sorry - Alison ^❤ 18:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Other than Simple Wiki, what other wikis are involved? Could you elaborate please? Thanks, Majorly talk 18:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Most editors have an occasional display of poor judgment. Steve's was considerably below par. Pcap ping 18:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose I do not trust this editor. Any editor that blatantly, and knowingly edited outside of policy numerous times should not be an admin.--Rockfang (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose - I'm sorry, but I have to. I can trust you in some sense and think that you'd be decent. However, I, at the same time, cannot feel that you can be trusted in general. It would have been better for Petter if he had told people to begin with about the incident, but he was mostly a victim. You, however, should never have been followed through with the temptation. Adam and Eve were stripped of Eden for trying to steal divine knowledge. You are merely kept from few buttons for stealing them. There is a right way, and a wrong way. You chose the wrong way and we have enough people who haven't and still do not get access to them. I also remember that your response to being blocked was constant complaining about it as if you didn't deserve to be blocked. I have no confidence that you ever thought that what you did was wrong, when it was one of the worst kinds of wrongs you could do. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
13. When I first saw this RfA I was leaning to supporting it but I didn't realize that Steve Crossin had logged into another person's account on the Simple Wikipedia while under his ban here on Enwiki. At the same time, I think the other person was foolish for wanting Steve Crossin to do it, but Steve Crossin should have known better than to log into the account while having deep reservations about it and being under a ban for the same thing: I am surprised he did that. On a lesser note, I remember having some concerns with these stock questions he wanted to ask on some RfAs which he explained were about judgment; though I'm glad Steve Crossin decided not to ask those questions, as I don't like templated questions. I also wasn't sure about this, and most certainly was not happy with this (which came across to me as somewhat spiteful and kicking someone down when their RfA was clearly not going to pass). I wish to say, however, that I do think that Steve Crossin is a great editor, and that I do not agree at all with any "never" or "absolutely not" comments, as I believe that Steve Crossin is immensely productive, experienced, and also honest, and should not have his mistakes held against him permanently if it's clear he's learnt from them: I have no grudge against Steve Crossin, and would be willing to support a future RfA should he decide to run again and I don't have any (or many) concerns left. Acalamari 19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose per several people, such as Majorly. You have been a good editor since the ban was lifted (although I've seen little issues here and there, some of them possibly maturity-related), but there are still broad judgement problems. Your decision to access another's account at Simple Wikipedia, doing the same thing that you were living through a ban for, was frankly a plain stupid decision. You seem too persuadable by interpersonal things, and not reliable and account privacy-minded like an admin should be. Your general response to being blocked, at first, was not a good one. I'm glad that you've regretted the actions and moved forward with productive editing since that time, but it seemed to have taken you a while to be openly remorseful for what you did, and renounce the stupid judgement behind it. Maybe this would be different in the future. But not now; it was not long ago that you came off the ban, and too many things tell me "not trustworthy", which is the root of being an administrator. Sorry. Good to see that you'll continue editing anyway (the acceptance note), and I wish you the best for the future. JamieS93 20:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose We are quite lucky here. Normally we have to calculate whether the person would use the admin tools responsibly based on evidence of their actions as a user. Here we can base on how they used them before. I also oppose for "Steve Crossin"'s wellbeing - I seem to recall he claimed the banning incident caused him to pass out at his computer, so we can't risk that again. Finally, I'm uneasy with people who use usernames that look real when they are not their actual name GTD 20:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose - Sorry but the trust issues brought above are too prominent to ignore. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
17. Reluctantly. I'm torn here, but I'm surprising myself by opposing instead of abstaining. I believe in second chances, and I don't question your dedication. But I'm really disappointed in A4. You've had a year to think about what happened back then, and come up with a description/explanation. But A4 is really poorly explained, contains what I consider to be a fair amount of spin, and seems to dwell on (paraphrasing) "costs outweigh the benefits", when the correct answer, IMHO, is "there were absolutely no benefits". I don't care too much about one IP edit during the ban, if that's all there was. I don't understand all the subtle complexities involved in the Simple English thing, and your intentions may have been innocent, but it does add to my unsettled feeling that adminship now would be too soon, and probably is what nudged me from abstain to oppose. Luckily, you've said in many places that you don't really care if this succeeds or not, so I don't have to feel guilty hurting your feelings. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, my explanation above was my opinion shortly after the incident. The short term gain - access to someone else's admin tools, was not worth the long term pain. In hindsight, I'd have told Peter he botched his nickserv identification without logging into his account, and advise him to change his password. I wouldn't be in this mess if I'd done that in the first place. I guess hindsight is 20:20. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

18. Strong Oppose I was considering supporting on the hope that you'd figured out the problems that led to your ban and wouldn't repeat them, but with the issue Roux brings up from Simple I find I can't. You either are incapable of learning from your errors (namely, using someone else's account w/ or w/o with permission is a Bad Thing^TM that causes people to lose trust in you) or lack free will and/or proper judgment (it takes about 10-15 seconds to click "Reply", type "No.", click "Send" and then "Delete email" in most email clients; just because someone is stupid enough to email you their password does not mean you should use it, much less make an edit with it). Both of these qualities are critical for administrators. If you lack one, or as seems more likely both, I cannot support you for adminship. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. The candidate seems to be an exemplary editor. I'm just going to stay in neutral for a few days to make sure no opposes come up. Otherwise I'll switch to support soon per my criteria. —Matheuler 03:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral (moved to oppose) This is a hard one. I am willing to put the admin account sharing incident in the past, since it was over a year ago and Steve has obviously learned from it. He has done very good work to rebuild his reputation since coming off his 6 month ban. But wait; we're talking about a ban. I don't like arbitrary time delays for past mistakes, but his whole (semi-recent) past makes me awful hesitant. But the big question here, I think, is do we trust Steve right now. In many ways, he's been able to prove himself again as a quality editor. But certain decisions, like making the IP edit, wasn't exactly smart. The statement "none will ever pass RfA in years" is blatantly false, and against the nature of Wikipedia; Chet and Peter I believe deserved the second chance based on their otherwise positive contribs and remorseful responses to the password sharing. However, the initiator of this incident I'm not sure I can trust. Feeling pushed into saying "well, okay..." is different than "please, please?". Both are cases of bad judgement, but the latter is worse. Part of me wants to strong support this RFA per his good attitude and self-rebuilding, an example of how WP:FORGIVE can be enabled; on the other hand, I'm tugged back by uneasiness. I will think about this, although I may stay here for a while. JamieS93 13:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

2. I don't know for which devil I'm playing the advocate here, but Steve Crossin did get a second chance--there was an end to the ban, and he has regained all the rights and privileges of editorship. "Forgiveness" for past wrongs doesn't mean the same as "giving more privileges which could potentially be abused"--I hope the modifier and the modal indicate that I don't expect Steve Crossin to abuse those tools, should this pass. For now, I also am torn, between the sentiments expressed in the third support vote and the strict but, in my opinion, fair statements by Roux. Hence neutral. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Leaning oppose per NW, but Pedro's comment in the discussion section is holding me back at the moment. Will revisit. —Ed17 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral, for now. Steve is a good editor, whose involvement with the project has been a net positive, even with the shenanigans of last year. So, that's all to the good. But the account-sharing incident strikes me as colossally bad judgement, and I'd expect an admin to know better. But there is contrition, from all parties, so we move on. The IP edit is troubling, mainly because of the implication that violating bans is ok if it benefits the project. I subscribe to WP:IAR, and generally agree that improving the project trumps all, but a ban is a ban is a ban. If a user is banned, we cannot open the door to them for vandalism reverts or other simple, otherwise noncontroversial edits. Someone adds "cocksdickslol" to Barack Obama? IP revert, sure. But what about formatting? Edit warring? What can a banned editor revert, and what can they not? It sets a bad precedent. The edit may be a fine edit, consistent with policy, but it still violated a ban, and that bothers me. On the plus side, though - I have to applaud the candidate for being forthcoming with that edit, and with everything else. I like Steve, and want to support - and might yet do so - but I'm neutral for now. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.