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

Ruslik0[edit]

Final (64/1/1); Closed by Rlevse at 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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 DissidentTalk 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept nomination. Ruslik (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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.
Additional questions from Foxy Loxy Pounce!
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]
Notice - There is a function in the editing tab of your preferences that forces you to use an edit summary when you edit, if you wish to enable it. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, I enabled it. Ruslik (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from DiverseMentality
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]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ruslik0 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]


Support[edit]
  1. Beat the nom support and my first one. You look like a fine candidate. I see no problems. iMatthew 12:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]
  3. SupportOver 8,000 edits, clean blocklog and useful contributions, you have my trust. ϢereSpielChequers 12:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I know Ruslik best for his FA contributions and civility at FAC. I trust and respect him. Graham Colm Talk 12:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Experienced, trustworthy user. Xclamation point 14:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sure Looks good to me. M.H.ITrue Romace iS Dead 14:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. A solid contributor who works reasonably well with others. Majoreditor (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Trust the user, and the nom. America69 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. An experienced and well-rounded editor, excellent mainspace contribution record, good judgement. Nsk92 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support As per track,good Editor and Civil.See no misuse of tools. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 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 talk 17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Why not. Garden. 18:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Why the hell not? — neuro(talk) 18:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support—Seeing this name on an RfA table helped motivate me to come comment. :) ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 16:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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]
  16. Strong support -- an excellent editor, well-versed in the ways of the Wiki and with an ideal temperament. --JayHenry (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - very experienced with many awards, contributed much to featured articles. No misuse of tools is likely. MathCool10 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Is this user going to fuck up Wikipedia, intentionally or unintentionally? No. So, a support from me. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Passes common sense. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 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]
  21. Support per nom. -- American Eagle (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. macy 21:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Great editor, nothing scary, excellent contributions about SPACE. FlyingToaster 21:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC). SPACE.[reply]
  24. 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]
  25. Support. Fully qualified candidate; I see no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support no problem! Kimchi.sg «C¦T» 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - What a wonderful selection of candidates we have been getting recently. — Realist2 00:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. good 'pedia builder and big net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Full Support clean block log, good contributions, provided there is an ok answer to Q4, I fully support. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 05:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good answer to question 4. Striking now irrelevant comment. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 07:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per quite impressive candidate and admin corps needs him and contributors like him. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support per work on GAs. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Anyone who can GA sweep over 100 articles without getting into hot water can manage the much easier job of being an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per nom --Numyht (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Always seen good things from this candidate in the GA project, and I trust the nom. لennavecia 21:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - definitely --Peter Andersen (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Good and trustworthy editor. --Carioca (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. +S I suppose I'll have to Support. Crippity cripes. <sigh> <see "Oppose" below> Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 23:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - I have seen nothing but quietly constructive and helpful editing from this editor. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - per My standards. Hey, I've always wanted to say that. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support from me, obviously; see my nom. I just realised I never did this. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. 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]
  43. Support abf /talk to me/ 14:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per Malleus Fatuorum. LittleMountain5 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Nice content creation, and reasonable arguments at AfD. Pcap ping 22:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - net positive and also per Malleus. Pedro :  Chat  23:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. 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. AGK 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Seems like a good candidate, willing to learn what he does not already know. Just the username bothers me a bit, you should try to get rid of the "0" ;-) SoWhy 07:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - With or without the "0" in your username. --Flewis(talk) 11:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. 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]
  52. Support. Fine contributions. A worthy candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. 'Support - basically meets my standards. We could use another sysop with knowledge of hard sciences. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - JS (chat) 23:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support One does not simply walk into Mordor Wikipedia, yet Ruslik has done so well. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Great contributions and trustworthy. --Banime (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. 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]
  58. Support BradV 17:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Good candidate, knows Wikipedia policies very well. DiverseMentality 20:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Icewedge (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. 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 guy 21:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Blind Support : 12 FAs and 4 GAs ? Impressive ! Great contributors and non-disruptive history gets my blind support -- Tinu Cherian - 10:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Seems to have a sensible handle on things...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. 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[edit]
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 - No anti-vandalism work. No new page patrol [1]. User has no idea how to use Twinkle or other javascript applets as evident here: User:Ruslik0/monobook.js. User was never trusted with rollback - why should we 'suddenly' trust him now?--Coalesce-laugh (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked for disruption. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 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? AGK 23:47, 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. AGK 18:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. 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.
Category