Crzrussian has asked me (Lar(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA)) to clerk more formally. He has decided that if he gets 6 valid requests to be recalled (using his metric of what a valid request is) that he will stand down from adminship at this time, and submit himself to an RfA no less than 2 months hence.
The following section is a tally of those who have asked for recall and who Crzrussian (not me) acknowledges as qualified to so ask. Only submissions are counted, and then only if Crzrussian does not say "I don't accept this one" or words to that effect. Those voicing support or opposing recall, etc. are not counted here. I base my putting people on this list on the discussion immediately below. I copied the bare user link and put it in an informational template, and the date, from the posting.
As I've been asked to clerk, I'd appreciate others not modifying this sub section. If anyone spots errors please let me know. ++Lar: t/c22:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll bite. You're in Category:Administrators open to recall, so here's my honest assessment. I no longer have full confidence in your judgment as an administrator. Not only did you unblock yourself, a serious no-no, and grounds enough for desysopping in my opinion, as well as making the very ill-considered comment that led to it [2], you blocked [3] an editor with which you were directly engaged in edit warring, [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13], for what was clearly a content dispute, and which you so much as admit in your threat, saying future attempts to inject this POV will be met with a block, inadequately giving a block warning in an edit summary, of all places, inappropriately using rollback for content reverts and edit warring, and even edit warring in the first place. And I don't even know the bakground of why you were previously blocked for talk page spamming. As far as I'm concerned, your abuse of unblocking and blocking powers, and rollback, and demonstrating poor judgment in your comments and warnings, and certainly in even engaging in edit warring at all, all in just the last few days, are certainly enough for me to call your adminship into question. So, accordingly, I would ask that you resign your adminship until such time as the community can reconfirm its confidence in your judgment. Thank you. Dmcdevit·t08:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I do emphatically dispute I was "edit warring" inasmuch as I was merely protecting the integrity of the articles from inappropriate injections of POV without a dog in the fight, which in my mind makes me impartial to the situation and therefore able to block to repeated instances. (I've taken the liberty to remove another user's inappropriate comment in my defense, and ask that no such irrelevant comment be posted by anyone in the future. I don't need an advocate. Feel free to opine at my second RfA if one is forthcoming.) - CrazyRussiantalk/email09:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the talk page spamming, I was using AWB to deliver a note to the many members of Wikiproject:Judaism about Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism I had created. Cyde's immediate revocation of my block because he "didn't realize [I was] a sysop" is what actually gave me the idea that to unblock myself would have been appropriate. Ah, anyway, it was a mistake, as I've acknowledged multiple times on AN/I. - CrazyRussiantalk/email10:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Dmcdevit's request because of your self-unblock (I have no opinion of the other matters he raises). See the Administrators' reading list: "Admins are expected to have an intimate understanding of Wikipedia policy. They are also expected to consistently demonstrate comprehension of these policies. This is especially paramount regarding the use of abilities entrusted to admins which are unavailable to regular users and editors of Wikipedia." Bishonen | talk12:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I endorse the request too. Both the self-unblocking and the edit-war w/ blocking pointed out by Dmcdevit (I don't know if you had a dog in the fight, but judging "innapropriate injections of POV" is never without a subjective aspect and so policy demands that you don't do the blocks yourself in a case like that) cast doubt on your understanding of when it is appropriate to use the extra tools. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to emphasize that I am not calling for Crzrussian's de-adminning based on what has occurred, but rather for a re-test of consensus regarding whether he should be an admin. I am also in Category:Administrators open to recall, and my personal take on listing myself there is that I do not feel it should be a big deal to have that consensus, that once existed, re-checked. Simply unblocking yourself may well be enough to merit the re-check, in my opinion -- and with the other issues, it seems more than reasonable. Personally I hope Crzrussian desn't step down, and doesn't remain a non-admin for two months or more, should the recall petition succeed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I put my name in the recall cat, I promised to surrender the use of the sysop tools upon request. Now, it's obvious to me that if I stand for RfA2 right now, I will splendidly fail, because as many will tell you, the process is broken. Nor is it an attractive option for me go through that week-long ordeal again. If six users really do believe that my continuing as a sysop will be a worse for this project than my desysopping, then I will stand down immediately. I just hope that the pro-recall people have thought about the consequences in the same way. - CrazyRussiantalk/email21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept your premise. There's clearly a consensus here for leaving you sysopped, and despite the frequent cries that RfA is broken, it wouldn't surprise me to see that consensus easily carried over to RfA. As for it being a week-long ordeal, didn't your RfA pass sixy-something to one? That's an ordeal? Or are you making a prediction regarding a new one? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eighty-six :) It was a small miracle - because fuddlemark didn't notice it. (Oh bring him in here, he'll be #5 and #6!) But yes, my RfA was draining. Your life on display, subject to disapproval. Disapproval anxiety is a powerful thing, even when there isn't much actual disapproval. - CrazyRussiantalk/email23:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse the request. I find the rationale given for unblocking somewhat disturbing: I think I have enough credit with this community to stay unblocked foir a while. Isopropyl15:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if I understand correctly, if a fifth editor endorses, Crzrussian has the choice of resigning or of going through a reconfirmation RfA yes? JoshuaZ16:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Need 6 total. I will ask Taxman or Redux to minus my privileges, and will not stand for adminship until a miminum of two months hence, if ever. Glad to be the first, JZ. lol - CrazyRussiantalk/email16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crzrussian - I'm so tempted.... :)
Seriously Folks, I have had my arguments in the past with Crzrussian, but I do not feel that this "recall" is fair - and since it's the first case of something like this, maybe a larger number of editors should be required to vote "nay"- 5 is not enough... I oppose.
JJ21121916:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I oppose a recall petition at this time (does one no subtract a yes?) Who doesn't stumble ocassionally? The difference between a bad admin and a good admin is that the bad one will refuse to admit he has done anything wrong, and view criticism as persecution. A good admin will learn from the experience and be better for it. The concerns raised are not trivial but this is not the time for you to fall on your sword. Thatcher131 (talk)16:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BITE also applies to new admins: " Remember, every administrator starts as a newbie admin and every admin has made at least one admin-related mistake! Help them out with their new powers as you would help a newcomer with the rest of Wikipedia." Crz has only been an admin since June 8. Let's put this down to teething troubles, as I don't think it's going to be repeated in a hurry. It would be a particular sign of good faith if Crz stated that he would help Yas121 to address his concerns. Tyrenius17:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Dmcdevits request. And I think you shouldn't go for another RfA. This is not because of the self-unblocking. It's because you block far too much and for things that aren't in accordance with WP policies, you made more than one mistake already. I also find your over-commitment to the project worrying. RfA shouldn't bring you so much stress, it's a virtual community thing, not something your or other's life would depend on and your real life isn't on display actually. It is not true that over-commited people work the best. Realistic and cool people do. Ackoz 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay I'm not sure if this is the right place to recall Crzrussian but anyway based on the evidence I researched, I'll have to recall you. It's pretty obvious that your conduct is un-admin like and I'll be interested to see if the community is ready to re-confirm your status. Oh yeah, I guess I'm #6, please de-sysop yourself accordingly.--Bonafide.hustla22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stalker? Thanks a lot for the compliment, man. I'm really surprised how you become an admin in the 1st place 'specially with this kinda attitude. Please don't make unjustified accusation. I appreciate it.--Bonafide.hustla22:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok. I've called in Lar who volunteered to serve as the clerk here. He will decide whether I am obligated to honor your rude request. If he disclaims opinion, given that this is a voluntary process, then your request is most emphatically denied. - CrazyRussiantalk/email22:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being uncivil to me is not gonna help you retain your adminship. Calling my request "rude" is an insult. I believe we had no previous run-ins. Bunch is the only one here who is stating a fact. I'm truly disappointed at your reflective style. If you are the one who is acknowledging who is qualified to recall you, I don't see the point of listing your name on admin open to recall. (in this case, i'm not referring to myself since I don't have over 500 mainspace edits).--Bonafide.hustla05:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about the issue for several days I've decided to EndorseDmcdevit request for you to resign. Unblocking yourself showed a blatant disregard for rules or a poor understanding of policy. This statement does not inspire confidence. [15] The other examples reinforce my concerns. I thank you for offering to take this step instead of going through an ArbCom case. Take care, FloNighttalk06:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also decided to endorse Dmcdevit's request. Unblocking oneself is a genuine no-no and one of the few absolute rules Wikipedia has. I share the same concerns as the above endorsers based on the other examples, but I too congratulate you for offering to take this step. Rebecca06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have added these 2 to the tally as 'unknown state' for forms sake (I'm not the certifier). Both editors have well over 500 mainspace edits and long histories here so I would expect Crzrussian to call these valid but it's his call. With these two added the tally is at 6 and per what Crzrussian said, he would then be asking a steward to remove his sysop bit. For the record I have been impressed with just about everyone participating in this, very decorous, civil, respectful and even collegial. Way less acrimony than an ArbCom or even a contentious RfC... so I hope this addresses some of the concerns people have about the category and the process itself, and that more admins will now consider whether there is merit in putting themselves in this category. Also please remember it was Crzrussian's choice to offer this, and his choice to choose the easiest of the possible alternatives to get his bit removed. I think that deserves a great deal of respect. ++Lar: t/c07:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember... recall is a voluntary process. IMHO it is up to Crzrussian to declare/decide what exactly are the qualifications, numbers and so forth he wants to see (remember, if he is not reasonable, there's always RfC or ArbCom, so it's a good reason to be reasonable) before deeming the request valid I would like to offer my services (if this makes any sense) to help work through the process.... i will take no position on whether he should or should not accept the request, or what the outcome should be, but offer to help moderate, clerk, etc if the help is desired. My goal here is that this be a process that all see as fair, civil and collegial, and not excessively burdened with formality but that nevertheless ends up with a result that has consensus. If this meets with agreement let me know.
For the record, my own take on the process the way I'd execute it is that if 6 editors ask for recall, I'd start a discussion process (or a re RfA, or an RfC, whatever I chose) to see what the right outcome ought to be... 6 people so certifying would not mean I'd ask for desysopping, merely that a discussion be carried out... That discussion might end up with an offer to be mentored or a decision that there wasn't a big issue, or a resignation. ++Lar: t/c17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't people meant to get warned for things on first offence, and given the chance to change, before action is launched against them? Tyrenius20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My offer has been accepted and I am clerking this for Crzrussian. Any issues or concerns please let me know. ++Lar: t/c23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following the blow-by-blow here in strict chronological order, so I don't know what you last word so far has been, but in at least a few places you seem to have written you'll step down if nominated for recall. Please don't. That's not what a nomination is; just like someone nominated for adminship doesn't automatically become an admin, someone nominated for recall shouldn't automatically get recalled. I can appreciate that being the first actually nomiated for recall might not be a "first" you'd be proud of ... but if you think about it, I suspect you'd regret standing down without going through the process more. You're a member of Category:Administrators open to recall, and that's admirable; that should not be the same as Category:Administrators without a spine, however. Don't hand in your rouge yet, please.
By the way, you probably aren't in the reminiscing mood now, but I'll risk remembering my suppose or opport here. "...he is sometimes wrong, ... but ... doing the right thing eventually is enough". Yes, I do kind of wish I wasn't right in my statement there, but I don't regret my vote or the outcome one bit.
I won't say I'm proud of you for that comment, it was an insensitive and offensive thing to write; blocking someone you were possibly debating with was ... debatable ...; and unblocking yourself was an unnecessary violation of process, not WP:IAR. Bad move triple combo, you screwed up. But don't commit seppuku over it, you're still the person that 85 others wanted to trust with the flamethrower and mop, even knowing you might get water and sparks on things. You still do more good things than bad, many more. If you quit, you won't ever get the ratio even higher. Get over it, and I, and others, will be proud of you for that at least. Pick yourself up and move on. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.AnonEMouse(squeak)20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that recall in general, and this case in particular, will weed out the admins that are actually responsive to community correction, leaving the intransigent admins behind. I have hesitated to name names, but I am thinking specifically of User:Dbiv, User:Marudubshinki and user:Everyking. Dbiv is before Arbcom for misusing admin tools in an edit war, while on Fred's talk page, the Arbcom talk pages, and his own talk page he refuses to acknowledge he ever did anything wrong. Even so the committee was divided 4-3 on whether to de-sysop him. Maru, on the other hand, repeatedly used an unauthorized bot, first on a bot account, then his own account, and even gave the bot admin functions; and unblocked himself to continue to run the bot. And yet there was never any discussion here of desysopping him, just that he shouldn't unblock himself and should not run the bot again without authorization. And of course Everyking has been before arbitration at least 4 times, often for harassing other admins. If we force the issue and put Crzrussian through recall, won't we be saying to other admins, if you offer yourself up for recall, we will hold you to a much higher standard than admins who ignore community pressure after passing their RFA? Maybe raising the bar is a good thing, but there is no way Crzrussian should be the first guy thrown overboard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) .
I think the idea behind the recall procedure is to hold oneself to higher standards than those enforced by the ArbCom. I think Crzrussian is doing the right thing by taking the complaints seriously. If he does hand in his bit I expect it will go a long way towards restoring trust in him for those who have lost it. With the huge amount of useful work he's done as an admin he'll have a landslide of support votes if he decides to stand again. Haukur22:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may be me, but it appears that this whole process might not be out of previous actions but, almost, out of curiousity about the process itself. That is ludacrious and I really hope that isn't what is occuring. Yanksox22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do everything I can to make sure it isn't about the process and I hope others feel that way. Sure, at one level I'm glad to see a test case of this and if it goes smoothly and everyone agrees that the result is reasonable, that's a good thing but at another level I'd rather not see it happen. Since I'm clerking that's all I'll say at this time. ++Lar: t/c00:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who took the time to read through all these misadventures and opine here and on AN/I. In retrospect, I regret endorsing this process two months ago, as I believe capital punishment was meted out to the one sysop who was completely 100% upfront about his good-faith (I assure you) mistakes, even to the extent of FloNight's diff, of which I am proud rather than ashamed. Enjoy the extra administrative work everyone. Thanks for promoting me to full time editor, to say nothing of husband, and father. :) I may return to RfA in October. I hope to count all six recallers in the support section when I do - after all, that was the point, wasn't it?
My one request to all is to please add long comment tags to all {{deleted}} pages - a job I was doing virtually by myself these past two months. If you don't, it completely screws up Special:Shortpages.
Bureaucrats can't remove rights. You have to go to MetaWiki (Permissions page) and have a Steward do it. I don't want you to do this, so I have crossed out my instructions :). NoSeptember 11:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear about your decision, but I'd respect that. If you need any chores in future that requires the janitor's mop, I'm more than happy help you out. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
During the pendency of this recall request I had tried my best to stay away from lawyering. Now that the recall is official and accusations of lawyering are no longer possible, I would really appreciate it if the six dedicated individuals who signed this motion of no confidence would comment on the following question:
I am sure all six of you intimately familiarized yourselves with my recent misdeeds - the "edit war" with Yas, the block issued to Yas, my pint of blood remark to Yas, my block by Fred Bauder and my illegal self-unblock - as well as with the protracted discussion here and on ANI. What would like to know is, did you also look into my history as a sysop in the last two months - my ~2000 (un)deletions, my dozens of (un)blocks and (un)protects, the edit wars I've mediated, all the newbie handholding I've done, all the articles I saved from CSD and PROD, all the protracted explaining of CSD criteria to (mis)users after their nominations were declined, my record of complaints following administrative action, etc.? Whether you did or did not - and I hope you answer turthfully - do you think my administrative record as a whole should have been weighed to determine whether my recall will be a net benefit to the project? Did you reach that determination? Thank you. Your honest answers will be extremely helpful in clarifying the recall process for future instances. - CrazyRussiantalk/email16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Note that only the deletions and undeletions mentioned above need admin rights (mediating edit wars and handholding newbies doesn't).
Right. I was referring to conversations secondary to 3RR block, edit war battlefield protection, and handholding secondary to deleting their copyvios and whatnot. - CrazyRussiantalk/email16:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did I look through all your positive actions? No.
Do I think your administrative record as a whole should have been weighed to determine whether your recall will be a net benefit to the project? Unfair question. I didn't vote to desysop you, I voted to have that question taken to a larger forum. It was your choice to not seek that larger forum immediately, but to instead desysop youself and reapply in several months.
I don't see how "because it's a video game" is an argument. I'm gonna zap this one. There is no point in it sitting around when it is going to be deleted anyway. --Fang Ailitalk16:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you took this in the spirit it was intended. Read the image description if you're in any doubt. Best wishes. --Guinnog19:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks at least. For some Wikipedia mirrors (which is why you may think it hasn't disappeared from search engines), up to possibly 2 months at worst. - Mailer Diablo11:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the form of one word? If it's so, then yes no. BTW you can just restore the redirect - I've deleted mine and replace with just the redirect, and a month later Google points only to my talk page with the userpage gone. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo11:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually from just the keywords you simply gave, none! I actually added terms to check the page's mere existance. Apologies for the confusion. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo12:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not good on following stuff, but when I happens please tell me, and like I said before; you can count on my vote, mate -- Lego@lost04:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know when/if your RfA stands again, and I will make sure to weigh in (can't promise support, of course, but I expect it will be anyway). -- nae'blis18:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, i had no idea this was open to the other people.
the Pure Pwnage Clan thing is for reference for people to know we are the only official clan for Pure Pwnage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by smokey019 (talk • contribs) .
I see where you were going with that. It did fill some criteria for a vanity page. It makes sense. I'll make sure that all information that is submitted has source material and is verified next time.
Thanks for clearing that up so fast!
Gotcha. Do IMDB, talk show, and online news articles count as verification?
thanks again, much appreciated!
Hey have you gotten your centennial copy of the FLS alumni directory?
Just wondering why you have all your talk page archives on Full Protection. Can't really see any reason in it.--Andeh23:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I have all the pages in my user space on my watchlist, sorry but there's nothing in the protection policy which says you should fully protect talk archives unless they are subjected to heavy vandalism.--Andeh23:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair enough, but like I said. There's nothing in the policy which says you should protect talk archives (and I'm not an admin).--Andeh23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I brought this up so soon after your bad joke incident. Please carry on your admin duties. Sorry to have bothered you. I noticed you offered to step down as admin if asked by a few users, please don't. ;)--Andeh00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that rank alone, specifically not a major rank, entitles more than a mention on the MCPON page. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered." True, the man is a MCPON, but is that a claim to fame? If so, then I can think of a lot of other people who may have a "claim to fame" on this site. If indeed the subject has a bio on a navy site, then simply linking to his and other MCPON bios in the Links section of that page should be sufficient. Basseq03:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all well and good to cite my lack of Wikipedia experience as reason against an AfD, though I do believe my argument stands, and it's validity should not be dependent on how many edits I have "under my belt." Considering Wikipedia's direction as a whole has been more in line with "repository of everything" and tends to ignore a lot of WP:NOT, I think AfD may be a lost cause (especially considering, as you pointed out, your status versus mine and your position opposite my own), but, at the same time, don't be surprised if you see it in that category. If I do so, I will alert you of the edit, and ask that you take further discussion to AfD rather than simply deleting the tag. As a postscript, you mentioned that the article in question "is copy-paste from the Navy". Do you have a source for this, or that the reason for the unreferenced tag on the page? Basseq17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Do you, however, have a source for the bio (see above)? Additionally, you left a message on user Gchardman's talk page (the original contributer to the article in question) questioning the "soldier articles". Is MCPON Whittet one of these "soldier articles" and/or did Gchardman ever follow up on this question? (I couldn't find it in your archives, though my search was limited.) Thanks. Basseq17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you being such a busy sysop and all. =D Though, in retrospect, the real life equivalent might be cutting off a cop in heavy traffic, which might be a bad idea. Hmmm. Luna Santin05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was giving you benefit of the doubt. You blew it! Btw, here's a helmet for all the stuff that's happening right now. Yanksox05:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]Onward, ho!.
The article of Di Gozze was a stub! It was work in progress. Today I had to change those lines, making a resumè.!!
I only got three lines of an entire aricle, this is not a violation.
--Giovanni Giove08:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Crzrussian. There's been some disagreement in the noticeboard being used for this stuff, and it has been raised with me on my talk page. I'm not strongly affected by this either way, but a comment would be appreciated. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line06:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm sorry to hear about it. I can't desysop though, only Stewards can do that. In order to request your own desysopping, you need to post at m:Requests for permissions#Removal of access. But before you do that, I would tell you that, costumarily, you should wait until the confirmation procedure is done (if it's a recall, that means you'll go through another RfA), and only if you fail to pass would you request the removal of your sysop flag. Cheers, Redux11:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see you have already posted on Meta. Since you don't have an account there, the Stewards might require an identity confirmation in order to carry out your request. I would suggest that you post a signed banner on your user/talk page (here) saying something like "I am requesting the removal of my sysop rights". Then post the diff to your edit adding the banner in the thread you started on Meta. This should expedite things. Redux12:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the talk page at nation-state for this issue. The simple solution is to let the user re-insert his material, in the hope that he will stop his blanket reverts. Most Wikipedia disputes end that way. However, as noted, this has led to very poor article quality, where persistent supporters of nationalist movements use the respective article as their propaganda vehicle. See Zionism for an example.--Paul11113:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated in numerous places that I was unaware of the rule or of the possibility that sysops could be blocked, period. Do you have any basis for disbelieving me? In any event, ignorance of the law is a valid mitigating circumstance where the conduct is not obviously criminal. In other words, you cannot claim ignorance of the illegality of murder, but you can claim ignorance of some less obvious criminal statute - something environmental, for example - and the judge may of course take it into account at sentencing. - CrazyRussiantalk/email12:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:
I have tried to find a more polite way to say this, and failed, so please excuse my bluntness: Where have you been? How did you get to be an admin without realizing the rules apply to you also? How did you miss all the wheel wars? All the issues when admins blocked each other and so on? Your assertion that you did not realize you could be blocked concerns me far more than your unblocking yourself, because I am left to wonder what other policies may you be completely ignorant of? How can you enforce policy and mentor editors when you are yourself ignorant of those poliicies? I was wavering, but due to this astonisihing statement I must support the recall request.
It's too late to support - I have already surrendered the mop. As to all the wheel wars - surprise - have you ever seen me contribute to any RfC or RfAr? No. Because I have stayed out of the politics, period. I make it a priority to stay ignorant of politics everywhere, IRL and here, in order to do my job better. Do you know how many times my co-religionists tried to get me into the various Israel wars? I am fully aware of all the policies that have a fricking bearing on my functioning as a sysop w/r/t articlespace. Everything else is fluff. - CrazyRussiantalk/email13:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a general point on new admins, the Pedophile wheel war is now an event that happened six months ago (ancient history in internet terms), there must be a lot of new admins who were not around then or so new they didn't pay attention at the time (this is not a reference to Crzrussian who has been around much longer). We may need to point out some of the big events of the past to new admins, so they know where the limits of their discretion is. NoSeptember 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
So while reading through the long list of policies we expect a new admin to pick out the one thing that is considered a huge no-no? It would be nice, but I can see how some will miss it. NoSeptember 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
We don't disagree on that point. Still, pointing new admins to past big events may help them understand the key policies and the reasons behind them in a more visceral sense, rather than just knowing the written rules by rote. NoSeptember 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I reiterate - not everyone participates in wars, wheel or otherwise - and also not everyone fails to memorize all parts of the blocking policy, which is clear on the subject, so there's nothing to talk about. - CrazyRussiantalk/email13:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mate; Truly gob smacked at recent actions (reactions) of some others, truly gutted at resulting outcome of your sysop status, impressed with your handling of the entire situation, in a total headspin when seeing how some interpret our assume good faith principle, and not surprised one - fricken - iota when comparing those who've volunteered themselves for the recall cat with those demanding your recall. Says it all. Keep your head high, Kia Kaha - Glen13:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crzrussian, I'm not clear about what you think KillerChihuahua?!? did wrong. Being the first, your desyop is going to be discussed over and over again. I think that you should expect that more users are going to leave comments supporting or opposing the outcome.
Also, you are sending mixed messages. You voluntarily agreed to an immediate desyop instead of other less severe measures that would have satisfied my concerns. Your self-imposed severe sanction made it more difficult for me to support the recall. After thinking about it for a few days I decided to go ahead and support the recall because you were the one that picked the sanction and I need to respect your choice. After the fact, you seem to be questioning the severity of the measure, something that only you controlled.
Crzrussian, you regularly participate in RFA and read my comments. You know that I spend more time reviewing RFA noms than most other people that comment on them. Do you think I would do less for you? Your poor understanding of the blocking policy reduces my confidence that you understand our most important policies. This outweighs the admin work that you are doing. Besides the issue of unblocking yourself, it appears you did not grasp that you were involved in content dispute and should not be the blocking admin.
I would like to see you demonstrate that you understand policy before your next RFA. In a few days I will make more detailed suggestions about ways to do this. Take care, FloNighttalk17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry it came down like this. I think if you had stood for a formal consensus, you would have been overwhelmingly urged to stay on. Good luck, Crazy. AnonEMouse(squeak)20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Ultimately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, I will certainly look into Andeh's comments and improve for the future.
Don't be sorry, Nick. No tragedy. No RfC, no RfAr, no ban. Just a hiccup - and I did what I had to do. I'll enjoy the two months off and in October with any luck I should get it back. - CrazyRussiantalk/email22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It really is a bummer, and what about the comment on Andy's RfA? Btw, I'll try to help out with the deleted page comments, though I don't know if I can do it as well as you. Yanksox22:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that - Andy's RfA?!! That's peanuts! As for the shortpages, I can pre-make AWB files for you. Load then in once a week and plow through. It's quite brainless. - CrazyRussiantalk/email22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, poor word choice on my part I suppose... but it wasn't a full out dispute or friendly, per sé, so there you have it. I've coined my first new term. I removed aforementioned semisquabble because I think it was just a little ugly for the poor candidate's RfA (I'd want mine to be spotless, although that may be because I'm a perfectionist)...and because I want YOUR next RfA to get the same level of cleanliness! (I'm pressuring you, here, take a hint! ;)) If you want it back on the RfA page, you can surely move it. Like I say, I'm a grade-A cleanliness freak.
You wrote:
(rv. You completely misread. respectively refers to Sephardi and Ashkenazi before colon)
Okay, thanks. With that, I can follow your changes a little better.
But I am still perplexed at trying to follow this line:
the vowel kamatz is pronounced [a] and short [o] respectively (the former in ArtScroll).
I think the word "short" refers to the name of the vowel, not that manner of pronunciation. It should be changed to one of the following, but I'm not sure which is correct:
the vowel short kamatz is pronounced [a] and [o] respectively (the former in ArtScroll).
-or-
the vowel long kamatz is pronounced [a] and [o] respectively (the former in ArtScroll).
Also, either way, since you're linking to nikkud, the name of the vowel should be spelled the way it appears there: either kamatz katan or kamatz gadol.
Thanks for your help!
User talk:Keeves (a fellow frum NJ Wikipedian, from Elizabeth!)
I was reading your talk page for the latest on your new RfA, and I saw your first reply under the Um... comment, made by yanksox, and you said breifly that you will be away for two months. Is This true?
-- Lego@lost03:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Student - I just finished my second year. Pleasure to meet you as well. Good luck on your third year, and I hope you are enjoying the program. --DavidShankBone04:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to propose adding a fourth quesiton to the RFA template, as follows: "If promoted, do you plan to join Category:Administrators open to recall and why? If yes, what course of action will you take if recalled?" I think this will make people give a lot more thought to this new process, encourage the setting of expectations for recall, and will force more accountability of the new sysops. I would love to get preliminary feedback from those who may be watching my talk page as a result of my recent recall before I initiate a wider discussion. Thanks. - CrazyRussiantalk/email04:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't like the idea since the concept of being open to recall is supposed to be something voluntary and the choice of the candidate. By making it a mandatory question (instead of an added optional question), you would be almost stuffing the choice down the candidates throat, and any candidate that didn't feel comfortable adding themselves could face some kind of castigation for not doing so. I'm not too keen on forcing people to, esentially sign up (really to garner supports, for something voluntary. Yanksox05:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal candidates are marginal candidates for a good reason due to the fact that there are serious concerns about them. I don't want candidates that I would never endorse, due to serious issues, fly by through supports that rile people up. There are some admins that I would like to see them have their privilege reviewed, and there are others that have lost their privileges when I believe they were extremly effective. Yanksox05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No no, not marginal candidates - candidates who would otherwise be on the verge of passing - 74-percenters. Many "questionable trust" voters would be allayed is recall was easy. - CrazyRussiantalk/email05:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the thing is, that it's something that should be entirely intiated by oneself. Maybe a good option would be to add it to the suggested reading. Yanksox05:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
