Ruslik0 (
talk·contribs) – I am here to nominate an editor who I believe would make a fine administrator. That's the point of it all, isn't it? What it all comes down to. Whether the candidate will make a good sysop. It is my belief that, for Ruslik0, the answer is certainly yes.
A cursory examination of Ruslik's userpage reveals his dedication to the mainspace (as well as a certain penchant for astronomy); he has substantially contributed to no fewer than 12 Featured Articles and 4 Good Articles. By any standard, this is a phenomenal number, and Ruslik's experience with and knowledge of the encyclopedia is quite clear. In tandem with this, Ruslik is also an active Featured Article reviewer and his insight has been beneficial on many a FAC, and he is also involved with the GAR effort.
Ruslik's encyclopedic contribution is complemented by his assistance and input at our deletion forums, such as at AFD, RFD, MFD and TFD. He is involved at these venues not only as a commentator, but also acts as a non-admin closer. His adeptness with regard to these closures is demonstrative of why he is ready to take on the role of an administrator. Here are some examples of the latter:
1,
2,
3.
Overall, Ruslik is a well rounded contributor. Yes, some may note that he isn't as active as many of us, but his experience in a wide range of areas should be more than compensation for that. He has great contributions to the mainspace (after all, isn't that why we're all here?), while balancing this with a deep knowledge of the site's inner workings as evidenced by his contributions to FAC, GAR and XFD. I hope the community feels the same and is able to support Ruslik in his candidacy. —Anonymous DissidentTalk00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Initially I am going to work in XFD area, where I has some experience, and in speedy deletions. As I learn more, I will begin participating in other areas including page protection/unprotection, making changes to protected pages (especially templates, of which I have a good understanding now).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution are presented on my user page. They include several FA and GA articles. I have also been participating in
Sweeps and contributed to the improving quality of Good Articles. I often review GA nominations and provide feed back for FA nominations of scientific articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I think I have not been in a serious conflict with anybody, partly because I am not a conflict person myself. When I foresaw possibly of a conflict I always tried to find a compromise solution (with due regard for wiki policies). However there was this
DRV (see also this
thread). I do not know if it qualifies as a serious conflict. In addition, a few minor conflicts happened, because I participated (and continue to participate) in
WP:GAPQ/S.
4. Will you commit to attaining near 100% edit summary if you became an administrator? Do you believe that providing an edit summary is important?
A: Edit summaries are extremely important. If an edit summary is provided other editors will at least have some information about the nature of the edit. If there is no edit summary other editors will often need to check the edit, which is the waste of time. I have always tried to provide edit summaries for major edits, and I think I have almost achieved this with 99%. While I have often neglected minor edits, I am ready to commit myself to attain 99% summary usage for them too. I think 99% is more realistic number than 100%, because in the past I sometimes hit the wrong button (save instead of preview), and I am not sure such errors can be entirely avoided. So I will try hard to use edit summaries for all edits, but 100% is just a limit (in mathematical sense) that is unachievable for a human editor.
Ruslik (
talk)
06:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)reply
5. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A: I would delete page tagged for speedy deletion if it meets one or more criteria for speedy deletion, and would not delete it if does not meet any CSD criteria. {{Hangon}} tag only serves to inform an administrator about objections from the creator of the page, or to ask for more time (A7 and A9, for instance). An administrator, of course, should take objections from the creator of the page into account when they makes decision to delete or not to delete the page. If the Hangon tag merely asks for some additional time (A7 and A9), it is reasonable to wait. However Hangon tag is not binding upon administrators, and does not prevent speedy deletion if the page clearly satisfies CSD.
Ruslik (
talk)
10:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Please keep discussion constructive and
civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
Special:Contributions/Ruslik0 before commenting.
I've known Ruslik for a long, long while. His FA contribs are great, yet he still manages to find time to do maintenance work. Good luck, friend. (My RFA is coming up, too, aah) —Ceran♦ (
talk)12:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support as candidate has contributed to featured articles, received multiple barnstars, and has never been blocked, which are all signs of working well with others for the purposes of building an encyclopedia. Sincerely, --
A NobodyMy talk17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Good record, experienced, unlikely to abuse the tools. And I trust the nominator's judgement, so I'm sure he wouldn't nominate somebody who wouldn't do good.
Master&Expert (
Talk)
19:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. Didn't need to look at the current totals or arguments, and now that I've looked, I'm not surprised at how it's turning out. High level of clue on all scales. - Dan
Dank55 (
send/receive)
21:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Longtime editor, but not many contributions to the projectspace. Nonetheless, you are an intelligent user who won't harm the project by being an admin in my opinion. Good luck, Malinaccier (
talk)22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support very helpful, very constructive editor. The only drawback to this is that he will have less time to spend on getting Solar System FAs.
Nergaal (
talk)
05:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Should be a net plus if granted the mop, per above. I trust Anonymous Dissident's judgement, and am happy with the candidate's answers. A trustworthy candidate who seems competent. I'm not otherwise convinced by the opposition, although I do understand the thinking therein. I would caution the candidate against "jumping in" without care at
WP:XfD: some concern has been expressed over Ruslik's ability in that area, and it would reflect poorly on him if he were to make serious mistakes on day 1 of his sysophood. My advice is: when it comes to XfDs, just be careful, and leave the difficult ones until you're comfortable. Take me up on that advice to whatever extent you wish. Otherwise fine; support.
AGK23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi, I'm the Mayor of Munchkinland, and some girl sort of dropped a house in the center of town and left it there while she went off to visit someone in Oz -- can you send a team over to cart the house away? Oh, wrong queue. But while I am here...Support for a candidate with a brain, a heart and courage. (Apologies to L. Frank Baum)
Ecoleetage (
talk)
14:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Has made several very helpful changes at Peer review and all of my encounters with Ruslik and the answers to question make me believe Ruslik is mop-worthy.
Ruhrfisch><>°°13:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. Great science content editor, and good contributor at GA. We don't always agree, and Ruslik sometimes fixes on a position before discussing the issues with other editors: try to be more flexible! However, these concerns are not sufficient for me to doubt that Ruslik would make a good admin: the kind of admin we need more of. Geometry guy21:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support I thought he was already one anyway. Various interactions with him/her leads me to believe that he/she ain't batshit insane, (I like non-batshit-insaneness in admins) and and also very helpful. Lack of experience in "typical admin work" is irrelevant to me. The RfA process is way to stuffy about experience anyway.
Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς –
WP Physics}
06:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Oppose 'cause I'm so totally jealous of people who get no Opposes. I won't stand for it. No wait, people might take me seriously. Better strike through and change... Ling.Nut(
talk—
WP:3IAR)23:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose The only project work I see that instills any confidence is AfD, I don't feel like that alone is enough to garner trust.--
Koji†22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I presumed the default position regarding an editor who has devoted hundreds of hours of his time to a project to be to trust that editor, especially in the lack of evidence to suggest there is a reason not to. Do you have any evidence why we should not trust this candidate, KojiDude?
AGK23:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Just inexperience outside of AfD, and a lack of work beyond GA and FAC that shows otherwise. Apperently our definition of evidence differs quite a bit. :-/ --
Koji†00:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Evidently so, yes. I still maintain Ruslik is trustworthy, and experience in AfD is categorically not going to prove otherwise. I would accept that exemplification to support an argument that you are concerned the candidate is not competent enough in those areas, yes, although even then, I would be opposed to it: the candidate has shown no interest in AfD, and thus we are not appointing him on the expectation he work in that area. Sorry to nag, but the argument you're presenting to substantiate your opposition simply isn't making sense to me.
AGK18:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Neutral leaning toward Support In my standards, I'm torn. First thing I look at is edit summaries, this guy does so for major, but not minor edits, although he promised to change. I don't look at FAs OR GAs, but I think he needs to broaden his horizons a bit. For example, a little bit of vandal fighting might help, because it might help on how to use the new block button.
Leujohn(
talk)05:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I should admit that I have not participated in
WP:RCP or other forums, and have not made formal reports about vandalism. However I want to say in my defense that I participate in what is called the second line of defense against vandalism—I have more than 1,000 pages on my watchlist including some controversial, and I regularly detect and revert such edits. As to blocks, I clearly realize that an erroneous block can lead to a lot of wiki-drama. So I will be extremely cautious initially with this tool. I am actually more inclined to work in deletion area. I also participate in some discussions that are related to vandalism fighting (see
this one).
Ruslik (
talk)
07:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
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.