Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crzrussian

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

[edit] Crzrussian

Final (86/1/2) ended 04:38 , 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian (talk • contribs) – Although the bulk of his 7800+ edits have come in 2006, Alexander has been a Wikipedian for 16 months, during which time he has participated actively across several namespaces, demonstrating an even temperament, a pensive disposition, a firm grasp of policy, and, above all, a dedication to improving the project wherever possible. Most RfA participants seek a candidate who (a) will use the admin tools constructively and with some frequency, (b) is unlikely to abuse the tools (either by “going rogue” or simply by acting unilaterally), and (c) is unlikely to misuse the tools because of an ignorance of policy; Alexander surely fulfills each criterion. He patrols recent changes frequently and reports vandals to AIV, demonstrating fine judgment; he surely would benefit the project were he able to block vandals straightaway. I also imagine that he will participate in the closure of XfDs, and his edit history shows that he well appreciates the role of an admin at XfD, namely to interpret the views of the community and to act, in almost every case, as a servant of that community. Finally, because he often patrols new pages, he properly understands how to dispose of pages that have PRODded or tagged for speedy. He is neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist, and, even as he often properly tags articles for speedy, he also works tirelessly to improve PRODded articles of which the subject is notable but that are written poorly. As to Alexander’s judgment, his disarming sense of humor, combined with his level-headed nature, give me every confidence that he will not abuse the tools, and his knowledge of policy, combined with his analytical tendencies, make me confident that he will not act in ignorance of our guidelines. Neither does he shy from debates nor does he seek out controversy, and, when he is involved in controversial matters, he is uniformly polite and civil; he demonstrates that one may stand for the good of the encyclopedia and disagree with other users while nevertheless remaining collegial. I have no doubt about Alexander’s fitness to be an admin, and his history here makes plain that, with the mop, etc., he will benefit the project. Joe 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With gratitude to Joe, I humbly accept. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support The nom is much too wordy, but I'll not hold that against Crz. Joe 04:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Great user and is so helpful and does such an effective job. Crzrussian, does such a great job at everything. Yanksox 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Read the first sentence and two supports and decided to... Support Werdna (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Objective and neutral. Will promote and preserve encyclopedicity.Timothy Usher 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support As a new admin, I would like a bit of relief at CAT:CSD so that I can actually do some nice article writing. Crzrussian has been tagging on NP patrol and it would be good if he didn't have to wait for admins to delete something while the author repeatedly removes the {{db}} tag in the meantime. Also I've had to clear over 200 prods today and some help would be good. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, good user, would make a good admin. --Rory096 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong support. As if the listed attributes ween't enough, Crzrussian is also a strong asset to the stub-sorting wikiproject. A very well deserved nom, IMO. Grutness...wha? 04:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong support I'd like to add more to the discussion, but the nominator has said enough. (Finally, I trust nobody will make this into some stupid muslim-votes-for-jew thing. That would be a damn shame.) joturner 05:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Mr. Turner is referring to my reluctant Oppose vote at his recent RfA. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

9. Strong Support after reviewing strong work in RC Patrolling and using welcomes to encourage positive work. Kukini 05:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support - I wish we had more editors and admins as "crazy" (in scary quotes) as Crzrussian. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
12. JoshuaZ 05:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - your choice of cliche here -- Tawker 05:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Crazy about Crzrussian support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Impressive contribution count to the Wikipedia namespace. Kalani ^[talk] 06:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. DarthVader 07:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Я – за. Conscious 07:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    What? --Rory096 08:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    "I'm for it", literally :) Conscious 08:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

18. Support a fair and balanced editor who deserves the tools. Pecher ^Talk 08:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. A dedicated user across many areas of the project. Zaxem 09:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Support great editor, level-headed with a great sense of humour to boot. He will do well with the mop. And wasn't he adorable as a kid? -- Samir धर्म 09:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Support --Terence Ong 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, sure. --Tone 09:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong and crazy support --Nearly Headless Nick 10:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support a well-rounded editor who will make a good admin. Gwernol 12:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, because he shares my pathological dislike of cacky articles on sutpid defunct shopping malls. Proto||type 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Support ForestH2
27. Support a very strong candidate. He has shown a great dedication to the project and a commitment to keeping it clear of junk. Rje 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Support gladly - my interactions with this user have been positive and he displays an excellent level of reason and good temperament. Aguerriero (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support as he passes my standards and nothing bad shows up on radar. Ifnord 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Shows a willingness to work with others, even those that disagree with him on a given topic. Will do a good job of balancing assumption of good faith with vandal-whacking. youngamerican (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support per everyone, and more good humor is always needed. -Goldom (t) (Review) 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Thoughtful answers to questions, and good edits. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support per everyone. Royboycrashfan 17:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support I had my disagreements with Crzrussian, but I found him to be a good user Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. No doubt, he will be a great admin. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. DVD+ R/W 19:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Strong support. Not only a welcoming user, but he displays remarkable wisdom on his edits and discussions. Adambiswanger1 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Well, yes, of course. BD2412 T 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Merovingian {T C @} 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Should be an admin --as per wordy nom. Nephron  T|C 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. Great user.--Jusjih 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support per above abakharev 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Trustworthy editor from whom I have seen many well-reasoned contributions. Xoloz 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Strong Support Whoa - how did this get so far along before I noticed? I must admit, the thought of nominating CZR actually crossed my mind a few days ago, but I never really gave it a lot of thought or followed up on it. However, I'm glad someone else did. --Bachrach44 01:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Great editor. --Shlomke 02:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
47. In Soviet Russia, Crzrussian supports YOU!!! Excellent editor. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. I know him cause of stub-sorting. He will be a good admin. - Darwinek 10:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Active, polite, civil; a fine candidate for the mop-and-flamethrower. -- Avi 12:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Even though I'm afraid this is going to come off like a kind of backhanded oppose, it really is a support. Active, polite, civil covers it quite well. He is sometimes wrong (since he's so active that can seem often), and clutches his opinions like a mother clutches her children, but he will do the right thing when pushed into it, and throughout the whole process is very nice about it. I think that's enough for adminship. We have enough of the other kind (Tony Sidaway, the late great SlimVirgin, ...), who are generally right, but are acknowledged even by their admirers to be rather rough around the edges about it. We also need some who are going to be nice, even if they're wrong, as long as they will be right eventually. I know him most because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette M. Böckler (before condensing), which he nominated for deletion without doing a thorough job of researching it, in many ways like the Elizabeth Macarthur incident below. He never admitted he was wrong, he probably still believes he was right; I suspect he still believes he was right with Elizabeth Macarthur. But, throughout the whole discussion he was extremely kind about it, making arguing with him almost a pleasure. Another example was this unfortunate edit on the legendary and extremely heated AFD of El Kondor Pada. Bad judgement, but, called on it, he immediately did the right thing (even though still not apologizing). Yes, we could wish he also be right always, admit fallibility more, strive to improve more than he does; but neither perfection nor contrition are required, doing the right thing eventually is enough, and doing it politely and with good humour makes me actively glad to have him wield the mop and flamethrower. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you for your support. I did apologize for E.M. on this RfA's talk page. I stand by my research and position on A.M.B., though I did make a good faith googling mistake there by including her middle initial. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

51. Support, of course.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Support per nominator. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support - an excellent wikipedian who will make an excellent admin. I have had frequent interaction as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey and elsewhere, and can only say positive things. Alansohn 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Support, I'm familiar with his contributions and feel he will make a fine admin. Accurizer 16:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Поддержка - превосходный потребитель активно на статьях для пропускания. Превосходно. Я сказал это правильно? Heh heh. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Ugh, ты сказал немножко не по русски, но мы поняли;) MaxSem 18:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Я чувствую настолько специальным! Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Шально! (I hope that's not offensive) -- Samir धर्म 08:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

    Нет, оно не одиозно! Я думаю я должно судить за и выучить русский… Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

    Почему-то вспомнил анекдот, как над одним немцем-переводчиком из ГДР пошутили - предложили перевести на немецкий фразу "косой косой косил косой" :-) Nevermind2 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

    Это Русский Википедию теперь? BD2412 T 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

56. Crazy Russian Support! MaxSem 18:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support!!!!--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support...a good sort of crazy. PJM 21:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support, without reservations. Sango123 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Oppose, Change to Support as per User:AnonEMouse and due to Crzrussian's responses. I hope he will really try to reduce the small error rate and to work on how to practically demonstrate good-faith to new users. I take on board that it can happen and we could all be in that space. I also note that the 99% of the time he gets it right and will be of real benefit to the project; the other 1% can always be undone by crabby Australians who think that women who got married, raised sheep, ... are important.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Previous comments:I found his nomination of a new user's article for speedy deletion intemperate and poorly researched. I appreciate the article did not clearly assert notability, it was not that badly written though, and even a crudely formed google search would have found the 1st ten entries related to this woman (no Australian domain prefix required). While Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods under Wikipedia:deletion policy. and although Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles states Consider using Articles for Deletion instead for articles written by an established Wikipedian, articles that have been edited by multiple editors, and articles that are linked from other articles . Crzrussian, firstly did not check that the article in question linked to three other articles (links created sometime ago by other editors), and moreover after I was in the process of trying to undelete and interrupted in removing the tag and potentially writing {{hang on}} plus establishing notability, he posted a comment to the deleting admin which I feel shows a lack of understanding of how to manage disputed speedy deletions. I escalated the dispute to the WP:AWNB#Elizabeth Macarthur and walked away rather than trying to solely establish notability - CRzrussian joined the discussion there but still did no research external to the wiki despite providing criteria for notability which the subject easily meets. I expect better judgment from an admin. --A Y Arktos\^talk 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Fair enough. I have responded exhaustively on this RfA's talk page. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    You are of course entitles to your oppose vote, but I just want to make a brief defense of CZR here. Had I been doing NP patrol and come accross that page, I might have done the same thing. The original article does nothing to even make the slightest claim of notability. (got married, raised sheep. Geee....). Frankly the author should make at least some claim to notability. If not, and it does get deleted, the author should simply attempt to recreate it with an explanation of why the person is notable. --Bachrach44 02:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

61. Support: methodical, polite, and helpful.TheGrappler 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support.Perfectly sane support, good admin material.--Dakota ~ 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Support - excellent nom, appears to have a lot of experience across Wiki. I suspect he'll be a OK good admin.--Andeh 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support! - the best Crazy Russian since Rasputin! :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 07:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. Good user, most likely make a good admin.--blue520 07:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Support -- from The King of Kings 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Support A very fine editor. Mr. Turcotte^talk 20:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
68. Support per Lacertae :) Seriously, great editor, no question will make fine admin. --Deville (Talk) 03:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
69. Support Joe I 08:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
70. No-portal-talk-edits-support! ;-) Misza13 ^{T C} 14:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
71. Support You mean he's not already? As a fellow stub-sorter, I totally support this RfA. Amalas =^_^= 19:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
72. Support - lots of good edits and housekeeping. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Late to the game but я поддерживаю! For Mother Russia! :D (Looks good, balanced edits - though article talk is a bit on the low side, I suppose you're doing the talking on user talk - and you know, 1FA shouldn't be set in stone.) -- Миборовский 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
74. Strongest possible spit take, late comer, clichéd, what he's not one allready Support. Can not say enough positive things about this guy, a shoe-in, and the Mailer-Diablo test doesn't say much about an editor's abilities as an admin. --Eivind^t@c 04:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
75. Support Extremely good contributor. With around 8,000 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin.Jordy 12:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Support per everyone (aside from appliers of the once-justly-notorious "jguk test" (at least somewhat toned down by MD)). Then again, as he's both a fellow stub-sorter and recently gave me a barnstar, I'm probably system(at)icly biased . :) Alai 14:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
77. Support I haven't actually had interaction with this editor but I have edited articles in which I've seen his own edits and I like this editor's work a lot. --Strothra 17:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
78. Support. Despite the fact that we have disagreed at times, Crzrussian commands my highest respect. Outstanding work at AFD. Isopropyl 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
79. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
80. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
81. Support. Extremely active AfD participant. I see nothing wrong with this user, and Wikipedia will be better off if he has the admin tools. Grandmasterka 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
82. Support. It seems I see this editor everywhere since I first saw this RfA. I don't know if it's because I haven't been paying attention in the past, or if I always noticed without seeing. Whichever way, what I've seen is a good indication of what to expect. Agent 86 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
83. Support. Хотя на счет "russian" меня терзают смутные сомненья :-) Nevermind2 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

    A зря... :) :) (Sorry, all...) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

84. Seems a good sort... support! ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
85. Support enthusiastically. He's a great contributor. Erik the Rude 00:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
86. Happy to support. The only reason why I haven't supported yet, was before I thought I had already voted here! An asset, well rounded contributor, and zealous in his tasks. Wil make a great admin. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test quote with gusto unquote despite 15 months here. Anwar 14:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Hehehe, someone decided to own up? ;) I must, however, give you credit on your active participation in process. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Well, thank you! I am glad I met your stringent exemption rules. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

2. This is a really good editor most of the time, but I'm concerned about follow-through. I wrote a response to his note on Talk:MILF, but never heard from him. As I predicted there, his edit (to make the page a redirect) was reverted by the next user to come along. I see a lot of admin delete pages without checking "What links here." If given the mop will your future edits be clean? -MrFizyx 22:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   It is hoped. Also, six weeks and 3,000 edits later I am a lot better. I was not admin material on April 25. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   I appreciate your humble response. I really think you'll do fine, but I felt the need to bring this up since it was my most direct familiarity with your work. Consider my position to be neutral with a strong lean towards support. -MrFizyx 14:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Crzrussian's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Count with Tool2:

Username Crzrussian
Total edits 7866
Distinct pages edited 5144
Average edits/page 1.529
First edit 05:25, March 2, 2005

(main) 4837
Talk 183
User 133
User talk 1377
Image 58
Template 69
Template talk 4
Category 57
Wikipedia 1129
Wikipedia talk 19

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I expect to close a lot of PROD's, CSD's, and AfD's. I am very active in identifying and nominating substandard articles for deletion, and have also done a lot of "Prod patrolling", screening other people's nominations and either endorsing or contesting them. I have also done a fair amount of work with Special:Shortpages and Special:Ancientpages, two areas that get very little attention, where the tools will help me with clearing out the many obvious CSD cases. I have also been active in Special:Newpages and Special:Recentchanges patrols, and intend to assist at WP:AIV.

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

A: I've been a long-time participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, another neglected, but very important corner of Wikipedia. I've participated in many sorting projects as well (which are quite tedious, I admit), especially in the area of Geography. Otherwise, I may be found improving articles relating to Law, Judaism, Russia, New Jersey, or Geography. I've created a couple dozen articles, but none of them is particularly good. I fail Mailer Diablo's 1FA test with gusto! :) Finally, I am proud of my work at the recently created Wikipedia:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I do not frequently lose my cool and have never been in a revert war with anyone (except for cases of obvious vandalism). I am particularly proud of my greater-than-usual efforts in pacifying User:Lentisco, and trying to save him from a block. (Unfortunately, I failed!) See both of our talk pages. The only time I lost my composure was over User:Big.P and his behavior at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiwi_Alejandro_Camara and the numerous NPA's I had to endure off that page from that user and his sock puppets. I suppose, that was a mild meltdown. I dealt with it by drinking a milkshake. Or two... :)

Optional question from Goldom

1. In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?

A: Even temperament, lots of patience, knowledge of policy, desire to teach the newbies, sense of humor. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:48, 6 June 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.