Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GRuban

GRuban

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (77/3/1); Scheduled to end 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

GRuban (talk · contribs) – I am pleased to present George Ruban to the community for consideration for adminship. George goes out of his way in RL to track down information and sources for the articles he writes. He has been editing consistently for over 7 years and it's a pleasure to see 92 decent articles created and a raft of DYKs. George was motivated to enquire about adminship after reading a series of articles in The Signpost , and concerned with the decreasing number of admins he has decided would like to help out. George is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and its subproject Gender gap task force. As an old style editor, he has signalled his intention to join Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall (Lar's process) thus preempting what has again become a boilerplate question although I don't really know what it has to do with his aptitude for adminship. Not only does he have an extensive knowledge of policies, especially for images and copyright, but he fully understands COI as clearly demonstrated here. George is an open, friendly, helpful and polite collaborator as I'm sure you will conclude from his talk page and its archives - just the kind of temperament that is needed for an admin, and as I trust him to use the tools with care and discretion, I trust the community will join me in the spirit of adding him to the corps of sysops. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomination

They say time is the ultimate test of true character. And in GRuban's case, this statement stands as true as ever. One of the easiest and most helpful editors to work with, GRuban has been here since 2005, with participation increasing over the years to probably a crescendo right now. Over these many years of editing, GRuban's focus on mainspace (>~50%) has remained pristine, with a prolific and sustained article creation focus (around 80 and growing); and of course, greater than 98% edit summary usage. To be honest, some of their articles are much better than the GAs that I have read or written. While I would love them to continue their focus on mainspace, I am also very well aware of their significant experience in other areas, such as the 400+ AfDs they have participated in over the years. Again, while I hope GRuban, if their RfA succeeds, contributes extensively in the AfD area, I defer to their viewpoint of wishing to take it as it comes while focusing on clearing the admin backlog. With strong confidence that GRuban would be a stellar addition to our taskforce, I place this co-nomination in front of my fellow editors for their (gentle) review and approval. Lourdes 18:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks, Kudpung and Lourdes! I've been editing for a while and would love to help out as an admin since it seems more are needed. I have never edited for pay, but have written most of 3 articles about people I have theoretically worked with, and tried hard to follow all the WP:COI rules. I have had one alternate account that I haven't used in years, that the ArbCom knows about.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to fill the need and help clear up the WP:ADMINBACKLOG as necessary. It does seem to be necessary, as the admin/user ratio keeps falling. I've done that sort of thing before: a few years ago, when there was a huge backlog on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, over 100 days in many cases, and (the amazing) User:Cunard asked for help from experienced editors, I was one of several experienced editors who stepped up to review and close as many Wikipedia:Request for Comments as I could. I still come back to close others at times. Here is a list of (many? half? most? I gave up eventually...) of my closures that could be useful to see my judgment. None were ever overturned, but a few people disagreed with my closures on my talk page, I link there as well. Of course it isn't actually necessary to be an Administrator to close most RfCs, though at times people do ask for an admin. (Or a Muslim!)

I've also become fairly knowledgeable about image copyright over my years here so could help there. I haven't done many Images for Deletion on EN Wikipedia, but on Wikimedia Commons I have uploaded a good number of images; am a fairly experienced License Reviewer; wrote a popular license finding guide; nominated several hundred for deletion, defended others. On EN, people have come to my user talk for image help, gave me a Precious and a barnstar. I won't say I know everything (one of the main things I've learned is that image copyright law is so complex that no one can know everything!), but I would venture I know more than the average EN user, and possibly even more than the average EN admin who doesn't specialize in images.

I'm asking for the tools to allow me to help out in admin areas as needed, and offering the above as examples of what I've done close to it. I see the mop as, well, a mop, to wipe up a mess when it happens, not a pen or a paintbrush to pick up with the goal of creating a masterwork. Being an admin is not a goal in itself, it's to clean up the unavoidable messes so that editors can do the real work, writing, editing (uploading images... ).

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've created about 80 real articles, listed on my user page. I hope I've gotten better over time; some of my favorites include:

• the man who turned Harlem black, partly by evicting whites
• the pulp artist who gave up anarchism after he left a bomb in a Pittsburgh outhouse
• the local runner who ran 7 marathons on 7 continents in 7 days, and won them (Antarctica was so cold her iPod shattered)
• the black Victoria's Secret model ... and computer programmer
• the Canadian model and ovarian cancer advocate (she died the day after I started on her article; and the DYK got 34,666 page views, qualifying for All-time DYK page view leaders)
• my most recent is the child CEO of a multi-million dollar healthy candy company (also with noticeable DYK views)

I've also uploaded over 1000 images for articles, most on or linked from my Commons user page. Each one is worth a thousand words, right?

I am also proud of the RfC work, above. Cunard particularly liked two of my tougher ones, Talk:Freedom Caucus#RFC: far-right and especially my "excruciating"(!) longer explanation when it was questioned; and Talk:Vaccine#Proposed merge with Vaccination, where there was no consensus for the merge, but the merge was done anyway, and 2 months had passed since, and there were no volunteers to undo the merge ... so I did it. That sort of lending a hand when needed, that's what I'm proud of, it's what makes us a community instead of each doing our own thing. That's also why I want to be an admin, to help out in yet another way.

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've been in editing disagreements, certainly, since I've been here 13 years, I can't even list them all - you can see how I dealt with some over a 6 month period when I was thinking about RfA last year. In each case I've tried to keep them from getting to the level of "personal", or spreading. My theory about these things is that they shouldn't matter enough in that way. What we're doing here is amazing, building the single largest source of knowledge in human history (also free, shareable, updateable in real time, and volunteer built), but any bit of it is much less important than the whole. Any bit of an article is generally less important than having the article; any single article is generally less important than the so many other articles we're writing; and any disagreement with a constructive editor is generally so much less important than the benefit that editor brings in writing other articles.

Editors who get into "if you don't agree on how to use the Oxford comma, I'm going to take my ball(,) and go home" arguments just make me sad. The statement I stuck on the top of my user page refers to that, and that's how I try to behave in disagreements. "We disagree here, but I appreciate these other things you've done more." If/when I don't live up to that, I try to apologize, and not do it again. There are exceptions - vandals, single purpose editors, spammers - but they're relatively rare, easy to see, and quickly dealt with (by admins, in fact). Most of are here in good faith, and can work together constructively in general even when we disagree in some particulars.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Reyk

4. In your opinion, what is the most important policy on Wikipedia and why?

A: Wikipedia:Five pillars (Wikipedia:TRIFECTA is slightly snappier): which aren't a single policy, but the root of all the others, because none of our policies work alone, only in concert. We need to follow Verifiability in what we write, and Neutral point of view in how we write it, but without BLP we could do undue harm to living people, and without Civility to our fellow editors. The last rule of both lists, Ignore all rules is powerful and subtle, it can be used directly rarely, but mainly it's there to remind us that we made these rules, we can make them again. In the end, when I need to summarize our key rules, they are "Remain neutral; Don't be a jerk; Ignore other rules that get in the way of making an encyclopedia."

Additional question from Lee Vilenski

5. You have 14 years of service and 17,000 edits. I commend your tenure. However, your activity is at the highest it has ever been but will still be around 3,000 edits for this year. If given the toolset, do you see yourself contributing more (in terms of edits) in future years? (I understand a lot of your work is offwiki currently)

A: Likely about this much, more some times, less others. I won't be the most active administrator in the admin corps, but neither will I be the least active one. What I can commit to, though, is Accountability: when I take an administrator action I will follow it through. It's a volunteer project, we do what we can, and in the end it usually works in practice, if not in theory.

Additional question from Carrite

6. Your user page has user boxes indicating that you are both a native speaker of English and that Russian is your "mother tongue." Which is correct? Thanks.

A: Both! I spoke Russian first, but grew up in the United States, so speak English better. In Russian I am fluent and idiomatic and have a fair vocabulary, but never went to school, so "true" native speakers take me for one for about the first 5 minutes, when they notice my fundamental grammar mistakes that people usually learn about in first grade. In English I used to be professional quality at one time, following up an 800 on the SAT with some months as a professional translator. Now I work as a computer programmer so know that the only true punctuation is the semicolon (;)

Thanks for your answer. -t /// Carrite (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

6.5. A follow-up, if I may... I notice you've only made 10 edits to Russian-WP. Why so few for someone with mid-level Russian language skills?

A. Because, as above, my spelling and grammar are terrible! I can read everything, and can even converse with people who are forgiving about grammatical lapses, but my writing skills are those of a 6 year old who somehow managed to acquire a grown-up vocabulary. You would not want to "publish" what I write in Russian as encyclopedia articles. Unless you had a certain sense of humor.

Thanks again. Use the tools wisely. Carrite (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question(s) from Nosebagbear

7. With regard to the issue early last year that SN54129 refers to do you think those concerns were reasonable, and whether yes or no, would you say you act differently now?

A: Yes, and yes, respectively. Basically, a year ago last January, I disagreed with a few dedicated editors in a few places, and I thought a way I could make it better would be to interact with them in other contexts, to show we could work together on other things. Bad Idea. I tried to make things better and instead annoyed people, which was not my goal. So I stopped, and haven't done that again. As I write above, under question 3, when I make mistakes I try to apologize and stop doing it. And have: I don't think I've annoyed any of those people, or any other people in that way, and don't intend to. I will, however, probably make more mistakes despite my best efforts; what I can do is try to a) recognize I made a mistake and try to make up for it as soon as possible, and b) not to make those specific kinds of mistakes again in the future. I will make different mistakes in the future. More creative ones!

Additional question from John M Wolfson

8. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?

A: Most likely WP:G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement". Most text on the web is copyrighted, we can't copy-paste it into our articles with rare exceptions for small quotes marked as such. If the text were marked public domain, we'd ... probably still want to rewrite that anyway, to be honest, but it wouldn't be a Speedy deletion cause any more. A less likely possibility would be WP:G11 "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", which can often be found from just pasting in contents of spammy company websites, perhaps less likely so about a school, but still possible. Speedy criteria that almost certainly do not apply, include WP:G1 "Patent nonsense", WP:G2 "Test pages" WP:G3 "Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes", A1 "No context", WP:A7 "No indication of importance", and others, since it is a legible page that at least contends to be about an actual school. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that articles about elementary schools are usually redirected, but that is not a Speedy criterion.

This doesn't impact my view of you as an admin, but for future reference an answer I was looking for was that A7 explicitly exempts educational institutions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from AnUnnamedUser

9. Are you willing to ban persistently disruptive editors as an admin? If so, give an example of a situation where you might do so to a disruptive editor.

A: Well, first, in general administrators can't usually ban editors as such, they can block them. The difference is that a ban is a formal prohibition to a person from editing, while the block is a usually temporary method of stopping some specific account from editing. There are a few conflict areas where admins are allowed to actually issue bans, as described there, but they are relatively rare (so far! thank goodness!), and barring emergency I don't intend to venture there to issue bans for some time at least until I get more admin experience, those are not simple areas. Anyway, I am willing to block persistently disruptive editors when needed, I've reported persistent vandals to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism when needed, and when I did that I was, honestly, looking for a block. But usually a dispute can be settled with a warning: "You're doing X. That violates rule Y. Please don't do that. I'm a Wikipedia administrator, it's my duty to enforce rule Y." A reasonable editor will, at this point, stop doing X. They may argue, they may be unhappy, but they're not doing X any more, which is the important part. Discussion is good! Maybe they can find a different way to do what they want, maybe they give up on what they want, maybe they can even convince the community to change rule Y. If they instead continue to do X, then, unfortunately, we do have to block them. That's a noticeable part of what admins do.

I'd want to set the length of the block to be long enough to prevent the damage, longer if the user has been blocked before for something similar, especially recently, shorter if this might be a rare instance and the user might become a productive editor afterwards. I'd want to be sure that I'm not personally involved in the issue; if I am, I can probably find a different admin to do the work, there are a thousand, after all (even if many inactive). If a page is a conflict area, rather than a person, I might protect the page instead, that can be an alternate tool. But for blocks: talk where possible, block where not. When I do get comfortable enough in problem areas where individual admins can issue bans, that will be my approach as well.

Additional question from Peacemaker67

10. I noticed that you didn't list any GAs, despite the fact that your content work clearly is well up to the required standard. Have you ever submitted an article to our quality assessment processes, and if not, why not?

A: I did submit the first one on that favorites list for Peer review some years ago, and got the feedback that it would require a lot more research, and length, which I haven't gotten around to doing. An intimidating amount of historical research was needed, and that's made me wary of submitting others. Possibly that's due to the fact that it's clearly the most historically significant one of the list; the more modern biographies might be easier. Will likely try for a GA or two eventually. If someone more experienced in this sort of thing wants to help, I'd be glad of the offer!

Additional question from Spintendo

11. As of February 2018 you had written two articles about co-workers of yours, Brad Smith and Rebecca Moore. Even though in both cases these were not directly-paid relationships, you still made the effort to post the appropriate COI disclosures and invited third party editors to review and implement changes, which is commendable. What are your views on sysops accepting direct pay to edit articles, and is that a practice you might ever see yourself doing in the future?

A: Three all told; I've written a whole page about them, linked from my user page, hopefully it describes them well enough.

Honestly, I'm wary of administrators accepting direct pay to edit. One got in trouble for that, and describes the issue on his user page. He's quite clear about it being a bad idea. There are real declared paid editors on the Wikipedia, if not very many, but they don't have any special power over other editors, and that's important. A lot of the authority of administrators comes from the community trusting them. Having a sysop whose livelihood depends on someone else paying them for their actions on the encyclopedia means everyone would have to ask what their main goal was with every action they took, a real pain. Presumably they would have to ethically avoid sysop work near anything even close to what they got paid for, so if they were editing for a living, so doing a lot of it, that would mean avoiding wide swathes of the encyclopedia, which would bring into question why they were a sysop at all. If they only did a little paid editing, so it would only affect a little bit of the encyclopedia, and didn't really affect their livelihood, then that's taking a large risk for little benefit, which was Sal's issue.

Personally I don't see myself doing any editing for money. Even besides the ethical issues above, I'm usually a slow writer, and it takes me at least days and sometimes months to write an article, and I'm fortunate enough to have worked as a software engineer for 25 years, so am not hurting for money. I work on Wikipedia for fun, pride of accomplishment, learning things, helping others, the feeling of making the world a better place, that sort of thing. If any of that ever does change and I want to edit for money, I will put down the mop first.

Additional question from Robert McClenon

12. Do you have any experience in resolving content disputes between editors, and do you have any experience in dealing with conduct disputes?

A: Yes! I closed quite a few Wikipedia:Request for comments, and they're exactly editor content disputes, many of them are listed here, please do look at them for examples of how I resolved each. I have encountered editor conduct disputes, and tried to deal with them, without involving administrators, and sometimes just appealing to calm, or reason, or people's better natures works. We are (almost) all here to improve the Wikipedia after all; most of us are pretty good people when you come down to it. But sometimes it doesn't, and, well, that is why we sometimes need administrators. Strangely enough, when an administrator says the exact same thing, it often works much better! But for when it doesn't, then, unfortunately, the tools need to come into play.

Additional question from Explicit

13. An editor nominates a file in use (hosted on the English Wikipedia, but not on Commons) for deletion at WP:FFD. It is a photo of the exterior of a modern building, which was built in France and completed in 2017. The nominator cites the lack of freedom of panorama in France in their deletion rationale. The author information is not disputed. After being relisted twice, a second editor agrees with the deletion. What action do you take?

A: Delete the file, probably. The deletion rationale is correct, there is no freedom of panorama in France, so the building copyright holder would have to have released the rights. Now on Wikimedia Commons, image deletions are much stricter, there many or even most discussions are deleted without a second participant, and there is no "fair use" rationale. Here, presumably the relisting admin was waiting for more participation and for someone to put forth some such rationale for keeping, but after two relistings and finding a second participant it doesn't seem as if anyone is going to come forth with one, and that is the requirement. At worst there is Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Links to the file would need to be removed from the article(s) it was used in, possibly the tools will do that automatically, if not I'd do that too.

Discussion

• Links for GRuban: GRuban (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for GRuban can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support

1. I don't normally do "thought they already were an admin" votes, but here's an exception. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support It would have been a different story some time ago—specifically January 2018—when the candidate was labelled a really, really, creepy stalker for harassment, which all but resulted in a level-4 warning. So, when I first gathered they were planning to stand at some point point, I gently advised to leave it a while—until January 2019, I suggested. In my opinion, the fact that the candidate not only only took that advice but then left it another 10 months before opening their candidature speaks volumes for the maturity and deliberation we want in administrators, and suggest that there will be few admin actions taken without care and attention.
   TLDR: would once not have passed the WP:DICK test; now surpasses it in spades. Good luck with this! ——SN54129 19:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Support I saw quite a bit of Gruban many years ago in another project (the ODP), where he always struck me as having a lot of common sense. I haven't crossed paths with him that often at Wikipedia, but have reason to belive that he would not break the project or mis-use any tools, and nothing I've seen in a quick check of talk page posts, edits etc, cause any concerns whatsoever. --bonadea contributions talk 20:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per noms.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
6. Support this user is a prolific content creator (notwithstanding the lack of GAs and FAs, though I do highly recommend that Mr. Ruban look into those processes), has an excellent (>98%) edit summary usage and decent AfD stats, and has closed many RfCs, some of which were difficult. Add that to the high level of respect I accord Kudpung and Lourdes and you've got yourself a strong support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
7. Strong candidate. El_C 20:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
8. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
9. Support - Clean block log, steady activity each month for the last two years, no indications of assholery. You actually had me at Philip A. Payton Jr., to be honest... Zero concerns. Carrite (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
10. Support will be a net-positive to the project. 14 years of tenure is impressive and to be commended. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
11. Support No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position. No doubt in my mind they are clear thinking, mature and an asset to the pedia.--MONGO (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
12. Support, no problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
13. Support. Has clue, been around, support per noms. Only concern would have been the issues Serial Number 54129 mentioned in their Support above but that seems to have been cleared up. Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
14. Support precious finding images --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
15. Support The candidate has a history of writing quality articles, some of which became DYKs. This experience will be important for others to know. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
16. —Kusma (t·c) 21:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
17. Support - his qualifications speak loudly, his demeaner is one we look for in our admin candidates. I have no concerns, but even if I did, he is the kind of editor (and I'm confident he will be the same as an admin) who looks for solutions, and as his answers indicate, will do his best to fix the underlying problem. I'll admit that his ability to find images along with his knowledge about copyrights are a major plus. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
18. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
19. I like the answer to Q6 and Q6.5. Having multilingual sysops is great when handling interwiki problems or foreign editors with competence problems. The limited edits to ruWikipedia and answer to Q6.5 shows the candidate understands their limitations and treads lightly (and also has a sense of humor). No reason to think the tools will be misused. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
20. Support - good answer to Q7 (I also liked their answer to 6.5), can't see any indications of the issue reoccurring. Multiple names who clearly know the editor (who I don't think I've had the chance to meet) trust GRuban. Good sense of humour in general (I suggest reading the candidate's prep User talk:GRuban/RfA for those who like a laugh and for a chance to see some of his competencies that he took out for it being too long!). All the other good stuff we like to see in a candidate. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
21. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
22. Strong support per thoughtful reflection of past actions in responses to questions 3 and 7, particularly at User:GRuban/Conflicts. I particularly like: what I can do is try to a) recognize I made a mistake and try to make up for it as soon as possible, and b) not to make those specific kinds of mistakes again in the future. I will make different mistakes in the future. More creative ones! Overall I'm seeing an editor with a good temperament who has made mistakes, some of them recent, but learns from them and will therefore be a net positive. — Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
23. Support. Good answers. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
24. Support. High quality articles, long experience in wider tool-set, including AfDs, and a great temperment. Great answer to Q7. Britishfinance (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

    User talk:GRuban/RfA is worth reading – a problem with RfAs is people start !voting immediately before thrashing out any issues that can emerge (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Greenman); either using GRuban's technique, or having a 7-day morortium for discussion before any !voting, should be considered for future RfAs. Britishfinance (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

25. Support - George is a great editor and will certainly make a great admin, I'm also impressed with their answers. Easiest support of the year by far. –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
26. Support No problems, high-quality answers to questions that display a comprehensive grasp of policy. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 22:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
27. Support, do not know him, but upon review seems like a stand-up guy. I would recommend that he take part in the GA process for one of his articles. Kierzek (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
28. Support One of my go-to editors for languages. Have always found him to be a helpful and civil editor who focuses on improving the encyclopedia. I trust him with the tools. SusunW (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
29. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 00:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
30. Support - a trusted long-time editor. I have no concerns. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
31. Support – no concerns, and count me among the editors who are impressed. – Levivich 00:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
32. Support No concerns! And if Levivich thinks you are ok, then I do too! Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
33. Support should be fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
34. Support No concerns. Buffs (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
35. Support I don't see any reasons why not! Puddleglum2.0👌(talk) 04:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
36. Support. Seems fine to me. bd2412 T 05:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
37. Support. As nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
38. Support I don't recall interacting with them, but strong nomination statements and support from numerous respected editors above who know their work - why not? GirthSummit _(blether) 07:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
39. Support. Wow. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
40. Support per Gerda and many others. No concerns. The "stalking and harassment claims" over (what I believe to be) this thread are totally wide of the mark, given that GRuban said "We are all on the same side, the side of trying to contribute to the "summary of all human knowledge". That's a really good thing. Anything that leads to article improvement should be encouraged"." So he edit warred with Eric Corbett two years ago, big deal, I doubt Eric cares about grudges like that. And he rubbed Cassianto up the wrong way, but he also sought feedback on whether or not he'd done the right thing; I see self-reflection and definitely not an indication that GRuban will start making questionable blocks on longstanding editors because "it's policy". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

    Your concern for the project over editor' well-being and retention would appear to do you little credit, I'm afraid. ——SN54129 10:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

41. Support. Foxnpichu (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
42. Support per my comments here and here. A friendly and compassionate editor with a great sense of humor, GRuban is an excellent content contributor and an exemplary WP:ANRFC closer. I greatly enjoy reading both the articles and RfC closes he writes as I know they always will be high quality. I enthusiastically support this RfA. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
43. Support - All reasons aleready listed above. Josephine W. (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
44. Support – Appears to be a very dedicated editor and I would happily see them sysopped. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 10:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
45. Support. "Per nom" is the best I can come up with this time. I'm also happy to see a candidate who is open about their level of language skills. Deryck C. 11:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
46. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 11:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
47. Support. Contributions look good and previous interaction reviewing his DYK nom of Alina Morse was positive. Also two nominators whose judgment I trust. Regards SoWhy 11:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
48. Support. No concerns with edit history and displays even temperment as well. Clearly a net gain for the project. Loopy30 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
49. Support - I am unimpressed by the behaviour on display in January 2018, linked in Q7, but I am persuaded by his openness in admitting fault and more importantly that he has learnt from this mistake and does not appear to have repeated it. --Find bruce (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
50. Support Strong and satisfying answers to questions ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 12:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
51. Support A positive plus to the project. scope_creep^Talk 13:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
52. Support per Kudpung .User has around since 2005 clear net poaitive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
53. Support No cavils at all. Collect (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
54. Support per nominator, per above, per User:Deepfriedokra/On RfA.I 'm not so active as I once was, and if user helps with the backlogs, it'll take up my slack.-- Deepfriedokra 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
55. Support. I've kind of been expecting this. Good discussion closures and highly experienced. feminist (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
56. Seems like a reflective thoughtful user who per noms and User talk:GRuban/RfA will work hard to be a good sysop. Certainly has the experience to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
57. Support per noms, SN54129, User talk:GRuban/RfA, answers to questions, and positive contributions I've seen in the past. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
58. Support - net positive, have seen good things.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
59. support per nom. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
60. Support net positive, good work with RfC closures. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
61. Support no reason to suspect they'd be anything but a positive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
62. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
63. Support. Well qualified and experienced editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
64. Support Seems well qualified. – Ammarpad (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
65. Support Why not? -FASTILY 01:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
66. Support I encourage GRuban to participate more at GAN and FAC. These projects are an important part of our work, and beyond mere navel gazing. They ensure our best content is curated, maintained and not allowed to regress even after absence of the primary editor, god forbid. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
67. Support I don't think we've run into each other except at Becca Pizzi. That's more than enough. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
68. Support impressive contributions & I'm happy to support a candidate with courteous answers who is also working to close the gender gap. = paul2520 (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
69. Support Excellent candidate, best of luck! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
70. Support, a trustworthy editor. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
71. Support, none too soon! Bishonen | talk 03:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC).
72. Support: a trusted contributor; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
73. Support. Rock-steady contributor deserves the mop. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
74. Support Haven't always agreed with GRuban but always found them thoughtful and thorough, which is exactly what we need in an administrator. Volunteer Marek 05:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
75. Support – Excellent candidate. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
76. Support GRuban really have all it takes to become a good administrator. Splendiferous candidate. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
77. Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 10:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose because of the issue brought up in Q7. Unless of course there's a general Statute of Limitations I'm unaware of for all editors, and not just for popular RfA candidates. Dr Horncastle (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

   Dr Horncastle, Re: Unless of course there's a general Statute of Limitations I'm unaware of for all editors, and not just for popular RfA candidates. would you want something held over your head almost 2 years after it happened? Kb03 (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   This one was interesting to me. Before I learned about watch lists, I used to look for things to do by following certain people around. I realized that it might seem creepy, and I hope I didn't do it in a way that they got creeped out. I am kind of surprised that the candidate was still doing this, after he had been editing for 5 years. But I hope he has learnt his lesson. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

2. Strongest possible oppose. Anyone who demonstrates that type of creepy, stalking/harassing behaviour should never be considered suitable to be rewarded with additional privileges. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Stalking other editors, particularly female ones, is so obviously wrong that it was both a surprise that you did it but deeply concerning you tried to defend and justify it. I don’t think you got/get just how unpleasant and worrying it is to people. That level of blinkered approach demonstrates to me a lack of awareness in the effect of ones actions. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   "deeply concerning you tried to defend and justify it" - is this referring to concern that they initially did so (at the time) or when they said why they chose to act like that in Q7? I just ask, because in the latter, they specifically indicate that their action was wrong and their reasoning was wrong - they aren't giving a current defence, but their previous incorrect defence. Obviously this is a very legitimate grounds to oppose, but I wasn't sure how to read your oppose so wanted to clarify your intent. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   I used the past tense for a reason. Again, the lack of awareness of the effect ones actions can have on others - particularly in regard to stalking - is a huge red flag that this editor will show similar obliviousness when using the tools. How many people were chased off the site, or felt threatened by the stalking? It's just not good enough to say this was a couple of years ago: the lack of attention to the effects of ones actions is enough for me. Adminship is a big deal, and crap admins can drive off scores of people before they are brought to heel; someone with a history of stalking should not have powers over others. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral pending response to Q7. The fact that Iri (who I respect immensely) is !voting support is a major incitement for me to do the same, despite the issue, but I think it best to wait for a response (misread through my screen, my fault) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved to support (please note the centre part was still wrong reading from me, but I can't "double strike") Nosebagbear (talk)

1. Neutral - Awaiting answers to a few questions. Would like to know if the user plans to be more active as an admin. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• Supporting is hard based on Serial_Number_54129's diff, even though the candidate seemed to be trying to resolve disputes in good faith at the time. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) So, I've been looking into the issue described in Q7, in which GRuban was very explicitly accused of stalking by multiple editors. What I gather from reading the diffs is that GRuban mistakenly amended the spelling of Carolina Nairne's name in an external link and was reverted by another editor in very harsh and dismissive terms. GRuban clearly felt that he had offended this other editor and apologized on their talk page. After doing so, he commented on an RfC for the article Cary Grant, in which the very same editor had also participated nearly two weeks prior. GRuban was twice reverted by a third-party who asserted that because Legobot had delisted the discussion, it was effectively closed. When GRuban raised the issue on that editor's talk page, several others accused him of being a stalker for participating in the same RfC as the editor who reverted him on Carolina Nairne. He admitted that he came across the discussion after looking through the editor's contribution history, which is not a wise thing to admit to doing publicly – particularly not after said editor has already expressed discomfort with the situation. Following this, GRuban was threatened with a block for harassment.

  First, let me make one thing clear: I view stalking as an extremely serious matter. It is not a joke, and it is not funny. It is a crime. That is why "stalking" is not a word to be thrown around loosely over what could conceivably be nothing more than a coincidence. Now, do I think the editor who reverted GRuban had a valid reason for feeling uncomfortable? Yes, I do – and even if I didn't, it doesn't matter, because I don't have the authority to define other people's boundaries for them. I am not criticizing this editor for expressing discomfort, nor should what I'm saying be interpreted as an invalidation of their feelings. It is perfectly understandable that they would be uncomfortable with GRuban's actions, particularly as he admitted to going through their contribution history and accessing the RfC from there. I think a simple "just be mindful of how you're coming across next time" was warranted, and GRuban had clearly taken this experience to heart. But he did not stalk anyone. Unwittingly overstepping a person's boundaries on one occasion is not the same thing as stalking them. And I say this as someone who strongly believes that there doesn't need to be malicious intent for something to be classified as harassment or stalking.

  I understand that this RfA is currently on track to pass, and that this incident is seen as ancient history (i.e. almost two years ago) from which the candidate has grown, so this comment is perhaps unnecessary. But people throwing around accusations of "stalking" and "harassment" as if those words don't mean anything is something that really gets under my skin. Stalking is a crime. It has a real, lasting impact on those who are subjected to it. Wantonly accusing people of engaging in stalking behavior trivializes the suffering that victims go through. It is not a joke. It is not funny. It is a crime. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Kurtis: For the record, WP:HARASSMENT— blue linked and all caps—Is a particular behavioral policy on the English Wikipedia, and should not be conflated with harassment in real world jurisdictions. It is a crime in most jurisdictions, but not on Wikipedia. So no: no-one's throwing around accusations, merely providing policy-backed arguments in an internal Wikipedia process. Your passion does you credit, but you are mistaken. ——SN54129 10:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I see your point. But remember, I'm not in any way suggesting that GRuban's actions were appropriate. They were mildly harassing in nature, even if he had the best of intentions. GRuban's behavior at the time was inappropriate, and he realizes this now. But stalking? In my view, no. Hounding (or "wiki-hounding") is what I would call it. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I wanted to add that I've looked into it a bit further. Apparently GRuban also edited the same pages as SagaciousPhil (whose name I am now using, as she has participated in this RfA), and submitted an RfC on Nairne's talk page the next day. While this does make the discomfort more justifiable, I stand by what I said about stalking not being an appropriate word to use in this context. At most, GRuban innocently pressed against boundaries, and did so out of a desire to edit collaboratively with those who've disagreed with him in the past. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, he was stalking. If you think what he did wasn't stalking or was somehow appropriate, then you need to read the policies and guidelines more closely. Following people round various articles is stalking, no matter how much you try and defend the indefensible. - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The very next comment he made was "I'm sorry, I was wrong, please accept my apologies" and he dropped out of the discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

After having been warned by iridescent: whiiich most editors would, if they were sensible. ——SN54129 11:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and Iri's commment was made after several people had told him it was stalking and GRuban disagreed, over and over. A deeply nastys et of actions cannot be set aside with a rather trite "We are all on the same side" platitude. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Keep in mind though, I'm not saying that he was acting in an appropriate manner – remember, I did say that SagaciousPhil was justified in feeling uncomfortable – but rather that stalking is a term with legal implications. There's a reason WP:STALK has long since been made into a soft redirect. It's the same as when someone is accused of stalking for merely looking at someone's Facebook photos without their knowledge. Something can be creepy or inappropriate, and not be a crime. What GRuban did would be more accurately referred to as wiki-hounding, which technically is a milder form of harassment. But stalking? No, in my opinion that's too strong of a word. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Briefly, per the note at WP:STALK, it looks like there’s been efforts to deprecate use of the term “stalking” (with all its real-world implications) when referring to purely onwiki activity; instead replacing that term with “wikihounding”. Sagaciousphil/SchroCat, would you be willing to reconsider your word choice? –xeno^talk 11:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet no one objected when members of ArbCom used the words stalking and harassment in the proposed decision against Fram? Double standards once again being applied? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

(Personally) My stance on that debacle is known: it was a shambles from start to finish. Though I see only limited and indirect use of the word stalk. –xeno^talk 11:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I reflected the language contained within the warning issued: ...but you're coming across as a really, really, creepy stalker in virtually every word of your posts above,... and further: If you want to make this official I can give a Uw-harass4im on your talkpage, but you've been here long enough that I'd expect you to know a basic policy like WP:HARASS without having it explained to you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

---