Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GRuban

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

GRuban

Final (101/62/15); withdrawn by candidate –xeno^talk 20:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)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.

Withdrawal

Thank you folks, I appreciate your taking a look at my candidacy, and even though it has more supports than opposes, it doesn't look like it's going to retain the necessary supermajority, and even my mentors are saying I shouldn't put the community through two more days. Some of both supporters and opposers (surprisingly enough) are saying they would be willing to take another look in another 6 months to a year, and perhaps I will try again, more seasoned, and hopefully wiser. Or perhaps not; after all, I'm volunteering here to edit, not to admin, so maybe I'll just keep doing that. We'll see.

User:Barkeep49 was kind enough to offer me an open question yesterday, where I could ask and answer myself whatever I wanted. I didn't, as I don't have a question as such, but I have a ... comment, I guess, since I'm guessing most of you will read this, and there are over a hundred of you. I'd like to thank you all. Not just for participating in this RfA, though thanks for that as well, but thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks for being editors, administrators, those who write articles, those who improve them, the ones who write scripts and tools, the ones who revert vandalism, the ones who review, and advise, and suggest, and debate, and vote in discussions like this one, and keep the machinery going. This is an amazing thing we're all doing here, the single largest work of knowledge in all of human history, free to everyone, and almost all done by unpaid volunteers, getting nothing out of it except good feelings. I'm so happy you're letting me be a small part of it. Thank you. Thank you very much. --GRuban (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

GRuban and I seem to have crossed edits here. Other bureaucrats- please give me a minute before closing this RfA. –xeno^talk 20:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Followup. Which of the provisions of WP:NFCC would such an image violate? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The likely main ones would be #8, contextual significance, and #6, media-specific policy (and #10 image description page, which needs to spell out how the images obeys the other provisions). The #8 contextual significance means that its "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". For images (which is where #6 comes in) this is often interpreted quite strictly, as explained by WP:FREER and WP:NFCI. Even though they are guidelines, not policies, such guidelines have often been considered enough to delete not free content. A strong argument needs to be made that the image is very important to the article, for example being the subject of the article. I'm writing "likely" and "probably", since there are possibilities here; for example, if the image had been nominated for deletion before, the argument may have been made already; or the image description page could have made that argument, in fulfilling #10. In general, though, we need people to make those arguments. If I find that this image seems to me be strictly necessary to the article in this way, I'll make the argument myself, and have some other admin evaluate it to close the discussion.

Additional question from Banedon

14. Can you summarize what the allegations of harassment currently given in the oppose section are about?

A: They're basically described in Q7. In January 2018, I had a disagreement with a few people. I thought I would be able to show that we could disagree in one area and still work together in another. That was a very bad idea, since instead I made them feel harassed. I am sorry and will not do that again, and have not since. One of them sent me an unsolicited email about that at the start of this RfA, in which they wrote how bad that felt. I wrote about that email here, in response, which also hurt them; I was asked to remove my paraphrase of some of the contents of their email from my comment, which I have.

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

15. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A: Er ... strictly, because we don't want to delete things that have a chance of being kept; while at the same time we're not a bureaucracy, so we want to apply the spirit rather than the letter of the rules in the cases where they conflict? I admit that is a bit of a vague answer, but to be honest, it is a bit of a vague question. Basically, if it's nonsense, or a copyright violation, or any of the other specifically listed possibilities, we can and should speedily delete it, if not, we should take it to our other deletion processes such as WP:PROD or WP:AFD. If there is content that had an actual chance of being kept under those longer processes, it should not have been deleted under speedy. The reverse is not true; an admin can't look at content and say that in their judgment it wouldn't survive the longer process, so it should be speedily deleted. If that's not what you wanted, please follow up.

16. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you provide some examples of things that do or do not constitute such a claim?

A: "He won the Nobel Prize!" was a famous example; it was basically the entire content of an article written by our own User:Jimbo Wales, though I can't find the exact link to it myself just yet. That's a sufficient claim of significance. "Joe Schmoe is a dentist in Rockville, Maryland" is an insufficient claim of significance. And, of course, as in Q8 above, educational institutions don't need to make a claim of significance under A7. More generally, something that claims to meet one of the Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines will be a sufficient claim of significance, though there might be other possibilities. As in the previous question, if there is any chance of surviving a deletion process given the claims in the article, it generally shouldn't be speedy deleted.

Additional question from Barkeep49

17 & 18. The format of RfA means that sometimes there are things a candidate wishes to write about but doesn't have a real opening to do so. So in that spirit, and with the offer that you should feel free to ignore this if you wish and with no ill-feelings of any kind if you do, what question would you like someone to ask you and what's your answer to it? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A:

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. 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)

   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)

   ...moved to Neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

2. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
3. 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)
4. Support per noms.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Just wanted to add that I agree entirely with Doncram’s thoughtful comments in Support #99. -- P-K3 (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

   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) I apologize, but the e-mail incident is such that I can no longer support this RfA, especially given that which was revealed. I wish Mr. Ruban the best, and I won't pile on the oppose section. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

5. Strong candidate. El_C 20:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
6. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. Support, no problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
11. 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)
12. Support precious finding images --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

    adding (because crats tend to ignore entries with little rationale): all my interactions with George were pleasant, and I have no time, nor interest, to dig in history. Iridescent said things (below) I'd support. And yes, I'm among those who believe that Fram should still be an admin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

13. 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)
14. —Kusma (t·c) 21:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

    Just confirming that I am supporting, and I thought I'd expand my thinking in case this goes to crat chat. We seem to have years of good work here, with two incidents of not thinking through how his behaviour would be viewed by others. Perfection is not required of an admin (otherwise we'd only have a handful at most). Will be a net asset. —Kusma (t·c) 08:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

15. Even Stronger Support - ^{Also see reasons in TP discussion} 15:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC) 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)

    (Moving to Neutral.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

    (Moving to Neutral) Wug·a·po·des​ 18:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC) 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)

    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)

    Moved back to Neutral

16. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

    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)

17. Support. Good answers. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
18. 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)

    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) (Moved to Oppose. –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC))

19. 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)
20. 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)
21. 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)
22. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 00:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
23. Support - a trusted long-time editor. I have no concerns. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

    I now have concerns. I do think the problematic issues listed by the opposers were clear errors in judgement, and GRuban clearly persisted in misjudging each situation. However, I also choose to accept the explanations that these errors were being made with the best of intentions. My greater concern is that GRuban does not have the trust of such a large percentage of the community for a very specific reason -- especially since previous support is being withdrawn. And in the end, I believe the Administrator position is not about having never made mistakes, but rather if one can be trusted to correct them and avoid them. I don't think this RFA will pass so I am leaving my moral support for GRuban. I hope that there is a future path forward for an otherwise fine editor such as this to regain community trust among current opposers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

24. Stronger Support – no concerns, and count me among the editors who are impressed. – Levivich 00:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

    After reading more, including the oppose section, my support grows. The opposes don't make sense to me. I continue to be shocked by Wikipedians dragging up stuff from years ago. The "unwanted following" incident two years ago doesn't strike me as serious at all. Neither does the so-called "revealing private info in an email" issue–which didn't reveal anything that wasn't already revealed publicly by the editor. I honestly don't know what planet some editors live on when they feel that emails are somehow confidential or under seal. I get hundreds of emails a day; I've never thought of an email as confidential (unless the email specifically says "please don't reveal this publicly"). Mostly, I'm persuaded by the !votes of Ad Orientem, Rhodo, and MJL below. At worst, we have two cases of poor judgment in 14 years. God help me if anyone ever judges me like that. Some Wikipedians are just absolutely unforgiving ("once a stalker always a stalker", "blunder after blunder"... couldn't disagree more with such comments). Infallibility is not a criteria for adminship. Although, I guess RfA voters would be more forgiving if adminship wasn't a lifetime appointment. That's why I ask the recall question (though I didn't this time out of respect for KP's objections to it). What makes my support grow is specifically GRuban's response to this RfA, such as here, where he wrote: "The opposers are being honest, they've been hurt, they don't want to be hurt more. I'm not going to blame them for that. They don't believe in me, that's not a crime. I hope the community as a whole judges my work as a whole worthy." That's the GRuban I know, and that's what a thoughtful person sounds like. I think more than ever that they'd be an asset as an admin. – Levivich 19:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

25. Support No concerns! And if Levivich thinks you are ok, then I do too! Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

    Comment It seems at RfA the editors look for a thread they can pull, and then they pull it until they unravel the whole thing. Everyone else looks at the pile of thread and then cosigns the action. A few missteps and a lesson learned. I am a little more concerned about an RfA WP:VANISHING editor who was a monster and returned to walk the straight and narrow: and the we cannot see and judge the learning experiences because they are scrubbed. We are not choosing a saint. Lightburst (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

    Support should be fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC) (need to look at issue raised here)

26. Support No concerns. Buffs (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
27. Support I don't see any reasons why not! Puddleglum2.0👌(talk) 04:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
28. Support. Seems fine to me. bd2412 T 05:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
29. Support. As nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
30. 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)
31. Support. Wow. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
32. 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)

33. Support. Foxnpichu (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
34. 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)

    Support - All reasons aleready listed above. Josephine W. (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

35. 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)
36. 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)

    Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 11:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

    Moving to Oppose. GiantSnowman 17:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    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) (switched to oppose)

    Support. No concerns with edit history and displays even temperament as well. Clearly a net gain for the project. Loopy30 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC) moving to oppose Loopy30 (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

37. 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)
38. Support Strong and satisfying answers to questions ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 12:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

    Moving to Oppose Sorry Kudpung, but I can no longer support this candidate. scope_creep^Talk 09:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

39. Support per Kudpung .User has around since 2005 clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
40. Support No cavils at all. Collect (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
41. 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)
42. Support. I've kind of been expecting this. Good discussion closures and highly experienced. feminist (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

    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)

43. 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)
44. Support - net positive, have seen good things.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
45. support per nom. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

    (moving to neutral) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Support net positive, good work with RfC closures. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

    Additional comment in light of the opposes based on wikihounding behavior: if the behavior was continuous, or if GRuban did not display what appears to be genuine contrition, I would be moving to oppose. I don't think that the mentioning of an email conversation is grounds for an oppose at this time. I will be following this discussion and will change my vote if additional information comes to light that suggests that contrition is insincere or that the behavior is likely to begin again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

46. Support no reason to suspect they'd be anything but a positive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
47. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
48. Support. Well qualified and experienced editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
49. Support Seems well qualified. – Ammarpad (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

    Support Why not? -FASTILY 01:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC) moved to oppose -FASTILY 00:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

50. 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)
51. 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)
52. 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)
53. Support Excellent candidate, best of luck! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
54. Support, a trustworthy editor. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
55. Support, none too soon! Bishonen | talk 03:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC).
56. Support: a trusted contributor; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
57. Support. Rock-steady contributor deserves the mop. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
58. 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)
59. Support – Excellent candidate. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
60. Support GRuban really have all it takes to become a good administrator. Splendiferous candidate. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
61. Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 10:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
62. Support: honestly, while I think Serial Number 54129 is right insofar as it would probably constitute HOUNDING it's one incident over a year ago and I don't think it was coming from a dickish place, it appeared GRuban was just genuinely trying to be helpful. SITH (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

    Mayhap, SITH: but of course recent events have all but proven that one can still be a WP:DICK without actually intending to  :) ——SN54129 14:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

63. Support. I don't think I've interacted with George before, but it seems to me that he's a net positive in regards to content creation (e.g. strong involvement in AFD and DYK processes). The opposes aren't convincing - I think, as mentioned in SN54129's comment, he's learned from that one hounding accusation from January 2018. But otherwise, his edits seem to be in good faith and highly content focused, and would benefit from admin rights. epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
64. Support Excellent, helpful editor. They were a little slow to back down in the Jan 2018 episode, but even the best make mistakes, overall they look like they'll be a big asset to the admin corps. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
65. Support - Can be trusted with the mop. -- FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 18:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
66. Support Good answers to questions, opposers' reasoning utterly unconvincing/POINTy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
67. Support, I've enjoyed the answers to questions and feel confident that the candidate would be a net positive as admin. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
68. Support Very good editor. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
69. Support meets my RFA criteria. Iffy★Chat -- 18:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
70. Support. Good candidate. Pichpich (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
71. Support GRuban seems friendly and engaging to an extreme, as well as more than sufficiently competent to wield the mop. As best I can tell, it looks like in the past instance brought up in SN's support and many of the opposers' comments, GRuban was awkward and made a mistake, but was not malicious. I haven't seen any other problems with his editing. It's ok to make mistakes, as long as folks are willing/able to learn from them. It sounds like he's interested in avoiding similar situations. So for me, this is an easy support. Ajpolino (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
72. Weak Support: Although I am concerned about the issue raised by opponents below, there is a social skills element involved on all sides here as well. I think this user's mistakes are balanced by their involvement in GGTF and related issues. Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

    [clerk edit: removed]

    To your last statement, there's nothing wrong with the word "opponents" per se. Those who are posting in the oppose section are opponents of this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    Epicgenius correctly explains my word choices. I have the utmost respect for people who hold views different from mine; in this context, I simply believe that the totality of the circumstances contributed to my !vote. A candidate’s responses in a given situation do need to be assessed not only based upon a set of diffs, the context of those diffs matters. Montanabw^(talk) 15:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

73. Support Candidate seems experienced, open, and willing to learn from his mistakes. Have no trouble trusting him with the mop. Parabolist (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
74. Trust the judgement of the noms. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
75. Support per Kurtis. Lepricavark (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    To expand upon the above, I share Levivich's sense of frustration with the opposition here. It's very disappointing to see a good candidate get taken down over two issues (the so-called hounding and the email issue) that have been grossly exaggerated. In a sane world, we would not allow voters to insinuate that a candidate knowingly stalked a female editor without providing actual evidence. In a sane world, the duckish Dr Horncastle would have been quickly booted from the discussion. In a sane world, the email issue wouldn't have been blown completely out of proportion. But this is not a sane world; this is the land of piling on and viewing candidates as criminals. This RfA has become a farce and a good editor is being trampled. Lepricavark (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

76. Support Some issues have been raised below that if they were more recent, I'd probably hesitate here. But most are going on two years old. The opposes have done a good job of establishing that a couple years ago, in a compressed time frame, GRuban made some not insignificant errors in judgement. But it was two years ago and I am not seeing evidence of a pattern of poor judgement or malicious editing. Which brings me to one of my recurring themes at RfA. We are deciding whether or not to trust an editor with a few extra tools to help keep things running smoothly in an online encyclopedia. We are not electing a president or pope. Infallibility is not a reasonable criteria. Over the years I have been participating in RfA I have cast my share of oppose !Votes. And for reasons defying my comprehension, in a number of those cases the community decided to pass them anyway. And even more embarrassing, to the present day I cannot think of a single admin whose RfA I opposed, who later went on to become a problem. Conceding some poor judgement in the time frame mentioned, I'm not seeing anything to cause me to believe this candidate is going to abuse the tools or break the wiki. On balance they look like a better than average editor and will, I believe, be a net positive to the project if given the mop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
77. Support I hear the concerns in the oppose and read them, I also read the noms statements. George made a mistake and I am sure learned a valuable lesson. I think they will be a benefit to the project with the tools and also think that sometimes wikipedia needs to be a more forgiving place. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
78. Support a good contributor to Wikipedia. The viciousness of the internet is brutal here, and I wish some kindness would be considered.--!nnovativ (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
79. Support. It's the email thing, not the wikihounding thing, that's causing a run on this RfA. I'm not with the opposers on that one. The disclosure of the fact of the email was neither a violation of policy nor done with nefarious intent. That doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, but by the same taken making a mistake within an RfA is classically prone to triggering a disproportionate response in terms of the vote count. I was about to support a day or so ago, for all the usual reasons of competence, judgement, etc, and nothing has really changed.--Mkativerata (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    Hi Mkativerata, just for clarity, so we're all discussing and voting on the same thing. It is not the mention of the email that is the issue, but the disclosure of the contents, as indicated by Xeno's request to GRuban: [1]. The content has since been redacted by GRuban without indication (we normally advise indication per WP:REDACTED), which has, I think, confused people as to what the issue actually is. I don't think GRuban chose that style of redaction deliberately to avoid scrutiny, but likely because they were not aware of procedure, and perhaps out of a desire not to draw more attention to it, and cause more discomfort and embarrassment. For me, by itself the awkward (and well-meaning) redaction is not a huge issue, but it is error on error. I can well understand someone seeing the situation differently and still wanting to vote support, and as long as we are all voting on the issue as it actually is that is fair. But we all do need to know what the situation is. I will ask GRuban to make clear that they have removed content from their statement. SilkTork (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    SilkTork, I think error on error is a little extreme given how few issues have been raised at RfA give the candidate's 14-year term? You have said on the candidates own Talk Page that: Because you have not broken any policy in talking about the content of the email, there will be differences of opinion on your action. I don't think you have made that point clear in this RfA and in your Oppose !vote? You have also said in your Oppose that This is not about knowing rules or guidelines, but about respecting the feelings and dignity of others – any research into the candidate's history indicates strongly, that the candidate is probably at the extreme end of being kind and considerate in WP. I do think more reflection is required here, and some balance on this email issue (which was a mistake by the candidate, no doubt), versus their 14-year term + good temperment + technical skill. Britishfinance (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

80. Support per Ad Orientem and others. I think this user will make a good admin and isn't likely to repeat past mistakes. Kenmelken (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
81. Support pretty much per Kurtis below. I'll keep an eye on this, if things are significantly worse than I'm seeing from just reading this page, I may update my views. But at the moment, I'm seeing a mistake from more than a year ago. The e-mail issue concerns me less than others apparently. I have a strong sense of privacy but don't generally expect that when I send an unsolicited e-mail that it will be under some kind of a seal. Hobit (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I realized I didn't address the positives. I've seen this editor around for years. Great work. And a review of their work gets to the same conclusion: Great work. The fact that the negatives aren't hugely concerning me (though the e-mail one does show poor judgement, I don't believe it disqualifying) isn't a reason to support. His long-term body of work is. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
82. Support Has proven to be mature, trustworthy and will be beneficial to Wikipedia as admin. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 14:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
83. Support Learning from past mistakes will make GRuban a better admin. schetm (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
84. Support. They've made mistakes, but who hasn't? Importantly they've learned from those mistakes, and I see no issues with their general competence. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
85. Support I see a couple mistakes and acknowledgment of those mistakes. I'm really having a hard time seeing why they've blown up to a potential deal-breaker. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
86. Support I can appreciate much of the opposition, but I'm just not seeing the unforgivable transgression in this user's actions. He/she seems quite polite, knowledgeable, and experienced. Net positive.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 17:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
87. Support. The oppose section contains lots of allegations (doxxing, stalking, harrassing etc), but little/no actual evidence (i.e. diffs of the candidates edits) to justify those allegations. For example, has the candidate really ever hounded ("to repeatedly confront or inhibit [other editor's] work ... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor") anyone? DexDor ^(talk) 18:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
88. Support I see no red flags serious enough for me to oppose the nomination. Good luck with the mop! — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
89. Support for a candidate who is, IMO, a net positive. The issue referenced above gave me pause, to be sure, but I think GRuban has learned from it. We all make mistakes. Miniapolis 00:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
90. Support Only red flag is something that appears to be dragged completely out of all proportion with the offense. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
91. Support I'm just getting back from a wikibreak, and I seemed to have missed whatever was going on with private emails. The heart of the matter is that the candidate is an incredibly transparent person, and in this case that was not a helpful attribute and directly caused some him to make an avoidable mistake. In the thread that SN54129 linked to, GRuban remains awfully polite throughout the whole discourse while even apologizing several times to the people who demanded better of him.
    For the record, I think people shouldn't treat each other like dirt, so the constructive way GRuban conducts himself is something he should be proud of. Further, I don't think the incident two years ago was intentional hounding/stalking. The negative intent was not there, but even still he should have just said he'll back off after being told of these concerns. He was treating people who, quite frankly, didn't like him as if they were his wikifriends by following them around like that and offering positive feedback. The important part of what he responded with was the apology at least. Two years later, with no similar incidents having ever recurred, it might be time to move on.
    In what issues remain unresolved, I reference Ad Orientem's support !vote above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
92. Support per Wisdom89. Useight (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
93. Support, everyone makesmistakes and is entitled to forgiveness after a time. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
94. Support, making mistakes and learning from them can lead to empathy for editors, especially newbies, who aren't perfect and that is something we want in an admin.--agr (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
95. Support The candidate stopped the unwanted following once asked to, and presumably learned from it since no recurrence is alleged. I view the email transgression similarly, and expect that the candidate will adapt to our idiosyncratically stringent norm of email privacy. Satisfactory in all other regards. Vadder (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
96. Support. About the Question 7 stuff, I think GRuban was indeed in good faith seeking to have more interactions, to start to work collaboratively with other editors in which they had been in some conflict, which is not a terrible idea. They started doing so by following the other editors, instead of, say, proposing a joint work project going forward in some area (which the others could accept or decline). And that worked badly, which GRuban has acknowledged, as some actually experienced the following around as hurting their experience in Wikipedia (and I think that their experience is what matters most, in determining whether something bad has happened). It woulda been nice if GRuban more quickly understood about that then and apologized and backed off. And, as we learn from politics and everywhere, it would be tactically better to deny, deny, deny, but instead GRuban was perhaps too helpful in acknowledging something there (and that could even be said to cause worse experience to the other in this case). And maybe GRuban is not yet the most expert in understanding/acting in this kind of issue, but they know that, too, and they're not likely to use administrative powers or put their reputation on the line in anything similar. Partly because they are too open and nice, perhaps. Give them the mop and let them work ahead on copyright stuff, etc., as they want to do. --Doncram (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
97. Support. The opposes seem to sum up all that is wrong with RFA - digging up dirt from a couple of years ago, leading to the candidate making a single error of judgement, then being ripped apart for it. I have no problem whatsoever with this candidate, and I wish them the best of luck. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 21:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
98. Support GRuban said he realized the "harassment" was a mistake and won't do it again, and I have no reason not to believe him/her. I'm also unconcerned about the email issue, since the revealed information seems fairly unimportant, and as far as I can tell the sender didn't explicitly ask for the email to be kept private. Banedon (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
99. Support GRuban shows many of the qualities an admin needs, the answers above show this in particular. In general, the truth about someone is shown consistently over time and can't be determined by one incident. GRuban's contributions and behavior overall show they can handle the mop. Glennfcowan (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
100. I'm reluctant to put myself here as there are a lot of people I support opposing for completely legitimate reasons. As should be no surprise, I think GRuban's conduct in January 2018 was grossly inappropriate (I don't give warnings like "What the fuck is wrong with you? Knock this shit off now" for no reason), and the email incident a couple of days ago was an awful lack of common sense (yes we don't have a written policy saying "don't publicise sensitive personal information which people have told you in confidence", but that's because we assume no reasonable person would do so, not because we think it's acceptable). However, three lapses of judgement in a two-year period is in my opinion not worth opposing over—the fact that nobody has pointed to any other issues implies to me that what we have here is someone who learns from mistakes, and I don't realistically think any of the issues are likely to happen again. GRuban surely knows that in light of the concerns raised here, even the slightest hint of admin abuse will lead to his being unceremoniously blocked. ‑ Iridescent 07:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
101. Moved from Neutral. Support per – Mkativerata, Iridescent, & Doncram and mine own observations; despite a blip, i think the candidate grasps and will continue in line with the most important of my RfA criteria. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

[clerk edit: removed]

1. 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)
2. 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)

   You're right, and I thank you. I do recognize the hurt those actions caused, and apologize. SagaciousPhil emailed me yesterday, [paraphrase removed per request], and as I wrote her, I remember another amazing person whom I admired but who had to leave the Wikipedia because of external harassment. She was a respected admin, and yet kind; I'd be proud if I could emulate her. I recognize that for some people working on Wikipedia isn't fun, but painful, and I'm sorry for contributing to that. I regret it, wouldn't do it again in a similar case, and haven't in the time since. If there is a way that I can help instead of hurt, please say. That's why I'm running, because I believe I have learned, and that I can help more as an admin, and I hope the community believes the same. While I accept that some, like Dr Horncastle, believe there there is no statute of limitations, I do believe people can learn, and that I have, and I hope the community believes that as well. I trust the community, and I hope the community can trust me. --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   [clerk edit: removed]

   The fact GRuban chose to reveal I had emailed him a couple of days ago is yet another example that he is untrustworthy and does not possess the qualities required in an admin. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   That's ridiculous. Sending an email does not grant you a permanent guarantee that nobody will even say you sent it and it never has. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   Horseshit. Complete and utter rubbish. See Wikipedia:Emailing users#Reposting emails publicly: "Users who feel they are allowed to repost text from an email (or other off-wiki source), or that it is right to do so, are advised to take caution and consult beforehand, to ensure they do not accidentally create a problem for themselves or a negative perception by doing so" (my emphasis). Feet first action with regard to offwiki activity is a bloody awful step to take. Beeb, you've been an Admin for 12 years: you're supposed to know this stuff. - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   SchroCat, ... text from an email ... Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Never mind, had missed that the candidate had gone beyond merely mentioning that they'd been emailed, in their comment. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   If you really think that defending a stalker who posts the general contents of off-wiki emails in their own RfA is a good advertisement for the standard of administrator you want, I think that speaks volumes about the desperate steps people are willing to go to. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   Usedtobecool: thank you for striking your comment. In the light of that, I have done likewise with mine. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   "Defending a stalker" - I'm sure you don't intend this, but that comes across as a manipulative & repressible attack against two good quality editors. If you have something to say against fellow participants, at least have the decency to say it directly & cut out the passive aggression. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   There was no passive agression there and nothing manipulative. I have chosen my words carefully given the circumstances (and there are enough diffs to back up what I have said). Perhaps your energies woud be better off directed elsewhere? - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   GRuban: would you consider redacting the portions of your comment that disclose contents of a private email that the sender has indicated was not meant for public consumption? –xeno^talk 19:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   OK. --GRuban (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose per SchroCat. His concerns are well-put; [clerk edit: unwanted following], however you name or define it, is unacceptable behavior and certainly unbecoming of an admin.--WaltCip (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose I was concerned by the above incident but still undecided. But you really revealed a private conversation without permission to try to show why you should be an admin? Clearly your judgement can not be trusted.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose The email issue is a killer, even if there hadn't been other concerns. This user had been around for 14 years and should know just by WP:EMAIL that you do NOT just casually reveal the contents of a private email for any reason. That's why emails are offline, and not accessible to anybody but the sender and recipient. If the other individual had wanted their conversation to be public, they would have posted it on Wikipedia. That's an invasion of privacy under any circumstances. It begs the question of whether any individual who would reveal email content would also post that same content on other websites. But we sure don't want admins who act so carelessly. There are other issues. The nominee has "created" 93 articles, the majority stubs or starts. His several thousand edits to BLPs seem to be a lot of either adding an image or changing a word here and there. An adminship is more than the tools to make changes others can't. Please peruse WP:ANI - we rely on our admins to sometimes make hard decisions, referee disputes. There is nothing in the nominee's background that suggests to me he has the knowledge base. The background experience of admins often affects how our policies are made or changed. And emails are private conversations. — Maile (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   Disappointing to see what appears to be gross misrepresentation of policy by an admin. Even with regards to posting the whole text of an email, WP:Email clearly states There is no formal consensus by the community at this time, regarding the reposting of private off-wiki correspondence to Wikipedia's public pages. It goes onto say there may be concerns on copy right grounds - if you read WP:EMAIL#Reposting emails publicly , that's why it advises consulting before hand. The policy section ends by saying quoting brief phrases is generally unaffected by the concern. So GRuban's half a sentence paraphrase was in no way prohibited by policy.

   The candidate obviously had the best of motivations. He mentioned the email not to defend his RfA, but in an admittedly ham-fisted attempt to make amends for his past mistake. He wanted to highlight how even tracking user contributions with good intentions can still sometimes cause considerable distress to some users - something he sees now but didn't back in 2018. He obviously thought he was doing SagaciousPhil a favour by raising awareness. Hence why it likely didn't occur to him to check in advance.

   That said, referring to the email was quite a misjudgement. GRuban clearly doesn't yet grasp that users vary massively on how they weigh Transparency v Privacy. And that when dealing with the more guarded & reserved users, it's collegial to be hyper careful not to say anything they'd consider intrusive or boundary pushing. Still, even if the candidate was standing for high political office, the mistake is easily offset by the candidates many good qualities. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   Your mealy-mouthed defense of this breach of trust is laughable considering your prior opposition to a candidate for including the word "Girth" in their username.--WaltCip (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   "concerns on copy right grounds - if you read WP:EMAIL#Reposting emails publicly , that's why it advises consulting before hand". That's rather misleading. Try WP:EMAILPOST: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee once stated as an editing principle that "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki"". You can keep trying to defend the indefensible, but such desperate steps to negate a very real problem without acknowledging its seriousness does the candidate no good whatsoever. – SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   WP:HOUND While we're at it, this is my personal account of being stalked in my early years, by someone who purported to be acting in the best intents for Wikipedia. But a stalker is a stalker, and has the same effect regardless of where they do their thing. I was having a pleasant time just doing editing and figuring out all the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Then Editor#1, a non-admin, took it upon their self to delete/rewrite/redirect/reformat something I had spent a lot of time on. No explanation, no nothing. Editor#2 got involved and tried to help me figure out what was what. I moved on, edited elsewhere in smaller bits, in totally different subject matters. And yet Editor#1 kept coming, changing my edits, if any explanation was given, it was a ha--ha-ha-ha good-natured something about Wikipedia rules/styles/whatever they made up. Don't you know, stalkerrs excuse themselves. Fact of the matter was, Editor#1 was making wholesale stylistic changes. Low and behold, Editor#1 already had more than one logged complaint against them for long-term stalking of Editor#2. I looked over my shoulder for a long time, and Editor#1 got blocked. Then Ediitor#1 got unblocked by someone else. That pattern repeated for years. But for a long time, I never stopped looking over my shoulder for Editor#1. They did return, as multiple socks, same pattern and multiple blocks. A person who is being stalked knows it. Just as anyone who has been on Wikipedia for 14 years, knows it. We should not tolerate that at Wikipedia, anymore than in RL. And, BTW, I have no sense of humor about anyone belittling this experience of mine. I lived it. — Maile (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   What you describe is very different from what GRuban did in both degree and intent. I'm not thrilled that he revealed the fact that SagaciousPhil emailed him (the implication of an email is that it's a private conversation), and I do think his actions pushed against boundaries, but I don't think it's fair to place GRuban in the same category as "Editor#1". Kurtis ^(talk) 23:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   You have misunderstood. My comment was in response to the mentions of the alleged stalking issue, from Support 1 on down. Not specifically the email. Every case of stalking or alleged stalking is different and should be reported. I see from various comments above, that there seems to be more than one idea of what does - and does not - constitute stalking. I wanted to give my own story as an example. I was so new at Wikipedia, I didn't know this should have been reported per WP:DWH. Every person on Wikipedia who claims to have been stalked, should be taken seriously, not dismissed because somebody else thinks their case is not stalking. In my case, when I was trying to deal with it, I got email messages from my stalker's oh-so-friendly enablers telling me that I just misunderstood and shouldn't complain. At that time, I changed Preferences so I could not be emailed, and have left it that way. — Maile (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

   Don't worry, I understood what you were saying. I mentioned the email as something from the recent past that I think GRuban mishandled. I'm responding as the person who's been the most vocal against stalking allegations in this particular instance. I agree that accusations should be taken seriously, and I also want to re-emphasize my point that SagaciousPhil had reason to feel uncomfortable. But I don't think that the accusations of stalking really hold much water in this case. By his own admission, he did peruse the editing histories of people he disagreed with to try and make amends, the effect of which he should have taken into consideration beforehand. Once it was brought to his attention that he was making people uncomfortable, he disengaged. The threshold for something to be defined as stalking should be much higher than a one-off instance of mildly invasive or creepy behavior, in my opinion. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

6. Oppose (moved from Support) - The harassment thing although a deep concern happened nearly 2 years ago so sort of let it slide as previous mistakes shouldn't be held against that person forever, The revealing of the email above is what puts me here - If they're going to reveal the contents of one email (presumably without asking first) then who's to say they won't repeat this elsewhere?.... Emails should always be kept between the sender and recipient and should NEVER be broadcasted to the world (unless you have their blessing), Being an admin involves trust which unfortunately here there isn't any. –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose per the hounding issues and because of the email referenced in this very RFA. Calidum 20:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose per the very good arguments above, and those supporting above are complicit in advocating such disturbing behaviour. Cassianto^Talk 20:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose for multiple reasons, #1.) the User talk:GRuban/RfA page just seems like too much ... something. It's something I noticed some time ago, and the super sweet 'please be my nom' style of commenting just struck me ... odd. #2.) In Q3. they list the User:GRuban/Conflicts page as "conflicts", but it appears to be a selective choice with a 'look what I did good' view. It doesn't include the conflicts here, or here (GRuban introduced those diffs of early 2018, so I feel perfectly free to also reference that time frame) ... which brings us to #3.) They were given what equates to a {{Uw-harass4im}} warning by Iridescent on the January 17, 2018 [2], then they turn around and flaunt another following another editors edits (User:SchroCat/Littertray 2 restored by permission is the page in question) actions on the 18th at Iridescent's talk page.[3]. (and clearly states in the header there is a "creepiness" factor in play). IMO this is well beyond the {{tpw}} standards. ... and #4.) The posting of personal information that was divulged to them by email which they then display in this RfA. (note: It's a bell that can't be un-rung, but it could be removed and/or oversighted if the offended party asked). — Ched (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   Now 1 and 2 might push me to neutral, but 3 and 4 definitely move me here to the oppose section without further research because I feel there is a severe lack of good judgment; even if it is with the best of intentions. With AGF, I'd say that GRuban needs to learn how to edit in a less troublesome fashion and show much better judgment wrt to Wikipedia before I could support. — Ched (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   Ched Where or to whom should the removal/oversighting be requested? SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   Sagaciousphil - the top of Wikipedia:Oversight has a couple links, at least one to email. And the Wikipedia:Oversight#Oversighters section lists individuals you can contact as well. — Ched (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

10. Oppose. As demonstrated above, in particular by User:Ched, this candidate is absolutely unworthy of admin tools.--Darwinek (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose Sorry, but no. The email and stalking hounding issues are far too glaring for me to support this RfA. If nothing else, it demonstrates a clear lack of judgment and discretion, which is a key trait that the community should expect from administrators. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Edited my word choice per a private request. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
12. Oppose mostly per Ched's reasoning. [clerk edit: Unwanted following] should be beyond the pale, and the total cluelessness displayed by posting the contents of a personal e-mail is the nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned. Intothatdarkness 02:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Anyone who hounds (or harasses) any editor — whose actions resulted in a warning * about it — does not deserve access to adminship bells and whistles. Content creator, prolific contributor, lovely summaries, understands AfD and DYK procedures ... so what? No excuses exist for someone who has been a Wikipedia editor since December 2005. Perhaps more editors need to be on the receiving end of stalking to realize why such personal behavior is neither natural, nor ignorable. And if that isn't bad enough, we find out that the same Admin-wannabe also disclosed the contents of a personal email. This is not Alice-in-Wonderland Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 04:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC); Pyxis Solitary (yak) 05:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
14. Oppose Disclosure of private communications in an attempt to defend prior questionable actions is clearly demonstrative of an editor that does not have the discretion needed for advanced permissions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
15. I am opposing per the arguments of SchroCat, Sagaciousphil, Ched, and Cassianto. A one-off incident a couple years back is a mistake. A continuation of the issues is a problem. Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    Oppose because RfAs are about trust, and especially the email issue shows a big breach in trust. I have written about Wikipedia issues off-site, and even then chose to never reveal the contents of Wikipedia emails. Adminship is permanent (unless this RfC passes), so issues like this should be given weight. --Pudeo (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC) struck oppose, on review it might have been too judgmental on one instance. --Pudeo (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

    Pudeo - just wanted to touch base with you regarding the original context and why I consider the claim to be exaggerated. GRuban is honest to a fault and clearly non-combative, kind and generous with his time and contributions to the project. Many of us have used (talk page stalker) when it should be collaborative editor [4]. Some editors may even consider a user's watchlist to be a form of stalking. I certainly don't and truly appreciate copy editors following behind me. To further demonstrate the upstanding character of GRuban, despite the harshness show him when an innocent event unraveled, he rose above it. That is the kind of character I appreciate in an admin. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    re: email - question...if you were accused of stalking when all you were doing was collaborative editing, would you not be inclined to let people know you received an email from your accuser? Isn't that why we have the ygm template, to let people know? ArbCom once told me we can share the gist of an email but not the exact wording. If you want it to be confidential then say so in the email. Personally, I automatically keep emails confidential- but others may not. I've seen one exaggeration over the email already - wrongly referred to as doxxing. Truth be known, what we have is an exemplary editor whose words were taken out of context and exaggerated over an incident that took place nearly 2 years ago. Now Some of the opposes have taken it even further out of context. WP is an open collaboration environment and we all have watchlists. I suppose we are all stalkers based on their definition. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    YGM says I emailed you. There is no template for 'This person emailed me and here are the private things they told me.' If GR had only said they had communicated it would be a different story than GR revealing some significantly private feelings that clearly were meant for a one on one conversation, or else the person saying them would have posted them on wiki. I know you think highly of GR, but this was a massive breach of trust and no spinning will change that.--Cube lurker (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

16. Oppose (moved from Support) I was willing to assume that the previously mentioned incident was well in the past and the candidate has learned from it. Unfortunately, revealing contents of a private email during this request without the other person's consent (something I'm sure neither Kudpung nor Lourdes could have predicted) and then needing to be prompted to redact it is an example of bad judgment that I cannot ignore and which overshadows all otherwise good contributions to the point that I can no longer support this request. Regards SoWhy 10:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
17. Oppose We all make mistakes, but revealing personal details of an email in this RfA in order to gain oneself some support is not a mistake an admin candidate should be making. While there is much to like in GRuban, and I feel they have learned from the "harassment incident" such that that by itself isn't for me a significant reason by itself to oppose, that they have made a similar gaff with the same person, is a mistake too far. Redacting it was the right thing to do, but GRuban needed to be prompted to do that. This is not about knowing rules or guidelines, but about respecting the feelings and dignity of others, particularly those for whom an extra level of consideration is due, such as those one has hurt. SilkTork (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
18. Much stronger Oppose due to much stronger support votes, as revealing the content of a private email is naughty, and unacceptable for a good faith editor, let alone an admin. (due to the nature of the email thing.) -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 10:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
19. Oppose — email issue brings many issues to the RfA. CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
20. Oppose per the email issues as brought up in above opposes. Quahog (talk • contribs) 13:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
21. Oppose (moved from Support) as above re: [clerk edit: unwanted following concerns] - can't believe I missed this all on my first cursory glance. GiantSnowman 18:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
22. This is a very uncomfortable oppose for me to make, and I've been agonizing over it, and I'm still not sure that I'm right. From watching another editor's talkpage, I became aware of GRuban's subpage for planning the RfA, and I commented there quite a bit and even gave advice on how to compose the opening parts of this RfA, so I feel awkward, to put it mildly, to end up here. Let me explain, in detail. Some time ago, I was in a protracted content dispute with an editor who, in my opinion, was a POV-pusher, pushing the POV that US universities are overrun by leftist professors. I went to WP:BLPN because, in my opinion, that editor was violating BLP at the page about the author of a source because that source went contrary to the POV and the editor wanted to discredit it. GRuban commented there, to the effect that both the other editor and I had valid perspectives and that both perspectives should be accepted as being on equal footing, and that nobody was POV-pushing. I discussed this with GRuban at length as he was thinking about this RfA, and expressed my concern that an admin needs to be able to recognize a disruptive editor when they see one. We had a very cordial discussion about it, and I do very much recognize that this is someone with a long and positive edit history, so I didn't want to play gotcha over a one-off. As of just before this RfA started, I had decided that I would wait a few days into the RfA, and if no red flags showed up, I would support, saying something like I'd rather have an admin with too much AGF than one with too little. But, of course, a red flag has shown up. I don't think that the revelation of the email content was done with malice or bad intent. Quite the opposite, I think the intent was to show understanding and sympathy. But it demonstrated a misunderstanding, and it seems to me to be the same kind of misunderstanding as what I had experienced earlier. It's a sort of blind spot to the kinds of wiki-things that are dark, in favor of expecting everyone to just be colleagues. Not seeing a POV-pusher for what he is, and not seeing how something can be painful for another editor. Actually, that can make for someone who is a pleasure to write content with. But it's a potentially fatal flaw in an admin, who has to deal with users who do the wrong things, and has to be trustworthy with private information. I'm not saying that the candidate is a bad person, not at all. And I'm not saying that he has been anything less than a long-time valued contributor to Wikipedia. And I'm very sensitive to the fact that RfA can magnify minor stuff beyond what is fair or reasonable. But I've come to the conclusion that this is significant enough to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
23. The feeling I get from this whole RfA is of a candidate who seems well-intentioned but just isn’t paying attention to the clues around him. He seemed to have taken the RfC concerns on board, explained that he hadn't realized that was how it was feeling to the other person, said he wouldn’t do it again, and then the very next day came Ched’s diff#3. That was two years ago, and maybe I could get past it, but the email issue…one of the problems with revealing even the existence of the private email is that some people will inevitably think things like, “Why would she email him if he made her life so miserable…it can’t have been that bad, if she was willing to reach out.” People reach out to those who’ve hurt them for any number of reasons. To explain how horribly the situation had affected them. To ask for an apology. To try one more time to get them to understand before voting at their RfA. I believe this candidate is a good person, a valuable contributor and he’s clearly had many, many wonderful interactions with other editors. I just can’t support for adminship at this time. --valereee (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
24. Oppose - I have general concerns about the candidate's judgment, based partly on our interaction on talk:Kyle Kashuv as well as concerns that have been raised here by other editors. The so-called stalking issue has been blown out of proportion in my opinion, but disclosing the contents of any off-wiki communication reflects a lapse of judgement. I have not seen anything to suggest malice on GRuban's part and I would not close the door to the possibility of supporting a future RfA, but for now I'm reluctant to trust them with the advanced user rights.- MrX 🖋 21:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    You are opposing partly due to your "interaction on talk:Kyle Kashuv? The only "interaction" I see you and he having is you making one oppose comment to him to which he did not even respond. Aside from this discussion, was there something else?--MONGO (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

25. Oppose. Damnit. I really wanted to support, but the e-mail content disclosure was too much of a gaffe. (It doesn't matter that it wasn't a direct quotation, or that WP:WIKILAWYER arguments about the exact wording of policy can WP:SANCTIONGAME around the matter; it was just a really bad idea given the sensitive nature of the material.) As a former professional activist and policy analyst in online privacy matters, I take them seriously. The candidate seems otherwise to be a good fit for the "job", and has done stellar content work, but I can't overlook this and its happening right here in the RfA. I don't, however, agree that simply interacting with people in more than one venue (including when you disagree with some of what they're doing), or disclosing the general nature of an off-WP e-mail are transgressive on their own. "Stalking"/"harassment"/"hounding" on this site refers to unconstructive behavior that's either outright bad-faith or grossly incompetent, and I don't see that here, just a slower-than-perfect awareness that one was becoming a bother. For one thing, we'd never be able to do things like clean up after obvious WP:SPA PoV-pushers after their indefs if it were impermissible to undo their bias on multiple pages; that's important as a general principle even if it doesn't describe the individuals at hand this time. And two years ago is a long time to still be suspicious that the candidate would re-engage in inappropriate over-interaction or dispute-perpetuation. Nor would I agree that one cannot disclose that e-mail has happened or even what the nature of it was if there's a legit reason to do so (e.g. "FooBarBaz21, the opener of this RfC, asked me in e-mail to support their view on it, and I'm not cool with being canvassed in that way. JimBob99 says he was also canvassed. This RfC should be closed as invalid.", or whatever.) In the end, though, neither of these hypothetical demurrers do anything to mitigate the actual judgement lapse by the candidate here in RfA itself with regard to private communications (from someone one had been in disputes with!) about private experiences. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
26. Oppose Lack of specificity on why the tools are needed combined with the concerns raised by other editors regarding interactions with other editors. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
27. Oppose per Ched. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
28. Oppose unfortunately per above. Concerns with inappropriate email disclosure and past [clerk edit: unwanted following] issues. -FASTILY 00:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
29. Oppose. I pay little attention to the technical knowledge of a candidate; if lacking it can be learnt by interaction with other administrators. I rate most highly temperamental stability and character. I cannot support this candidate at this time because of his comparatively recent history of hounding. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC).
30. Oppose - The creeping, vigorous ninja-like following, and harassment are really fucking weird and I think there would be a real danger to giving someone like this advanced permissions. --Laser brain (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
31. Oppose per SoWhy and #2 of Ched's comment. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
32. Oppose Disclosing email contents without permission is a big no-no even back in the wild west days of RfA in 2007-2008. An experienced editor like GRuban, who began editing in 2005, is expected to know this common knowledge. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
33. Oppose I share concerns with other editors above - while I don't remember ever interacting with GRuban before, on balance, the judgment issues that I see above outweigh the demonstrated need. SportingFlyer T·C 06:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
34. Oppose. Valuable contributor, but the hounding/email thing is not a good look for an admin. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 07:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
35. Oppose due to possible hounding issues, Grimpen Mire and all that. →StaniStani 08:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
36. Oppose The environment is toxic enough on Wikipedia for women but making it worse is beyond it for me. I know I make mistakes, it seems to be one blunder after another this year, but for administration I would expect a more even application of behaviour and it lacks here. scope_creep^Talk 09:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
37. Oppose Hounding someone is never appropriate. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
38. Oppose due to Q7. Nobody who conducts that kind of behavior is suitable for adminship. ArkayusMako (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
39. Oppose - My sense is that the candidate genuinely believes in collegiate editing and never intended to harass other users. However, the diffs from Q7, Ched's diffs (especially #3), and this RfA indicate to me that the candidate is not completely aware of why his actions have been construed as stalking/hounding by other users. It seems he is genuinely apologetic for the harm caused but I am not convinced he knows what not to do in the future. Hence the email incident at this RfA I believe showed a significant lack of judgement — not that his actions were or were not against policy (I make no judgement there) but rather he seemed unaware that, in this context, sharing the details of a private email from someone who had accused him of harassment without consulting the user beforehand would upset the user in question and be perceived by many as further evidence of problematic behaviour. While I believe the candidate has good intentions, I am opposing based on what I perceive as a lack of self-awareness and judgement which are crucial attributes for an admin. WJ94 (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
40. Oppose I was at first going to support this RfA as I've seen them make many good RfC closures, and have used some of them to learn how to become a better closer myself. I am also inclined to disregard almost any issues that occured over a year ago, however the poor judgement shown on this very page, especially regarding the email has regretfully forced me into this column. I wish GRuban all the best, but now isn't the time for adminship. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
41. Oppose I very much wanted to support this, and I don't agree that the so-called 'hounding' was half as egregious as many other people seem to consider it. However, the latest issue with the email is enough to push me here, with regret. Hug^syrup 13:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
42. Oppose We are a few days into the RFA and they have already done something that is lacking in good judgement, as the email issue above shows.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
43. Oppose. Stalking/harassment is never appropriate, the disclosure of private offline material is also inconsistent with someone to be empowered by the community. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
44. Oppose per the issues brought up above. RockingGeo (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
45. Absolutely have to Oppose this one. Candidate has shown some serious lapses in judgement, and even if I were to accept that these were honest mistakes, I can't trust that their "different" and "more creative" new mistakes wouldn't be just as bad. They have, unfortunately, set the bar for what we could expect future mistakes to resemble, and I find that particular bar unacceptable. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
46. Oppose per a comment below that alerted me to this change of heart by one of the co-nominators . - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
47. Oppose I apologize for this, but this user seems to lack proper judgement that is needed for the heavy toolset of an admin. The stalking issue is a problem as is the mentioning of off-wiki interactions. Sorry, but more positive judgement and understanding of their mistakes is needed. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
48. Oppose The stalking issue is troubling and indicates a lack of the necessary judgment for an admin. Neljack (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
49. Weak oppose (moved from neutral). I think the point has been reached where niggling doubts mean it would not be the right way to start an adminship. Candidate is handling it well, perhaps admirably, on their talk page but I've hit the point where I personally would err on oppose side perhaps because I am risk-averse... usually. Also if my former neutral reasoning I said neutrality was edge based on the judgement of a handful of those I respect and one of those waivered. If the RfA fails I wish this candidate the best if it succeeds would wish the candidate wholehearted support.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
50. Oppose per SchroCat, having followed at the time. I suspect future and prolonged drama if this candidacy were to succeed. GRuban, dont take these opposes to heart; you are valued as a content editor, but maybe not yet as an administrator. If its any consolation, I would be strong oppose: not now, or ever if I was to find myself offered up to the gods here. Still I get by :). Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
51. Oppose based on the stalking issue and the email issue. I don't know much about either of these, but between them they show a lack of recognition of boundaries and poor administrative judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
52. Oppose per SchroCat. The email issue is my primary concern; while I am glad that portion was redacted, it was only done when prompted and since the email exposure is recent, it leaves me concerned about their judgement. Everyone makes mistakes (I make plenty of them and I would do a million times worse in a RfA setting) and I think everyone should be given the opportunity to grow, but I am just not comfortable with the whole situation. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
53. Oppose with regret because this editor has done good work and seems committed to the encyclopedia. But I cannot get over the stalking and email issues. I recommend that this editor withdraw their candidacy, make a comprehensive, detailed statement on these matters, and try for RfA again in a year. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
54. Oppose more or less per WJ94. I'm fully willing to apply Hanlon's razor here, and I don't think GRuban would deliberately harass/stalk/hound/doxx anyone, but the email issue in particular makes me concerned he doesn't quite grasp how absurdly privacy-centered Wikipedia culture is. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
55. Oppose I want to join others I respect in opposition. Eschoryii (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
56. Oppose Excellent content and excellent work at User:GRuban/RfC—that's very valuable, thanks. However, closing RfCs (Q12) is not an example of handling disputes. The question should be what happens when the candidate is involved in a problem, and the example we have seen (the email issue above) shows that not everyone has the right approach. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    Johnuniq, some RfCs aren't born of disputes but WP:DR#RfCs disagrees with you that RfCs aren't dispute resolution. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    On reflection, you are probably right that the author of Q12 was looking for things such as closing RfCs. I had in mind the issues of Q3 (any conflicts?) where the question is trying to see how the candidate deals with problems that inevitably arise. I was not happy with User:GRuban/Conflicts as an answer for Q3 because a couple that I checked were trivial and did not involve real conflict. What would the candidate do if trouble arose—something stronger than comma usage—and that was answered with the background to the email matter outlined above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

57. Oppose per disclosure of email content. I cannot trust the candidate to be given admin bits as admin can access history of deleted pages, which might contain private information. Froswo (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
58. Oppose; editors who fail to appreciate privacy and follow others around like that should not have advanced permissions. Baffle☿gab 06:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
59. Oppose - All the reasons are already spoken by others. Blessings. ~ Josephine W. ☮ Talk to Me ☮ Email Me 08:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    @Josephine W.: You already !voted to support GRuban a few days ago, I presume you mean to strike your support? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    @Amory: Yes - at that time I did not read additional questions. I have deleted support comment. Blessings. ~ Josephine W. ☮ Talk to Me ☮ Email Me 12:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    ​Cool. Tradition is to strike and indent changed !votes rather than completely remove them, so I've restored and done that for you, hope you don't mind. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

60. Oppose following disclosure of email content. Loopy30 (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    Yes the email thing gives me concern. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

61. Oppose - it's not the quality of the contributions that gives me cause for concern, it's how the nominee interacts with fellow Wikipedians. Sometimes a spade just has to be a spade, and an apology just has to be an apology, without a paragraph of fluff to insulate or explain it, no matter how helpful or necessary one may think it should be. If a future RfA for this candidate comes up I'd like to see a change in behaviour that doesn't make me feel like the candidate is in damage-control mode; the apologies just don't sit well with me. Also, the email thing. We can't all know the mountain of WP: rules, but that is a pretty basic internet ettiquette thing. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
62. Oppose per the very good arguments above and because of the email referenced Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:20, 9 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)

   Neutral - Per Sagaciousphil and SchroCat. The behavior is concerning, but it was two years ago. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   A leopard never changes its spots, and if this was RL, mud would rightly stick, so no, the fact it's been two years is irrelevant. Cassianto^Talk 20:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   I'm a firm believer that people can change. However, the email incident above is yet another strike against the candidate, so I will be moving to oppose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

2. Neutral (from Support) My initial support was based largely on "Why not", but editors have given valid rebuttals to that question. I want to think longer and harder about this request, so I'm moving to neutral until I have time to look into the concerns raised. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   I think I will likely remain here. While the inciting incident for the opposes was almost 2 years ago, the revelation of private correspondences was today, and these unforced errors do not inspire confidence. Will this editor be a net positive with the tools? I don't know the answer, and I doubt I will come by it in the next few days. I would rather sit this one out. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

3. Neutral I am unfamiliar with Gruban or their work, but was leaning support. But the wikihounding incident concerns me. I don't think we've gotten to the bottom of the issue yet. The series of events remains muddy to me. I will hold off on a vote until more discussion has been had on the matter. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Neutral I reread the bit about the email and am now undecided. At first blush I thought that GRuban had only revealed that an email had been sent, and alluded to the contents of his reply. I did not realize that he had also paraphrased the other side of the conversation, and I need to think about this further before making a real vote. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Neutral (Moved from neutral, to support, now here again) at the distinct risk of ping-ponging, the email issue has me concerned. Unlike comments above about individuals never changing (which as a general statement on wikipedians is completely incorrect), I don't think this is a relapse into wikihounding behaviour. I do however think it is an instance of significant poor judgement for an RfA candidate aware they're on thin ice. There is also still ambiguity remaining. As such, I feel neutral is best for now - if I move again it will be on the final day. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
6. Neutral (moved from support). I'll just park it here after reading the "oppose" section. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral Very much expected to support, even with the concerns from two years ago ~ of course people can and do change, on a regular basis, despite some statements above. The current e-mail incident, however, is a little too much for me this moment. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Moved. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello

   Neutral(moving to weak oppose) Edged from a weak oppose by virtue of my trust in judgement of some admins who are supporting. If I fully analysed everything I might just of for support. I will go neutral and leave the choice to others unless I see something significant. Best wishes to candidate. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

7. Neutral I'm uncomfortable with the wikihounding behavior, but I'm also aware that negatives like this coming out in an RfA can inspire a mob mentality where people jump to oppose. Going to see how this plays out, potential to move to oppose. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
8. Moved from support. Concerned by the issues raised by opposers, but not concerned enough to oppose. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
9. Neutral: I am exceptionally uncomfortable with the actions and behaviours demonstrated by the candidate both here and in the past; I am, I admit, also unfamiliar with the candidate. Nevertheless, there is a potential for more information to come to light, and I trust the judgment of a number of supporters; so I find myself here for now, too. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
10. Neutral: Many good qualities and many thoughtful answers, but am worried by the accusations. Everyone makes mistakes, and if people really learn from those and move on, that's probably the best outcome. But I still have worries over the issues that have been highlighted. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
11. Neutral for now. I am not very familiar with the candidate (and this is my first time getting involved in an RfA at all), but the nomination statements, answers to questions and a brief perusal of their contributions seem positive to me. The potential hounding issues raised in the oppose section are somewhat concerning, but on the other hand I am not very fond of the way some of the opposers have comported themselves either. Physdragon (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
12. Neutral (from support) as the email disclosure was very concerning. I now feel like there's a lot more to unpack about what GRuban did but I don't have time to read enough context on the matter to discern what happened. I'm not moving to oppose (1) because I do not like to oppose a candidate without a constructive explanation of when I would support a future RfA; and (2) because I do not have time at the moment to consider this matter as thoroughly as it deserves. On this subject, but markedly not about this particular incident, I would like to opine that we have quite an unaddressed contradiction in Wikipedia culture between being expected to research contribution history or keep track of grievances against a user (e.g. for ANI or Arbcom) and being expected to not hound someone. However, this is not an excuse for actions that make a person feel followed or threatened. I bring it up merely because I've been doing some introspection on this topic recently, particularly about what in our community that we could change to reduce rates of hounding and harassment, and thought others may like to do the same. — Bilorv (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
13. Neutral After my own diggings, the contributions that I care about seems to be ok. I agree with Martinevans123 above. Waiting for the candidate to answer Q14, since that appears as the elephant in the room. I would like to hear his side of the story. A mature response can get him my support. But before that a response must come. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
14. Nuetral per SchroCat. Masum Reza^📞 11:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
15. Neutral While I think this RFA has turned into a case of political correctness gone mad with the side discussion and clerking, there are some notable concerns. I am also interested in seeing a response to Q14, and will switch my vote if the candidate answers the question. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

General comments

•  Note: Many comments from this section pertaining to the "unwanted following" concern have been moved to the talk page. –xeno^talk 13:14, 8 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”. [clerk edit: additional comment moved to talk] –xeno^talk 11:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Clerk note: I've replaced some usages of the term "stalk", a word referring to an action that is considered criminal in many juridictions, with "hound" (or variants) as a clerk action. I have not replaced the usages used in general, or those used by the aggrieved parties. This action can be appealed to WP:BN. –xeno^talk 18:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

←  Clerk note: In response to concerns raised by SilkTork and Iridescent, I’ve replaced the clerked instances of “hounding” with “unwanted following” without prejudice to the users restoring the “hounding” terminology of their own volition if it more accurately represents their original view. Affected users: @WaltCip, Intothedarkness, GiantSnowman, Fastily, and Laser brain:. –xeno^talk 10:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"Unwanted following" works. It's actually an even better descriptor than "hounding". Kurtis ^(talk) 14:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

---

• Request to the xeno: will you please strike the sock’s comments here and on the TP? They should not be allowed to remain. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  Atsme Thank you for the ping. I've done that, and reported the incident to WP:BN#Sock contributions to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GRuban. –xeno^talk 20:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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.