Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:18, 24 November 2008

Ruslik0

Voice your opinion (talk page) (23/0/0); Scheduled to end 00:25, 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 Dissident 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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

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)

General comments

• Links for Ruslik0: Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

Support

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)
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)
3. SupportOver 8,000 edits, clean blocklog and useful contributions, you have my trust. ϢereSpielChequers 12:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Support I know Ruslik best for his FA contributions and civility at FAC. I trust and respect him. Graham Colm 12:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - Experienced, trustworthy user. Xclamation point 14:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Sure Looks good to me. M.H. 14:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. A solid contributor who works reasonably well with others. Majoreditor (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Trust the user, and the nom. America69 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. An experienced and well-rounded editor, excellent mainspace contribution record, good judgement. Nsk92 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 Nobody 17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Why not. Garden. 18:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - Why the hell not? — neuro 18:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
14. 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)
15. 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)
16. 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)
17. Support Is this user going to fuck up Misplaced Pages, intentionally or unintentionally? No. So, a support from me. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
18. Passes common sense. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
19. 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)
20. Support per nom. -- American Eagle (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. macy 21:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Great editor, nothing scary, excellent contributions about SPACE. FlyingToaster 21:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC). SPACE.
23. 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)
24. Support. Fully qualified candidate; I see no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
25. Support no problem! Kimchi.sg «C¦T» 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
26. Support - What a wonderful selection of candidates we have been getting recently. — Realist 00:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
27. Support. good 'pedia builder and big net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
28. 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 05:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    Good answer to question 4. Striking now irrelevant comment. Foxy Loxy 07:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

29. Support per quite impressive candidate and admin corps needs him and contributors like him. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
30. Strong support per work on GAs. OhanaUnited 19:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
31. 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)