Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:30, 4 October 2006

Crzrussian

Voice your opinion. (55/5/1) Due to end 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights) – Second nomination. This user was previously an admin (see: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Crzrussian) but was recalled about 2 months ago. Please see the talk page for details and links on his recall.

Nomination

Lar

I had little previous exposure to Crzrussian prior to his recall (although I commented favorably on his first nomination based on a review of contributions). The recall was instigated as a result of a self unblocking during the course of a content dispute and edit war, and Crzrussian chose the easiest to succeed recall, offering to resign his bit if 6 other users requested it (rather than proceeding with an RfC, a re-RfA at the time, or a good will submission to ArbCom, also possible options under the category.) Although at the time I advised this was not necessarily a good choice, that calling for discussion was more appropriate, Crzrussian decided this was how he wanted to do things. He, in my view, carried himself with exemplary good will and civility throughout the whole matter, and after 6 users did in fact request his desysopping, asked for it with alacrity and good grace, stating he would reapply for admin in 2 months time. Since then he has comported himself with care and good will, and it is my distinct pleasure to submit this nomination (along with my co noms) for your consideration. It is my view that second chances are something to be granted if there is evidence that there has been learning and low likelihood of renewed problems. Adminship is no big deal, after all. Crzrussian has in my view learned a valuable lesson, the risk of recurrence is low, and the project could use his skills as an admin again. I therefore ask for your support. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Alphachimp

I've got nothing but good things to say about Alexander. He's a great, insightful user, a wise administrator, and a good friend. I've come to him many times for assistance with my administrative tasks. He's not perfect, but he's willing to learn from his mistakes and move on. If you check out the talk page, you can see a lot more about the saga that led to the recall. Crzrussian is not the first admin to unblock himself, but he is one of the first to willingly step down from his position when confronted with his mistake. I have no doubt that he has nothing but the best interests of this project at heart, and I stand squarily behind him in this request for adminship. alphaChimp 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg

I too recall little previous exposure to Crzrussian prior to his recall, and did not even vote on his original adminship. However, he handled the recall with grace and good humor, seems to have learned a great deal from the incident itself, and has comported himself extremely well since then. These kinds of issues (losing adminship) all too often seem to have a negative effect on the editor in question, generally leading them to leave the project, or sometimes to making frivolous attempts to regain adminship. In the case of Crzrussian, I'm pleased to see what I consider to be a strong exception to this general trend, one which I'd like to encourage. Jayjg 17:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox

Crzrussian, or Alexander, has not only been a crucial role model to me, but a friend in the greatest sense of the word. Nothing is able to describe how intelligent, humorous, and effective he is. He will continue to do what he can to complete a task. He willingly resigned his sysop status when there was a minor following to do so. There is no doubt in my mind he has the best interests of Misplaced Pages in mind, and he is a prolific and loyal editor. I am very happy to have encountered and be in communication with him. He will do very, very well with the tools. Yanksox 22:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you to the awesome individuals who stepped up to nominate me. I accept. I urge all those opining on my candidacy to review my overwhelmingly clean history of using the tools, and to read my extended statement on talk. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Same ones I've been helping with before. In approximate order of priority they are:

• Special:Shortpages (lots of deletions, lots of rollback)
• CAT:CSD (which should heat up a bit with the long-awaited introduction of news CSD creteria)
• CAT:PROD
• WP:AFD
• Special:Newpages
• CAT:ORFU
• WP:AIAV

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Oh boy... No FA's here, but I have started or near-started literally dozens of articles. The first article I wrote, with my fifth contribution, was Viktor Ponedelnik. I co-wrote dozens of biographies on rabbis as part of WP:ORBCW, which I co-founded and co-ran for most of its life. I wrote many of the stubs linked to from Template:U.S. State Attorneys General, which I totally WP:OWN. I've written stubby articles on judges, pro-Palestinian activists, topics related to my law school, other law schools, Russian cities, etc. There are many more. The last article I wrote was Boris Bittker on 9/27. I try to write something every week - and I've been here an awful lot of weeks.

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: Many, which is normal for an admin. Aside from the stuff that caused me to stand for this RfA, the beef at Warren Kinsella comes to mind. I was not a party - just trying to mediate. Ended up having to babysit the article and the edit warriors for weeks until finally it boiled over into an RfAr. Successfully mediated a budding war at Mark Levin. (Very proud of that one!) Actually, I don't get involved with conflicts much, which is to say, I get yelled at a lot, but I always try to conciliate. I am not good at beefing and try to engage in it as little as possible.

4. (Question from: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771): Have you ever, will you ever, or do you ever go on "fair use crusades" -- I.e: Removing images you think are "decoration" on articles or that you believe are not fair use on a mass scale?

A: No crusades. I remove bad-fair-use images as I see them one article at a time - but I won't be hunting or crusading for them on a mass scale. What does this have to do with adminship, anyway? - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• At the end of this RfA, there will be no talk page spamming. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

• More of an obiter statement, and I may vote on the RFA when I've looked it over, but there is still no absolute hard and fast definitive statement that admins may not self unblock (in other words, that WP:IAR does not apply). If this is true it needs to be stated, explicitly, not left to surmise. David | Talk 11:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, there's only so much wikilaywering that one should do. It's pretty obvious that the community has a low level of tolerance for self-unblocking. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That, I'm afraid, is the problem. Low ≠ none. David | Talk 11:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support as co-nominator. alphaChimp 00:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per nomination statements and the candidate's excellent discussion on the talk page. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per outstanding nomination. Talk page is encouraging. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong support. An exemplary decency in handling the recall adds to immaculate qualification of this editor. --Irpen 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support (edit conflict) He has been a hard working admin, not infallible (who is) but prepared to reconsider and back down if he feels he's wrong. The project would be much better off with him re-sysopped. (interrupt of wikibreak to support) Tyrenius 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, absolutely. Naconkantari 00:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. I think a two-month stand-down is easily sufficient redress for the self-unblocking.- gadfium 00:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per discussion on talk page and his edit history since his recall which he took with a good attitude. I trust him to use the tools well.--Dakota 01:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support I am sure he has learned well from his mistake. --Guinnog 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong support. There is no need to guess what kind of admin he'll be, since he already was a great one. His entire handling of the recall situation was commendable, and he has definitely learned from past mistakes. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - no reason not to. --WinHunter 01:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per noms and all above.--Húsönd 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Slightly weak support: Was disheartened to read the comment that led to his block by a fellow admin; I think it was in very poor taste. But he seems to realise his error in making it and in unblocking himself, so I can support. Heimstern Läufer 01:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

    True about the comment, although he is in the minority who would own up honestly and sincerely to it in being a mistake. Most would continue in their self-justification and excuses for making similiar comments.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

14. Support per nom. Michael 01:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Support - I generally avoid this place like the plague, but have to lend support here as in my experience he has proved to be an exemplary admin, and his current behaviour in handling his error does nothing but reinforce my good opinion of him. Yomangani 01:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Edit conflicted Strong Support - a brilliant admin - who made himself accountable, and when he made a mistake he reflected honestly on what he had done and resigned, with the true attitude of an administrator who there to "serve" the encyclopedia. He did not lose morale and stop working after he stripped himself of his status. And of course he is willing to be held accountable for his actions again. Furthermore, in the two months whilst he was an administrator, he did a massive pile of janitorial duty, honouring his "election promises" to the syllable and helping to clear the backlogs...(you can see at Image:Admin.sxc - stats as of 7/7 roughly, that in terms of clearing backlogs as promised, he was one of the best in terms of work-rate and maintained his humble working demeanour, did not slack-off and play politics or engage in self-promotion after attaining the metaphorical "trophy")...as for the images, well, it is mostly the same 10-20 folks deleting the 600-1000 images everyday and personally I'm very glad to have more help in that regard. Adminship did not change him at all, he worked very hard and saw himself as "one of the boys" - which is the most important thing in an administrator. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Strong Support candidate is a dedicated editor that deserves the advanced tools. JungleCat talk/contrib 01:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Support per my nomination. Yanksox 01:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Support When there were procedural uncertainties during his recall, he voluntarily ended the process early and submitted his request for de-sysopping instead of milking the process. That tells me he's more concerned with the project as a whole than retaining the sysop powers. An excellent user who'll make a splendid admin (again). --AbsolutDan 01:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Neutral. I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of discussion on content based reverts like this, but I realize adminship is independent of your decision to discuss something. However, I'm displeased that you unblocked yourself, saying that this comment was an "obviously preposterous comment", yet Yas121 did not seem to find it so, nor can I find any record of you directly contacting Yas121 to explain the matter. Administrators should be models of civility. Dar-Ape 01:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

    Yas was not offended. He posted on my talk and on ANI, he was involved in the conversation, and so my apologies and explanations there. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

    Change to support. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I still wish you hadn't made that comment in the first place, but I suppose I'm preaching to the choir. May your next adminship fare better. Cheers, Dar-Ape 01:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

21. Support (again), lesson learned and handled well after he realized his error. Accurizer 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Support per nom. · XP · 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
23. Support by virtue of the fact that the entire recall was a canonical tempest-teapot situation. Opabinia regalis 02:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Just an admirable response to a messy situation. - BT 02:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks for the kind words - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

25. Support--Peta 02:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. What would we do without Lt. Templeton "The Faceman" Peck?. But seriously, Crzrussian don't go through desysop-sysop again, you know what to do. DVD+ R/W 02:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. —dima/s-ko/
28. Well I thought this wasn't going to kick off till later this week and I'd have time to jockey for a low support number. ha!. Support without reservation. ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
29. Strong support, was a good admin before and will continue to be one. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 02:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
30. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Crazy users are cool. —freak(talk) 02:59, Oct. 4, 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong Support a heart of gold despite the craziness. Rama's arrow 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
33. Support per nom. - Patman2648 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
34. – Chacor 03:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
35. Support; looks good, I'm impressed by what I see. More and more when I participate in these things I want to see someone who has handled a troublesome situation well, and he has. Antandrus (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
36. Strong Support I had planned on making a co-nomination myself, but since t'others sum Czrussian's abilities pretty well, I'll just mention that I'm amazed at how Czrussian carried himself as a Wikipedian after being the test dummy to the recall process. Good stuff hoopydink 03:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
37. Strong Support To err is human. -- tariqabjotu 03:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

    ...to be Tariq - divine. Dewey beats Truman LOL - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

38. Strong support. One of our finest administrators. His poise, grace and good humour through the recall process are to be admired. He made wise and thoughtful decisions as an administrator before, and I'm certain that he'll continue to do so when re-sysopped -- Samir धर्म 05:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Good explanation of previous incident at This RFA's talk page satisfies me. Neil916 (Talk) 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
40. The entire recall thing was a total waste of time, why the hell doesn't someone hit Special:Makesysop and save us from an obvious WP:SNOW support? -- Tawker 05:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Seems a perfectly good admin in my interactions with him. (aeropagitica) 06:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
42. Support all my dealings with him have been civil in the past. Seems like an admin ot afraid to make the hard decision. Viridae 06:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
43. Support dedication to the project and admin accountability. — mark ✎ 07:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
44. Support a good editor and admin. We have disagreed on deletions (prod, AfD), but he was always reasonable and civil. From what I have seen, an editor / admin with good judgment. Fram 08:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
45. Strong support. Ok, you dropped the ball, you took responsibility for your actions and learned from them. I respect that. Errare humanum est. I have only good thinks to say about Alexander from WP:WSS and elsewhere and I don't doubt he will continue to be a great admin. Valentinian 08:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
46. Support I don't think the incident for which Crzrussian was recalled is worthy of a desysopping. I also don't think that people should take advantage of a recall to oppose on other grounds, so I'm not considering anything but the recall incident, which, whilst unfortunate, is a much smaller deal than other things that clogged up AN/I during the time I've been here. --ais523 08:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
47. Support with pleasure. Good editor and admin. SlimVirgin 08:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
48. Support--MONGO 09:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - outstanding Wikipedian. Involved in some pretty contentious articles and handles flak well. --Dweller 10:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Seems to have been a fine admin. Handled the recall with graceful attitude. AnnH ♫ 10:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. Diffs indicate a good admin, and the way he handled himself shows good character. --Mnemeson 10:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
52. Support. I don't think he should have been recalled in the first place. --Kbdank71 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
53. Strong support per Tawker. <faints at the thought that anyone could possibly recall him> Jorcoga  11:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
54. Support Deserves anther chance. --Alex (Talk) 11:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
55. Support, get back to work! hehe --Andeh 11:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I like the guy, I really do. But the reason he was recalled - complete lack of attention to even basic important policy - is a problem. I had my own situation with him regarding an AfD within a week or so of his promotion, which left an immediate bad taste in my mouth. With nothing to indicate that he's given much attention to the issues at hand, especially since he wants to give attention to CSD and AFD, (although I do appreciate his follow-through regarding the recall as well as his promise to sign back up if promoted), there's no way I can support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Note: I did not use my administrative tools in connection with the article, and would do the same today as a non-sysop. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Although closing of XfDs are traditionally administrative jobs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Here are the deprod and the AfD - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   I believe Alexander actually comepletly within lines here. It would only be questionable really if it was a pile on delete and someone finds something important. Once you have numerous examples of notability, it's practically impossible to find something that merits deletion. Yanksox 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose: Incivil user and lack of understanding of NPOV . Lack basic insight such checking blanked pages for history but tags it for speedy delete and when a new admin restored it rightfully as the original blanked redirect was a proper one, he tell him off see also . Gets quickly aggitated and posts often have a tone of demands, . When pointed at existing guidelines , just brushes that aside in a manner not appropriate for an admin . The unblocking was not an error, but symptomatic for how this users deals with issues. And this was mostly just in the last weeks. And yes, he will probably do a lot of good things as well.-- Kim van der Linde 04:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Vote smells like serious politics. I stand by every single one of those diffs. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   I rest my case. Your response is telling. -- Kim van der Linde 05:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Unlike you I intend to continue working on building this encyclopedia. What's the point of trying to derail me if you're out the door? - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   What has that to do with my objections against giving you Admin rights again? -- Kim van der Linde 05:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   It puts into question your motives in taking the action you took here, especially given the rebuke I've given you over Deir Yassin. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   If you want to know, it is people like you who made me decide that I try to leave Misplaced Pages. But what bothers me most on your response is that you effectively try to tell me to shut up. And to add, this sentence: Oh, I should have known it was wrong. It's explicit in policy, WP:BLOCK#Unblocking, which I was never consciously aware of. at the talk page in which you justify your unblocking is very telling for your attitude. As admins, we block people all the time, there is a regular big fuss if someone uses sock/meatpuppets to evade blocks, and you think (despite not knowing the policies on this) that it is ok to unblock yourself. Sorry, your judgement is in question, and for me, not good enough to be an admin. -- Kim van der Linde 12:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   I don't really see how the diffs quoted by Kim support the rather strong claims made. Maybe I'm missing something contextual? -- Samir धर्म 05:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   The first diff: Go edit articles on which you don't feel so strongly. Where is the assume good faith in this sentence? Besides that, it is incorrect, I do not feel strongly about that article, just about representing stuff in NPOV. Violently object to nom for introducing yet another political squabble into WP. The whole issue was started by a unilateral move from the commonly used name to a denialist article name, article was completly rewritten such that it reflected the revisionist denialist vision, which is not supported by many historians (The rewriter in question is about to be banned from the type of articles in question because of repeated WP policy violations. That is not introducing the next political squabble, that is exposing POV-pushing, copyright violations etc. My mistake in the case, I used WP:DR, and not just reverted the historical revisionist rewrite. -- Kim van der Linde 05:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   It appears I've simultaneously composed my own response to this on the talk page. Upon seeing the feeding frenzy here, I reverted, with the intention of of posting it here instead, but then I realized, it's a little bit lengthy, see talk. —freak(talk) 05:36, Oct. 4, 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Any admin who thinks this is a keepable article (and not even in need of a cleanup tag) has serious misconceptions about Misplaced Pages policy. ~ trialsanderrors 07:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps a diff would be better in this instance... If you take a look at his only edit to the article, you'd see that he was closing an AfD discussion. He did not actually participate in the AfD discussion, but was just judging consensus. He might have agreed with deleting the article, but made a decision regarding the article based on the present comments. -- tariqabjotu 09:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   My comment was in response to his AfD closure. ~ trialsanderrors 09:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Hey...! Don't shoot the messenger! I was just closing the AfD. Would you have more confidence in me if I rouged that one? How would you close it? - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Reluctant oppose per the diffs provided. I have a lot of respect for Crzrussian, who was willing to put himself up for recall, and bowed out of his adminship quite gracefully, but some of the links provided do seem out out place. Sorry. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose per badlydrawnjeff. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I'd originally have supported, based on my previous experience with Crzrussian: he very generously offered me some of his time to help address the issue he raised at my RfA, an offer I'm still very grateful to him for, and I've generally found him to be well aware of how things are done. Unfortunately, I can't really feel confident in supporting amid the above concerns, especially those relating to policy and - equally importantly, I feel - civility. I'm concerned that Crzrussian need to keep his cool, avoid vitriol and unfortunate irony, and generally take it easy without provoking others. I'm really sorry that I can't support, but I don't believe you deserve my opposition. Daveydweeb (/_patch) 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   I should note that, in all fairness, Crzrussian has admitted and corrected near-incivility in the past. I believe that he will continue to do so in the future, but my !vote remains the same for the reasons outline above. Daveydweeb (/_patch) 12:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, I provoked Yas two months ago, and yes, I got angry at Ed last month, and told him as much. How many incidents of bad temper can you find - five? a dozen? When seen in light of my 18,932 edits, I'd say that's a more than acceptable rate. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)