Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crzrussian 2

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

Crzrussian

Final (194/32/5) Ended 04:04, 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: Wikipedia: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^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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)

Mailer Diablo

Alexander has performed as a wise, great and hardworking janitor during the course of his first term of adminship. His ability to take the recall voluntarily and in good grace speak volumes about his courage and responsibility to all the other Wikipedians. I stand in solidarity with other nominators that he will be one of the very best in his service to the encyclopedia and its community. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 4 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 Wikipedia 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:Wikipedia 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 new CSD criteria)
• CAT:PROD
• WP:AFD
• Special:Newpages
• CAT:ORFU
• WP:AIAV

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, 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)

5. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an experienced user? --Mcginnly | Natter 22:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A: Um... under appropriate ones? Please be more specific. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

5.1 I was hoping you might like to describe which circumstances you would consider it appropriate to block an established user as opposed to an anonymous IP. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A: Mostly 3RR and BLP, the easy things. For disruption I would solicit a second opinion in all cases. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, does your 'second opinion' mean - one other adminstrator or more - how would you solicit the second opinion? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI or WP:AIAV, whichever is more appropriate. Not IRC - I don't use it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

6 I read you were "recalled", but you are not on Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. I know no more than that. Can you explain? Anomo 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A: After I was promoted, I signed up for CAT:AOR, see there for details. In early August, six people asked for my head, and I resigned per my earlier pledge. I am now back for a second time. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

7 If promoted, will you add yourself to Category:Administrators open to recall again? Reasons will be appreciated. Thanks --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 12:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A: LOL. This RfA is too big. As stated twice before elsewhere, yes, because accountability is good. No, unline someone's statement below, I do not believe to the recallers were "trolls" or "disruptive". - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

8 Was your self-unblocking a mistake? Would you do it again in similar circumstances in the future? --Improv 17:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A: Yes, No, Please see RfA talk for details. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:22, 9 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)
• Comment - Could people please stop co-nominating, it's ridiculous. Can you not just add your voice to the votes/comments below. This is a comment on general RFAs, I've seen them get longer and longer for little return. I actually don't see the point in a single co-nomination, let alone 4. - Hahnchen 16:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I, for one, strongly disagree. Co-nominations not only increase useful testimony about the nominee, as they are also a strong sign that he/she has a great potential for adminship (a nomination is not something to be taken with levity, and an increased number of willing nominators suggest that adminship is strongly recommended). Furthermore, co-nominations lengthen an RfA as much as if their content were inserted in the voting-discussion section instead. Regarding co-nominations as ridiculous is just a matter of personal taste, I believe.--Húsönd 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to agree to a tiny extent that it is off-putting when I see multiple co-nominees; however, if people want to do that they're welcome to do so. In this case, it's not going to change my "support", but often it comes across as a pile-on which may intimidate those who have legitimate reasons to oppose. Better to have the co-noms state their support or comments in other parts of the RfA. Agent 86 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe you find it enjoyable to co-nom users, Husond. You somehow think a co-nomination is a lot stronger than the comments of support below. Just read the co-nominator's comments above, I see no reason, rather than the perception that co-noms are helluva-strong-supports and are so much more important than usual supports that they go at the top. - Hahnchen 23:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Co-noms bring no particular joy to me. Don't misinterpret my words, I don't think that there's such thing as a stronger nomination (in the sense that they're more important than others), just nominations that cause bigger impact thanks to the positive boost given by co-noms. But I do acknowledge Agent 86's argument about a somewhat intimidating side effect they may cause. I admit that I hadn't thought about that perspective.--Húsönd 02:00, 5 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)
      • If you have been blocked, you must not unblock yourself even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error. Instead, contact another administrator through e-mail, IRC, the mailing list, or by leaving a note on your talk page. - Seems like a definitive statement to me hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for your answers to my question. I'm aware it's difficult for sysops to regain their status through RfA if they lost it under contentious circumstances - I'm leaning to support if you'll agree to add your name to CAT:AOR to give the community some comfort that if there is a repetition of the incident, it can be dealt with in this way. Is this acceptable? Mcginnly | Natter 15:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have already promised this, see Q&A #6 on RfA talk. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support as co-nominator. alphaChimp^(talk) 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. In Soviet Russia, RfA supports YOU!!--Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - no reason not to. --WinHunter ^(talk) 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^talk 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 ^(talk) 01:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

    Support Crazy has always done great work with the best interest of Wikipedia in mind. There is a level of integrity for a dude who is willing to step down when things get hairy to prevent them from getting hairer. 205.157.110.11 00:52, 8 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) Not as strong as before, having some issues with the defensive attitude displayed in the oppose section. But you were still a damn fine admin, just relax a little. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 17:30, 10 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^{Conas tá tú?} 03:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
37. Strong Weak 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)

    Changing to weak support, based on combative conduct (particularly in response to Kim) and incivility since August desysopping. -- tariqabjotu 11:27, 5 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^Talk 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 things to say about Alexander from WP:WSS and elsewhere and I don't doubt he will continue to be a great admin. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 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 ^(talk) 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)

    Support. Seems to have been a fine admin. Handled the recall with graceful attitude. AnnH ♫ 10:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral. AnnH ♫ 01:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

50. Support. Diffs indicate a good admin, and the way he handled himself shows good character. --Mnemeson 10:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. I don't think he should have been recalled in the first place. --Kbdank71 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
52. Strong support per Tawker. <faints at the thought that anyone could possibly recall him> Jorcoga  11:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
53. Support Deserves anther chance. --Alex (Talk) 11:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
54. Support, get back to work! hehe --Andeh 11:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. He's OK. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
56. Support per nomination statement. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
57. Support, co-nom. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
58. Strong Support. He's the only one on Category:Administrators open to recall who's actually gone through with it, in any shape or form. As someone who resigned the "sysop bit" voluntarily, he could merely have asked for it back (see our current hottest arbcom case for a discussion of this). That he's leaving himself open to the slings and arrows here demonstrates unique good faith in the community. Yes, his mouth runs away with him occasionally - but never in an intentionally meanspirited way, and he is quick to realize he has done wrong, and undo. Please think how hard it is to be asked to step down, actually do so, yet continue to be active and productive; doubly hard to then try again to get back his position. Note this is a stronger support than I gave him in his first adminship application. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
59. Extreme Soviet Support. :D — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
60. Strong support Despite what's stated below, Russian is probably one of my favorite editors, an excellent contributor to this project, and definitely deserving of the tools (again). -- Kicking222 13:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
61. Support I think he certainly has earned a second chance.-- danntm ^T _C 13:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
62. Support --HappyCamper 14:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
63. Support handled the recall-process with grace. Lectonar 14:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
64. Support of course. per all above.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. I looked through the reasons for oppose below. I think the Deir Yassin comment pointed out by Kim was probably a serious (but good-faith and one-off) error of judgment; in all the rest I cannot find anything to reproach. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
66. Strong Estonian support. I've had very few dealings with this particular escapee from the mental institution, but I see him all over the place - his AfD nominations and comments are consistently well thought-out, his behavior is civil as a rule (we all make mistakes!), and other than unblocking himself (he's seemed to "learn his lesson"), he has never abused the extra buttons. Great user, great guy - even if his nation of nationality ethnicity did invade mine three times. ;) (I'm kidding, of course!) Srose (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

    As a proud citizen of the United States and as an employee of the Federal Government, I am empowered to categorically deny that our nation has ever invaded Estonia. There are things we know we know - and there are known knowns- but invading Estonia is not one of them according to the latest National Security Assessment. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

    Haha, a good one! `'mikka (t) 21:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

    Fixed. :P Srose (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

67. Support. Yes, he made a mistake, but he also had the guts to take responsibility for it. In the unlikely event that he does something wonky again, I'm sure he'll be willing to talk about it. >Radiant< 15:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
68. Support --Kchase T 15:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
69. Support. Responsible and thoughtful. Haukur 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
70. Support The lesson was learned and he remained a valuable contributor in the interim instead of just going away or giving up on the project. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
71. Support per behavior during and since the recall. Crazy he may be, but willing to learn and has a proven ability to administer the mop and bucket. Your backlogs are calling to you... -- nae'blis 15:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
72. Support. He was a very hard-working admin and deserves his admin tools back. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
73. Support. Has generally avoided destroying vast sections of the encyclopedia. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
74. Kusma (討論) 16:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
75. Support. Sandy 16:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
76. Strong Support As one of the co-nominators. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
77. Strong Support Personally, I think the recall was somewhat overblown and he should never have been recalled. The user demonstrates good judgement overall, and we are all human. -- Avi 17:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
78. Support, Avi said what I was going to say. Teke ^(talk) 17:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
79. Although we've met each other before, it's now a Weak Support per comments in "Oppose" and "Neutral" sections. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
80. Support with pleasure; he's a solid contributor and good admin, from everything I've seen. I'd suggest that he does, however, take to heart some of the comments below and moderate some of his responses to avoid the potential claim of incivility; for admins, anything less than civil creates a target. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
81. Support with the notation that Crzussian gets passionate about Wikipedia—which is a good thing—but sometimes it prevents stepping back and seeing another point of view. I know, I have the same issue. As for the misdeeds, I believe they can be chalked up to his passion rather than deliberately hurtful actions.—Chidom ^talk  18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
82. Support While the glowing praise in the multiple co-noms comes across as hyberbolic, they have good reason to think highly of this nominee. For me, this nominee is a hard-working contributor whose overall track record indicates need for the tools and that they will be used properly. Agent 86 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
83. Strong support: As a fellow administrator open to recall, I'm shocked to have found out that CrazyRussian was desysopped over such a contrived technicality to begin with. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
84. Support His strength of character during the recall has reaffirmed my faith in him and served as model of humility. Xoloz 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
85. Support good contributor/good admin Anger22 19:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
86. Big Wang Support from my first {{welcome}} to my RfA, he's been there all the way. He's an intelligent and devoted user, though he could probably use a wikibreak or a vacation. AdamBiswanger1 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
87. Support The noms summed this up well, and I feel better given this was not a self-nom with even Mailer Diablo in the nomination pool. Try to keep your odd remarks[1] a little on the down side, some may not take the proper view of humor into them. Take stock in what Chidom has said a few lines up. Kevin_b_er 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
88. Strong Support- excellent admin, and I didn't like to see him step down in the first place. --Storkk 19:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
89. Support he should never have been desysopped. Gwernol 19:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
90. Support I commend him for being open to recall. I liked his admin work before he was recalled. I've read through all the diffs introduced in the opposition and neutral comments to date, and don't see any reason to oppose in that evidence. In fact, some of it looks like good administrative work that is a basis for support. GRBerry 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
91. Strong support: --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
92. Support `'mikka (t) 21:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
93. Damn right. I've hardly seen more unconvincing oppose votes, especially number two... Don't you think your opinion shouldn't count if you've said you're leaving the project? More importantly, Crzrussian is one of the more exemplary users I've encountered and I have no problem giving him the tools back. Grandmasterka 21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
94. Support - I thought he already was one, I thought he still was one, I don't pretend to understand this RFA but I think that wikipedia is better off with Crzrussian as an admin --T-rex 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
95. Strong Support I'm just sorry it's too late to co-nom. In the realm of constructive criticism though, closing AfD's in which you were a participant is generally a bad thing® though the diff cited below is essentially harmless. Eluchil404 23:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

    I agree. But closing an AfD in which you are the nominator, adversely to the nomination, is perfectly permissible where appropriate. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

96. Support. Although you weren't the nicest of people to me (hint: the sarcastic tone) when I made that mistake on my second day as admin, I still think your actions speak louder than words. Welcome back, Crzassrussian. --Nishkid64 23:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
97. Support. Bowing to the recall and re-applying was the right thing to do, and I join with others in hoping to welcome him back. --MCB 23:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
98. Support Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
99. Support per nom and above. Hello32020 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
100. Conditional Support Only if this Russian can persuade the USA not to invade New Zealand. Ah, the irony. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
101. Support- Amazing. 5 nominations. I'm pretty impressed by you. And don't worry, Ageo020, the US will not invade New Zealand. bibliomaniac15 02:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
102. Support per all above. Opposers fail to appreciate Crazy's refreshing and welcome frankness, directness, (at times caustic bur always refreshing) humor, love of debate, good-faith desire to make sure every debate comes out the right way, and overall desire to make Wikipedia come out the right way. Pan Dan 03:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
103. Support - very well trusted user. Stubbleboy 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
104. Support - despite the points made in the oppose section, I've never had a problem with Crzrussian (I've seen him a lot in AfD), and think he would be a great admin. Good sport about the recall, as well. --Coredesat (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
105. Strong support. Never should've been desysopped in the first place, and if anything his actions since just show why he can be trusted more. BryanG^(talk) 04:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
106. Merovingian - Talk 04:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
107. Strong support the only sysop who has shown the CAT:AOR has some substance behind it. Very hardworking admin with many hundreds of administrative actions when he had his bit abakharev 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
108. I'll support that. He did a good job with a dispute that spanned several Canadian political articles that would have driven lesser admins insane. And how worried do you have to be giving priveleges to a guy who will give them up if six people ask him to? --JGGardiner 08:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
109. Support -- Tawker has already said what I wanted to say. - Longhair\^talk 09:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
110. Support - I think this user has learned from their recall and can be trusted again with the tools. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
111. Support. the wub "?!" 10:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
112. Support --rogerd 12:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
113. Support Should never have been stripped in the first place in my view; the issues raised by those opposing appear to me to be trivial (from those I sampled) and do nothing to raise any serious questions about his integrity. Eusebeus 13:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
114. Support per GRBerry, Agent 86 et al. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
115. Support per nom. He's been very supportive of my efforts as a relatively new editor. I think other newbies could benefit from his insights. Wl219 15:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
116. Support . He told me once how not to do things ... and he was right. --tickle me 16:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
117. Support disagree with recall, appreciate the humility of his apology. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
118. Support valuable member of the admin community. Agree that the breach was procedural and in no way malicious. MLA 17:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
119. Support per Jayjg et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
120. Weak support There will always be inherent community trust issue with RfA's for former admins gave up or were stripped of their status under contentious circumstances. If it's an isolated incident, which it seems to be, and the candidate seems competant and trustworth in all other respects; then the commitment to sign up to CAT:AOR gives me sufficient comfort that were a similar incident to occur again, a quick an effective remedy is in place. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
121. Support Dedicated to the project, and I see robustness. --kingboyk 17:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
122. Support A real asset to the force McClowski.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
123. Support a great contributor to Wikipedia whose willingness to step down over something that most admins would not just serves to highlight what a good admin he is. Tewfik^Talk 19:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
124. Support, displayed admirable qualities when confronted with a negative situation; also being co-nominated by 5 respected admins says something. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
125. If I may explain, it appears that much of the evidence provided below was the result of misunderstandings, out-of-context accusations, and personal grudges. It angers me that when the candidate tries to explain or clear themselves of something they are accused not accepting criticism in further oppose votes. I've had Crzrussian's talkpage on my watchlist for awhile. He has had his share of disputes, but no events that occurred with him convinced me that he wasn't a good administrator. And, for what it's worth, there is little acutal "criticism" below, insofar as I can see. Therefore, I support. Anyone is welcome to discuss my decision with me. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
126. Support. Valuable and versatile contributor; high regard for his maturity in participating in the recall process. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
127. Support --T REX_speak 21:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
128. Support. MaxSem 21:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
129. Strong Support He is the paradigm of a good wikipedian, and will be once again an excellent admin. Guy Montag 23:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
130. Support Good editor, has been an admin before so knows the rope, and the oppose votes are almost entirely unconvincing.--Jersey Devil 02:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
131. Support Per... all above? :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheSeer (talk • contribs) .
132. Support He made the foolish mistake of signing up for CAT:AOR. This category seems to be a bunch of very good admins (and I recognize some of the names in there as very liked ones) who want to ensure they have approval and any admins who are disliked by the community would never sign up there. Anomo 06:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC) I don't want to imply anything negative when I said "foolish mistake", I mean he acted in so much good faith by that it hurt him in the long run. Anomo 06:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
133. Strong support everyone makes a mistake once in a while, but not everyone has the grace and goodwill to admit it and learn from it. I would gladly co-nominate Crzrussian, sorry I missed it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
134. Support.  Grue  07:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
135. Очень сильный support, based on previous interactions with this user. -- Heptor _talk 08:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
136. Crazy Support. I have supported him the first time he was nominated and I am doing it right now too. Wikipedia wants you! - Darwinek 10:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
137. This is the second time I have been able to give this editor crazy russian support in 2006. I'll keep doing it over and over if I have to...:D Seriously, I support CrazyRussian's bid for adminship without the slightest reservation. -- Deville (Talk) 11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
138. Support, great user and he being resysopped will benefit the encyclopedia. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 11:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
139. Support. Hard working, serious, dedicated, and on the personal side, a dear and caring friend. I supported him once, I happily do it again, and I'd do it as many times as he needed. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 11:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
140. Support per above. —Jared Hunt October 6, 2006, 12:18 (UTC)
141. Support. Still, I would be a lot happier supporting if you would NOT leave yourself open to recall again, though: it's just leaving some people the opportunity to further disrupt things. Several people voted "strong oppose" below: what's to stop them from recalling you immediately when this ends? At least stipulate you will only be available for recall after 6 months or something. Mangojuice^talk 17:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

     Remember there are many variants on how to do the recall, at the admin's option. See, for example, User:Lar/Accountability where you will note that "6 ayes and I quit and won't stand right away" is not listed... I'd most likely do an RfC with "no consensus" == "no change". Different people can do things differently of course. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

     Just to clarify: I don't think anyone is going to especially cause problems, I just think being open to recall has its purpose and this reconfirmation should be enough. Consensus can change, but I think we can wait to find out. I do wish Crzrussian would choose a more restrictive version of being open to recall: on the talk page here he has said it would take only 2 more people objecting. Mangojuice^talk 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

     That was my mea culpa, issued when four people had already requested I stand down. I am certainly at will to ignore any particular request, if I feel it's made in bad faith or relates to pre-reconfirmation incidents. Lar is right, now that recall is no longer merely a hypothetical, I can think about it seriously, something I hadn't done until the process had started in August, by which point it was already too late to backtrack. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

     Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying. That makes sense, makes me feel better. Mangojuice^talk 22:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

     I do rather feel objectionable to your notion that people who seek recall are automatically "disrupting". What is the purpose of recall if you're just going to brand those doing the recalling "disruptors" with the implication, per WP:BLOCK that they should be removed from the community? It's that kind of approach that results in what other people view as a sickness in RfA because it is so damned difficult to express against a present admin. "You are not adminning correctly" - "You just think that because you're trying to be disruptive" isn't exactly a constructive approach. -Splash - tk 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

     That is not at all my notion: just because disruption occurs doesn't mean that it wasn't necessary or that people were acting just to cause disruption. I do think that in this case, the recall ended up being a disruption, because in the end, he's going to be an admin again. Or maybe, "disruption" is too strong a word. Let's just say it's been a lot of time and effort, on a discussion we didn't need to have two times. And while we're at it, you can say "You're not adminning correctly" and expect someone to listen to you, without telling them they should step down. Mangojuice^talk 05:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

     If the recall caused Crzrussian to reflect, to change his approach, to in the end be a better admin, it wasn't completely a disruption. The six users who asked him to step down under his terms of recall are in no way trolls or disruptors, they're all highly respected users. Again I would have, were it me, conducted an RfC instead, and might well have at the end sought consensus that s) I did something wrong and b) I endeavoured not to do it again... if the community didn't agree, then clearly I would not have the confidence. But Crzrussian did as he felt best and I think it wasn't disruption per se. Hope that's not arguing the point too fine. ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

142. Support per reasons given by Blnguyen. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
143. Support Meticulous and conscientious.--Runcorn 21:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
144. Support. I did encounter Crzrussian before his RfA, and initially found him somewhat offputting. Over time, however, I've seen vast improvement to the point that now while I don't always agree with him, I don't grit my teeth when I see he's said or done something. His handling of the controversy that led to his deadminning was good, and I see no reason to believe that an analogous situation is likely to recur. Tomer^talk 23:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
145. Support - I never lost confidence in his judgement. Georgewilliamherbert 00:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
146. Still space for support? ;) Per all the noms. Thanks/wangi 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
147. Support. An asset to the project. Bucketsofg 01:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
148. Support - a bit hot sometimes, but after looking at his contributions, I agree that he is a big asset to the project -Kubigula (ave) 02:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
149. Support: I respect the voices of the objectors, but I respect Crzrussian's respecting of them most of all. I think he learned from the mistake, but I also felt that the mistake in question was taking a rhetorical gamble rather than evidencing any hostility. People this conscientious put me at ease. Geogre 03:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

     Support. Crzrussian and I do not see eye-to-eye on many things, but I am confident of his abilities as an administrator. Silensor 05:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (changed to neutral)

150. Support—Crzrussian's contributions are valuable. It wasn't the intemperate comment which did him in—it didn't violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks & was a one-off event—he did himself in by self-unblocking. I do believe that he has rent his garments, donned sackcloth, acknowledged his misdeeds and made commitments for the future. Believing this he is properly repentant, knowing that we all make mistakes, and confident that his work is of value, I'm willing to trust him. Williamborg (Bill) 06:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
151. Da, da, da! Sumas'shedshii, Ruskii, i ochen khorosho! He's a big big asset to the project. Yes, what he did wasn't the best, but the number of admins who haven't stepped close to the line once or twice is probably pretty small. That's not a reason to condone what happened - it is however an indication that, like all of us (probably), CZR is human. Grutness...wha? 10:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
152. Support per 141 of the previous 153 editors. NoSeptember 12:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
153. Support everyone can make a mistake. --Tone 12:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
154. Strong support per nom. Good editor, good admin, clearly willing and able to learn from mistakes. Brian 14:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)btball
155. Support per Jayjg. Amoruso 14:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
156. Support as above Agathoclea 15:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
157. Да! Misza13 15:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
158. Support as I did the first RFA. But please Czrussian, be careful of your descision making in the future and work on somethings brought up in the oppostion and you will do fine. — Moe 17:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
159. Support Sure - why not? Nice to see that the community doesn't hold a desysopping against everyone. --Spartaz 20:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
160. Support I've seen him around a lot in the past, and I trust him. No one is flawless and he has demonstrated his respect for the community by stepping down when asked. Mother Wikipedia wants the comrade back as an admin!--Konst.able 02:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
161. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
162. Support Geedubber 05:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
163. Support Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
164. Support -- Lost^(talk) 13:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
165. Support, as above. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 16:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
166. Support: we need more accountable Admins. Also, too high a proportion of Wikignomes at present. Stephen B Streater 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
167. Strong support Crazy Russian was one of the most open admins I've come across on WP. In my experience, he's always ready to consider others' positions and admit mistakes, admin or otherwise. And he doesn't seem to hold grudges. Given perfection isn't available (no really, not even from the opposers) this level of honesty and respect for others is priceless. Give us back our Russian! JackyR | Talk 19:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
168. Support per AnonEMouse, Accurizer, etc. Markovich292 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
169. Support User with good judgement and firm beliefs. feydey 22:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
170. Double support, since I forgot to support you the first time round – Gurch 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
171. Support I think he is ready. gidonb 23:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
172. Support The time has come!!! Kukini 00:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
173. Support. He is ready.--Tdxiang 04:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
174. Strong support and I'm really sorry I have been so busy as to not get here sooner. Crz is a tireless, intelligent, and resourceful member of this community. If we could only have one admin, I would pick him in an instant. I have always found him to be friendly, approachable, helpful, and willing to serve in any capacity whatsoever. Heck, there was a detectible loss when he stepped down, as certain things stopped getting done and backlogs increased. I raise my glass to a person who deserves and needs the mop, and whose credibility has only increased over the last few months. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
175. Support. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
176. Support (although by this time it is probably academic that this RFA will pass). Did a brave thing by allowing recall, has made one mistake in two months, deserves a second chance. Excellent admin otherwise. Batmanand | Talk 10:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
177. Support. One of the better admins, we need him back. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
178. Strong Support -- I was travelling -- I did not even realized he'd been desysopped. I read Kim's diffs below and I must say I did not find most of his comments inappropriate given their context. Sometimes a certain polite bluntness is called for (such as when someone deletes a ton of your stuff without comment); I find his comments in those cases Kim cited within the bounds of WP:CIVIL and appropriate. More importantly, I very much respect his judgement and I am always very interested in his sagacious remarks in processes such as RfA. I consider him one of Wikipedia's more valuable admin/warrior/leader figures. We need him. Maybe he should be on the Foundation board, too. --A. B. 20:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

     I appreciate the kind words, but I would like to reject the label warrior. I have long beaten my swords into ploughshares pursuant to Joel 3:10. I am also not interested in Foundation board service at this time or likely ever. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

179. Support. I'm willing to take his word that the events in which he lost his sysop bit will not occur again. --Improv 20:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
180. Support. Seems to have excellent admin skills. I would only advise him to exercise the maximum possible patience in confrontational situations. IronDuke 00:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
181. Support This will lead to a vaguely interesting issue about how to note this on WP:100 (or WP:200 if it hits that). JoshuaZ 00:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
182. Support, a reasonable and experienced guy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
183. Strong Support - That this is WP:SNOWing in massive support? not surprised one - fricken - iota ;) Welcome back mate! I'll teach ya a few sysop tricks in case you're rusty :P Glen 01:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
184. Support. I was waiting to be the 200th. --Bhadani 03:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

     Yeah? Well, I was #17, so "In your face!" JungleCat talk/contrib 04:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

185. Support! Tawker's said it. A thoughtful, caring, kindhearted and resolute admin as you are, all the good crazies power to you and full steam ahead! - Introvert • ~ 06:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
186. Strong Support A thought and reasonable editor who even when deysop conducted himself with the utmost integrity. Agne 11:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
187. Support  Doctor Bruno  16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
188. Support. I don't have to reason to believe there will be problems in the future. Nephron  T|C 19:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
189. Last minute pile-on Support. On Soviet Wikipedia, admin supp ... oh, damn, somebody already did that joke. --Aaron 22:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
190. Number 190 - The two-month recall break has served its purpose. Scobell302 22:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
191. Support I have been extremely impressed with all of my personal interactions with Crzrussian, both as an editor and as an administrator. I think he took the right steps in backing out for a cooling-off period and I must give him my strongest support for the restoration of his adminship. Alansohn 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
192. Support I fail to see why he was rm'd from the admin list anyway. People are so tetchy round here. You can't make lemon juice without squeezing lemons. HARD.--I'll bring the food 01:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
193. Support per Tom Harrison. I have found him to be both reasonable and astute in the application of his Admin powers. Morton devonshire 01:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
194. Support, good guy, has shown class and maturity throughout this whole process. Merzbow 01:31, 11 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)

   In this specific instance, a comment was made regarding the sources (or lack thereof) and another delete vote was lodged. It's impossible to judge how it would have went in such a short time with that sort of protest, and that's not the kind of person we need closing AfDs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Jeff, please look again. Experienced non-admins are encouraged to close AFDs as "keep", I've done it several times myself, please see Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. It was his own nomination for deletion. The users who argued for keep gave real arguments, and convinced him to withdraw. The only Delete vote was just that, giving no reason whatsoever, from a user who was later banned. Giving it any weight would be reducing AFD to a vote. I can not imagine that AFD process going any other way. It was an admirable exhibition of Crzrussian's flexibility, ability to change his own mind, Wikipedia:Snowball clause and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   I've looked at it many times, and it was improper, especially as an admin. If you're closing AfDs early in similar circumstances like this, I would ask you to stop, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose: Incivil user and lack of understanding of NPOV [2]. Lack basic insight such checking blanked pages for history but tags it for speedy delete [3] and when a new admin restored it rightfully as the original blanked redirect was a proper one, he tell him off [4] [5] see also [6]. Gets quickly aggitated and posts often have a tone of demands, [7] [8] [9]. When pointed at existing guidelines [10] [11], just brushes that aside in a manner not appropriate for an admin [12] [13]. 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 ^{at venus} 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 ^{at venus} 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 ^{at venus} 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^{at venus} 12:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   I have already explained at length that I was primarily a (un)deletion admin, and did very few blocks. There a few admins who know the CSD/AFD/PROD policy better than I - but I was thin on the blocking. I have undertaken to learn it better, and will also be extra careful whom I block and whom I unblock. I was not asking you to shut up - I was just calling you on the hypocricy: are you here to build an encyclopedia or are you here to vindictively bust my balls? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, you explained, and that explanation is deeply troubling. You get admin tools for a reason, and you do not get the point that you should not use them for your own benifit, there is something wrong and you should NOT be an admin. I am still here to make an encyclopedia, and POV-pushing admins who do appeals to authority, tell people off for doing the right thing, etc should never be an admin in the first place. But it looks like the community is going to trust you anyway, but for me an additional reason to leave the project. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

   I actually laughed out loud when I read this above response, specifically "You get admin tools for a reason, and you do not get the point that you should not use them for your own benifit". I don't think I have ever encountered a person with such a lack of self-analysis or a tendency towards hypocrisy and the spouting of Grandiose statements as Kim. Every single article that she has been involved with a dispute on, she used every single trick in her little bag to try to get her way, this includes the completely inappropriate use of every single administrative tool that she saw an advantage in using. To now appear and accuse another person of the same offense when it doesn't even appear he was doing anything of the sort really gives the appearance of psychological projection, or some kind of personality disorder that turns off the ability to understand one's own mistakes or flaws.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

   LOL. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:52, 7 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 ^{at venus} 05:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Kim, WP:AAGF. Calling someone biased is not assuming bad faith. As for Deir Yassin, you're accusing Alexander of not understanding NPOV. Your preferred article title is the correct one, but not because it is neutral. It's correct even though it's not neutral because it is the most prevalent term in English. If anything, this incident would indicate that Alexander's interpretation of NPOV is sound; he simply failed to realize that the "most prevalent term" policy takes precedence. Kla'quot 07:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

   If you think that NPOV is equal to using the most neutral words, we should rename the Sebrenisca massacre to Sebrenisca incident. It is an often made misunderstanding about NPOV that by using neutral words, it becomes NPOV, while the contrary can be true and using neutral words can result in a very strong POV. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:52, 7 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 Wikipedia 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)

   I wouldn't have closed it because I participated in the discussion, but it was an 8-5 and perfectly within admin discretion to delete it, especially given the lack of content. Not accepting the responsibility for this doesn't give me any confidence that you close AfD's with the necessary care. ~ trialsanderrors 17:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Amend to strong oppose based on Crzrussian's behavior in this RFA. I haven't read the details of his desysopping, but the way he becomes unhinged and feels the need to accost every Oppose and Neutral voter it's just a matter of time until the shit hits the fan again. Try to temper yourself. ~ trialsanderrors 22:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   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)Switched to Neutral, see below. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose per badlydrawnjeff. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose all sockpuppets of Tyrenius. Btw, is Yanksox ready for me to destroy his soul? Ghluet 13:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Note: User's second edit. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Who is a sockpuppet of Tyrenius? --Dweller 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   It's me, Sox, Chimp and Tyrenius, and Samir is the puppetmaster. Haven't you got the memo? - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   User blocked indef. Naconkantari 14:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose for eyebrow-raising response to Kim's vote above. Most of trouble and aggravation on Wikipedia is caused by editors who can't take a criticism without making escalating counter-accusations. Zocky | picture popups 16:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose because of the responses to Ed. He is one of the people who actually have a clue abiut image copyright. Dr Zak 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Kim made a ton of good points. You come across as too impatient and pushy to be an admin. You prove this further in your replies to Kim, so i have no doubt these do represent typical edits. i think you need to approach your critics and problematic issues more calmly. I just don't need to see antagonistic admins in wikipedia. It makes the place a bad working environment and will inevitably drive off other users. I have worked with Kim on some articles and always found her/him to be very collaborative. It would heed you well to take note of her comments. David D. (Talk) 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Nobody has ever described me as antagonistic until today. I am pretty much one of the friendliest, most transparent, easiest to talk to users here! - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   You said to Nishkid "I've been working Special:Shortpages about as long as you've been a Wikipedian" [14] seems a bit patronising. This too, "I certainly don't know enough about Stingrays to tell which name should redir to which species, and neither do you, I assume". Why didn't you ask the user who created the page his intentions? The we have the following "How in the name of all that's holy did you orphan a dozen images of U.S. State Attorneys General of my uploading without as much as a hello on my talk page!? " [15] and also to Edg2 here : "BTW, I am incensed at the way you've gone about obliterating large amounts of my work without as much as a courtesy notice! " [16] and here "I urge you strongly not to revert any of my edits, as to do so would be in clear conflict with our Fair Use policy. " Maybe antagonistic is too strong but these are pretty much demands not requests or discussion. Plus you do not seem to be taking critical observations from users here very well. David D. (Talk) 21:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Right. I express myself forcefully. There is nothing wrong with that. I am infinitely ready to explain my position, to talk to the user, and to listen to reasonable argument, but when I take a position, I make it known. I am saddened you think that is a bad thing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   I do think being forceful is a bad thing. It can be taken the wrong way. Something such as "On a personal aside, you have also seriously pissed me off. " [17] can be seen as aggressive and antagonistic, even if you are sure you are right. Besides, I find it a bit of a double standard that you expect Ed 2Gs to contact you with respect to the fair use deletions and yet did not consider it necessary to contact the author of the stingray page, as nishkid requested. You called him "green" [18] for making that request that was very reasonable. David D. (Talk) 21:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Strong Oppose per everything above. You need to be able to take constructive criticism and not blow up on the person giving it. Every point that has been made in opposition is a very valid point and you vehemently trying to explain your actions instead of accepting your mistakes is a serious issue. Also, the fact that you "completely stand by [your] edits" is bizarre. Many of the edits brought up show a blatant disregard/misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and I find it disconcerting that you would stand by such edits. Wikipediarules2221 22:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
9. I cannot trust this user to close deletion discussions based on [19].--SB | T 00:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Crzrussian's talk page summary is a misleading recount of why I requested his recall. He does not mention this diff, where he says: "future attempts to inject this POV will be met with a block", a very wrong interpretation of blocking policy. As well, he was edit warring (with the user he later blocked) and using rollback for it. And there's the self-unblock. Has Crzrussian indicated he understand this and won't engage in any of them again? I don't see it, and his saying "I have never used my powers where I edited, I have studiously stayed out of conflicts of interest" is disheartening, because that was one of the primary reasons he was asked to resign. The resignation was admirable, though, and I gave his recent contribs review with a mind for supporting if noting was amiss. However, even if this looks like a mostly protest oppose at this point, I'm deeply concerned about Crzrussian's loss of cool in the Ed g2s discussion(s). Representative sample (some of these may be mentioned already): calls it a massacre, "How the hell else can one illustrate a biography if not with a portrait?", "I am going to revert the whole set. BTW, I am incensed at the way you've gone about obliterating large amounts of my work without as much as a courtesy notice!", "I cannot accept your unilateral actions on the subject, guideline or not. I am entitled to request and receive full process.", "You are driving me up - the - wall!!", "On a personal aside, you have also seriously pissed me off.". This is not the behavior expected from an admin. Dmcdevit·t 06:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    While I winced at the diffs presented by Dmcdevit, they are not in the same league as this or this or many other examples of the admins' egregious incivility we witness on the daily basis. There is certainly a lot of mote-and-beam stuff going on here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    This is called double standard, Dmc, and you know it. Apparently, some acting admins can tell people to "f*** off" their page or make remarks like "you could f***ing whistle" and still be admins, while people showing only moderate mistakes are denied adminship... It is Ubu Roi and Ionesco put together... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    I have never said anything close to those examples. What are you talking about? The fact that we have existing admins whoare uncivil or edit war or something means that we should promote people who are that, too? We might as well just hand over the keys to everyone. Having a standard that some people brak is not a double standard; that's one of he oddest arguments I've come across. Dmcdevit·t 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    I agree that losing my cool was ... uncool. In fact, I don't do it very often. Like, never.

    I have also never edited the Goldstein and Coulter articles, and edited Kahane superficially but not for content. I know that you and some but not all of the other recallers have interpreted my reverts as content-based, but I ask you once again as I did two months ago, would you not revert the addition of Category:Sexual predators to Bill Clinton and then block the offender if the disruption were repeated multiple times? What I did was precisely the same thing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    Do you seriously assert that each of these edits was reverting vandalism: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]? Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Yes. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    POV statements in themselves not vandalism. POV-inspired disruption is. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    Well, there you go. I have nothing to do with these articles or topics, but it requres a serious assumption of bad faith to make that judgment. None of these are obvious. That Ann Coulter, Baruch Goldstein, or Meir Kahane are either Islamophobic or anti-Arab is not an assertion that, however ill-informed or POV, does not self-evidently require bad faith to make. POV-inspired "disruption" is not always vandalism. I do not trust the block button in the hands of someone who will revert and block for this kind of POV edit, rather than using dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    Crzrussian has been accused of not understanding blocking policy. It seems to me he understands it perfectly. It's there to be used for the good of the encyclopedia. In the cases above, he has acted strongly in accord with WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material:

    Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. This action is listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

    Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).

    Jimmy Wales has said:

    "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

    He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

    "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

    Tyrenius 00:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    I appreciate the advocacy, Ty, but Kahane was assassinated in 1990 and Goldstein was dismembered immediately after he massacred 29 Palestinians praying at the Machpela in 1994. So only Coulter was living. Thanks for trying. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    You are too hard on yourself. Bill Clinton and Ann Coulter are both alive and merit extreme caution in any negative comments about them per WP:BLP. Out of respect it is only right to observe caution regarding deceased people with surviving close family members. Tyrenius 02:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose per SB and Dmcdevit. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. The understanding of the meaning of vandalism and blocking policy is far too imprecise even after several months of adminship and non-adminship. There is also a difference between disruption and vandalism: it is quite possible to be disruptive without vandalising anything at all. Learning to be done here, I think. -Splash - tk 10:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose. Attitude (changed to neutral awaiting relpy to question - perhaps I misread the tone of his initial reply). --Mcginnly | Natter 10:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose I've had a few occasions to query his sense of proportion.--Londoneye 12:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    Strongly oppose - doesn't deserve to be an admin. just a thought. I went trough his recall thing. Hwang Seong Gyeong 20:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    Caution. Account of user:Hwang Seong Gyeong was created today. Went straight to WP:AN to make her first edit. Second and third edits were blueing his user and talk pages. Fourth (!) edit is this vote. --Irpen 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    Indef block as a troll. Yanksox 22:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose, history of taking aggressive positions. Everyking 05:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I don't trust Crzrussian's judgment. I'm not sure that he knows (how) to distinguish between arguments and proposers.

    Nishkid64: "But actually...it shouldn't be deleted. It's a valid re-direct link. . ."

    Crzrussian: "I've been working Special:Shortpages about as long as you've been a Wikipedian. I get through several dozen {{db-g7}} cases a week."[30]

    Crzrussian's argument for deletion here is that he is more experienced and he dismisses an argument that it'd be useful on these grounds of authority, while supporting the argument with nothing more than his word. This is an appeal to authority and is considered a fallacy. He also argues along the lines of the reverse of this fallacy, with ad hominem arguments. On this RfA, he has responded to Kim van der Linde in this manner several times.

    "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?" "It puts into question your motives in taking the action you took here, especially given the rebuke I've given you over Deir Yassin." "are you here to build an encyclopedia or are you here to vindictively bust my balls?"

    In all of these examples, he ignores the argument presented and instead calls into question the proposer. The argument thus made is not a sound one, per the fact that arguments are not defined by the person who argues them. I'm concerned that someone who hasn't shown understanding of a few basic principles of discourse is allowed to determine the outcome of debates and while I know that the wiki will keep turning if he is allowed this again, it is still concerning to me.

    Additionally, I am concerned about Crzrussian's seeming self-importance, such as "I am pretty much one of the friendliest, most transparent, easiest to talk to users here!" I'm also a bit put off by his responses on the RfA talk page, where it seems he is explaining why what he did wasn't so bad. I don't think it's a good move to justify one's actions and call it admitting one was wrong.

    This is no fault of the candidate, but I am a small bit dismayed by the support votes and nominations in this RfA. From my perspective, they constitute some form of Ignoratio elenchi, arguments which may very well be true but which are not relevant. It seems that many of the supports affirm that Crzrussian is nice, a good friend, "yay he stepped down (I wouldn't do that)", accountable, etc. From my point of view, these are not qualifications for adminship. It's great that he is all these things, but does it make him a good admin?

    Overall, I'm not convinced of Crzrussian's good judgment and ability to be a good admin. I'm sure he's a great person and a great friend and all that, and I hope he takes no offense from this (extremely long) oppose. It looks like he'll pass this easily, so I at least hope he'll learn from my criticism. Cheers! --Keitei (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    Your criticism of my argument techniques is well made, though I do not hide the fact that I question Kim's motivations. (Just hers.) Thankfully, just like the buddy-buddy stuff you're noting, my argument techniques are also tangential to my administrator status. My knowledge of policy (however good it may be) and my fidelity in observing the policy is the key. I invite you to look over my history of using the administrative tools and challenge you to find one incident in which I inappropriately blocked, deleted, or protected something or someone (other than Yas, for which transgressions I resigned). I am running for janitor, not for ambassador in chief. I have stayed out of politics, and I will continue to stay out of politics. You will never see me wheel-warring over "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" or pedophile userboxes. I invite you to ask further questions on talk if you feel my summary of the events is somehow lacking. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    While I supported this RFA, I do want to comment that this is what opposing an RFA should look like... a clear statement of reasoning that fully expresses Keitei's opinion on the matter. I wish to commend keitei for being able to raise her arguments diplomatically, respectfully, and with conviction. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 06:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    I too would like to thank keitei for outlining my own thinking nicely. CrazyRussian says, "my argument techniques are also tangential to my administrator status". That's not entirely true. A good understanding of argument techniques is important for evaluating arguments of others in heated situations, and admins sometimes do have to figure out who is doing what in a discussion, regardless of their personal politics. If you use bad argument tecniques, how do we know you'll recognized them as bad when other users use them? Zocky | picture popups 11:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    While I'll join in the chorus of appreciating keitei's style, I beg to differ with the substance of some of the points made. That CR is usually nice is very important for being an administrator. The current flamewar ...err.. intelligent, well reasoned discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano is basically about just that; see Grafikm's response to Dmcdevit. That he is so accountable is fundamental for granting him the mop and flamethrower of being an administrator. That he will step down and resubmit himself when messing up goes a long way towards making up his other problems - yes, he has problems, we are all human; however, we will not all respond to being notified of our problems as graciously, especially when starting from a position of power. So these characteristics that cause me to support him are not irrelevant, they are crucial. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

16. Oppose per Sean and Dmcdevit. 1ne 23:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Kim van der Linde, and especially per candidates response to critics. Huldra 05:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose objectiuonable, POV warrior 86.136.167.14 07:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, but you must be logged in to place your comment here. Thank you! — Moe 17:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose While he does lots of good work, I don't see that giving him admin tools would be good for the project.--Holdenhurst 17:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose Too soon for reinstatement and NPOV is a concern. Davey Lloyd George 18:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Very quick to take sides in edit dispute, causes more problems than he fixes. Arthur Ellis 19:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. G.He 03:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I was going to support especially after he honoured his listing on Admins for recall. However the responses to other oppose votes above makes me think that he is too agressive and unable to take critisism. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  03:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose per Kim's comment, and the response. Mexcellent 04:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose per Kim's comments. --Ben 19:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
25. Per the circumstances that led him to be recalled in the first place. --Cyde Weys 22:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose Not for his comment to Yas: that was stupid and offensive, but it should not be a permanent impediment to recovering his status. I'm opposing because of concerns about a possible lack of judgement on NPOV and related matters, as evidenced by his edits on the Deir Yassin, Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein pages. (Note: This is my second time posting this message. The first time, I was accidentally logged off the system, and someone reverted my comments almost immediately. I find this a bit puzzling, given that there is currently an anonymous "support" vote listed above. (#20) Consistency, anyone?) CJCurrie 00:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Amended 00:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC) The anonymous vote has now been removed. CJCurrie 02:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose per above. I'd like to draw particular attention to his excuse for self-unblocking, "I didn't think sysops could be blocked". That's patently ridiculous, and shows a severe, severe misunderstanding of the sysop position. — Werdna talk criticism 08:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comment: Werdna, I have always greatly respected you when we have met before, but this comment is something that I'm a little uncomfortable with. It has been a couple months, and in the meantime he has done nothing wrong. Since you bring up one (albeit egregious) single mistake/error in judgement, do you not think that the lesson has been learned? Is Wikipedia really risking anything real by resysopping him? Would the project not be much better off with him as an admin versus without? For me, anyway, his stellar track record far outweighs the one blemish, especially since it is so easily learned from and avoided in the future -- whether you think it could have been an honest mistake on his part or not. --Storkk 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

28. Oppose per above. Argumentative; does not distinguish between constructive criticims and personal attacks; hostile when questioned; and the utter failure to understand blocking is beyond astonishing. Unrepentant and has shown no desire to improve. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose per Cyde and Werdna. Shell ^babelfish 00:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose I planned to sit out your RFA and let the rest of the community decide until I saw this [31] Saying pile-on on an oppose RFA is totally unacceptable. I'm truly disappointed. I had great hope that you learned from the recall. This remark shows that I still can not trust you to make good choices. FloNight 20:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Strike oppose per this comment. It is the type of response I've wanted to see. [32] FloNight 23:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

30. Oppose per candidate's responses to questions and votes. That he or she has on some occasions shown poor judgment or imperfect knowledge of policies is okay by me; we're all human, after all. But I am very bothered by the tone he or she has taken in the responses to the questions posed here and the votes proffered. I would expect someone posting to an RFA to be on their very best behaviour and give responses significant consideration and deliberation. That has not occured and thus I oppose the nomination. --ElKevbo 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose pending satisfactory explanation of this absolutely unacceptable edit and summary, for editor and even more so an admin candidate. Crum375 23:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

    Please see RfA talk, and the user talk archive and ANI archive linked therein for a more than exhaustive explanation of the edit and the its meaning. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

    All I see there is technicalities, that honestly are not that important. To me, that anyone, let alone an admin candidate, can utter these words on WP, and be allowed to still be here and edit freely, is simply unbelievable. I guess something must be wrong with me, since I see so many support votes. I am simply shocked. Crum375 23:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

    You're simply shocked? Perhaps you'd like to throw out your o-face somewhere else, because it just comes off as bad acting. I've no idea what he put for his explanation of his pseudo-racist comment but i'm more appalled by the OMG did he just really say that? rubbish in your comment then his original outburst. To be honest given how irritating and polarised many editors are on Palestine round here (the reason i'd never touch that area of wiki with a bargepole) i'm frankly amazed he didn't start donating money to israeli troops after he had to put up with those editors for a even a short amount of time. --I'll bring the food 01:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (message submitted by Crzrussian)

    Crzrussian, To you this may be all a joke, and with all yourCrzrussian's support votes youhe will probably re-become an admin here. But I have to tell you, that for me this is very disturbing. Not just your Crzrussian's own actions per se - there are lots of mean people that say lots of ugly and mean things everywhere, and many actually do those ugly and mean things. But for me the reason I am so shocked is that all these people above, supporting Crzrussianyou, many of whom I have grown to respect and admire, are willing to 'let this one slide'. I guess I just need some major recalibration. Crum375 01:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    WHAT THE? I had no part of that comment. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, I know and I fixed it, but for a short time there the 'watchlist' message confused me. I apologize - it's easy to goof in a state of shock. Crum375 01:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

32. Oppose. Has long engaged in questionable behaviour for an admin. Rebecca 02:36, 11 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 (^chat/_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 (^chat/_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)

   Unfortunately, I really do disagree with you on this point. You're correct in some ways, of course: 18,000+ edits with relatively few apparent instances of incivility is, really, a fairly good rate. However, the diffs are more concerning to me than mild incivility. I prefer to hold admin candidates to very high standards of civility, because comments like "you have also seriously pissed me off" and "Mmmm... yes... a pint of palestinian blood would be a fine dessert right now" really should never come from an administrator - particularly given the context of the latter. A few slips here and there are no problem at all, but I can see no real excuse for that kind of language from anyone in a position of authority. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 12:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   I've apologized and resigned over the Yas thing. But to tell a fellow sysop that he pissed me off is really ok. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   I saw the followup to the Yas incident linked above (I should have linked it in my first comment... damnit), in which he said that no offense had been taken. However, I really don't feel comfortable supporting in the face of those incidents, isolated though they probably are.

   Besides, getting pissed off on Wikipedia is one thing, but outright saying so is quite another: to put things in perspective, you were arguing with someone on the Internet, over a conflict of opinion that - frankly - would hardly rock the universe. What's the point in getting angry, let alone saying so? In a perfect world, nice hot cups of tea would be far more plentiful. Or coffee, for the heathens. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 12:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   I am affraid that if I just need to look through the last few hundert diffs on talk and user talk pages to find already two incidents, that this is rather frequent, not incidents. The responses you give here underline what is going on. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   I don't think so. If you think you can find more instances of incivility, please post the diffs. I believe that Crzrussian is generally just as good as the rest of us, and that the diffs provided are the exception. Hence my refusal to oppose. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 22:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral - seems ok but I'm awaiting a response to my question regarding blocking policy interpretation. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

   Vote changed, see above - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral -- It would be a good thing for wikipedia if there was a great deal more de-admining and re-admining. This is as good a place to start as any. 4.250.177.157 18:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (User talk:WAS 4.250)

   Indent IP vote - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral after discussing with Crzrussian off-wiki, it is clear through extra diffs provided he can successfully mediate bad situations. I'm willing to change my original verdict. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral changed from support. My original praise still stands, but I don't care for this. AnnH ♫ 01:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Regretful neutral I've spent a good deal of time during the pendency of this RfA contemplating Alexander's fitness to be once more an admin, and, although I think it likelier than not that the net effect on the project of his being an admin will be positive, I am not certain that I can reach a conclusion as to the net effect with the degree of certainty I'd think requisite for me to support (as set forth, for example, in my RfA guidelines page). When I nominated Crz for adminship several months thence, I was quite sure that he was possessed of the deliberative temperament and cordial demeanor that well befit an admin, and I think that assessment to remain, on the whole, correct. I developed some concerns at the time of his voluntary relenquishment of adminship, and I hoped this RfA would allay them; instead, I have become more concerned. At the time of the "recall", I wrote to another editor who had expressed concern at AN apropos of the surrounding issues that Alexander's "profession that he had no sense that an admin's unblocking himself was disfavored, which profession I believe, [led] me to question whether he was sufficiently familiar with policy to have become an admin in the first place." As I explained then, "the standard for which I often advocate at RfA is that a candidate should be supported where the net effect on the project of his being an admin is likely to be positive and where, even as he may not be conversant with policy passim, he is altogether unlikely to act disruptively with respect to those policies (viz., that whereof he does not know, thereof he shall not act)...One's appreciating that admins should not unblock themsleves evidences a conception of adminship as one that confers infallability and, whilst something one might overlook in reviewing WP:ARL and WP:AHTG, ought not to be foreign to an admin, if only because of its being facially sensible and intuitive". Nevertheless, Alexander did much good work as an admin, and I was inclined, when first this RfA began, to support weakly, being relatively confident that, as an admin, he would continue the good work and avoid the disruption. I have always known him to be quite jocose and inclined to logical argument over untoward personal argumentation, and I remain wholly confident that he is, on the whole, so disposed. There have been many instances here, though, of his acting defensively and replying quasi-indecorously to those who have raised (somewhat) legitimate concerns; in that regard, I do concur in part with the opposes of Wikipediarules2221, Dmcdevit, and Splash, the thrust of which I suppose I incorporate by reference, and I also think Daveydweeb's objections as to civility (not with respect to the comments intended as humorous but with respect to those styled more seriously) to be rather persuasive. I have found Alexander's continued defense of certain actions with which I quibble to be disconcerting, and I must admit that I have been a bit disappointed by his conduct here; I was awaiting contributions from him that would make me confident that his understanding of adminship and of the tenor appropriate for correspondence between sysops and non-sysops mirrored mine, and I am not at all sure that it either does. This request will, of course, be successful, and so I am eminently hopeful that Crz will take the comments offered by all those participating here and allow them to inform his work as an admin and am quite confident that he will continue to do good work as an admin; I'm just not confident enough to support. Joe 19:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

   Ouch... Fair enough. I accept the criticism. I am impressed that you're able to overlook our longstanding friendship and vote your conscience, unlike several others, I imagine. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

5. Neutral. Changed from support to neutral in light of the comments by FloNight and Werdna. Silensor 22:30, 10 October 2006 (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.