User talk:GRuban/RfA

Opinions?

WP:RfA voters preparing to do their duty

@Alex Shih, Anna Frodesiak, Cunard, GorillaWarfare, Kudpung, Newyorkbrad, and SlimVirgin:

Hi, folks. You're all experienced editors whom I respect, and know a thing about adminship, so I would like to run this (the user page statement for this talk, User:GRuban/RfA) by you before putting myself before the legendary WP:RFA firing line, to stand without either a last cigarette or a blindfold. If any of you think I shouldn't do it, I probably won't do it. Any advice, whether for or against running in general or about ways to tweak this statement in particular? You can tell me here, or, if you think you have to tell me something especially harrowing, or otherwise not for public consumption, feel free to send an "Email this user" instead. Especially if your answer is "No, don't do it!", please tell me now, before I hear it from several hundred others. (If you either don't care or have already told me all you care to, you can remain silent too. No obligation.)

This is intended to be my nomination statement, I'm probably going to copy and paste it into the appropriate place. Is it too long? Especially do I need the fourth paragraph, which is an attempt to answer a couple of common questions before they're asked - is it helpful, or just TL;DR? --GRuban (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive270#Neil Gross

• Hi GRuban, I hope you don't mind my showing up here. I consider Atsme a close wiki-friend, and I found this page by following her. For whatever it may be worth, I do think the nom statement needs to be shortened. I recently interacted with you at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive270#Neil Gross, where I feel that you, acting entirely in good faith, got taken in by a POV-pusher with an ulterior motive, something I might perhaps ask about at an RfA. I'm not saying that it would make me oppose, but I'm just offering it in the context of you asking to hear about that sort of thing sooner rather than later. Good luck – I mean that! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice, and the notice! I'm afraid I stand by my comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive270#Neil Gross. Basically, there was a contentious section that relied solely on the subject's own statements in a podcast. That's not good enough for a contentious statement in a WP:BLP. WP:BLPREMOVE is pretty clear on this point, and it's policy. The cure seems pretty simple, find better sourcing for the statement; if this really is the most important thing that Gross is known for, surely someone else can be found to say that.

I think know what you're getting at, Wikipedia:Assume good faith is not a suicide pact: you're saying that the motives of editors making arguments are important. Well, maybe in some cases, though, honestly, in general it is a good idea to address what the other person says, not attack the person who says it. But certainly in this case it isn't the key point. Our WP:BLP policy isn't dependent on who points it out. --GRuban (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, that's fine if you feel that way, and I don't intend to argue about that. Just thought that I would point that out. But I am now more likely to oppose if you do run an RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a shame. Want to try one more time to explain why you think I'm wrong? I mean, I've been wrong before, and you seem an experienced editor and a reasonable person, so, if you go into a bit more detail, maybe you could convince me? I'd hate to think I've been misinterpreting WP:BLP all this time, it's kind of important. --GRuban (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I think you understand BLP just fine. What you didn't understand was that I and other editors quickly fixed all the genuine issues at the page by adding other sources – and there was absolutely zero that was contentious about the quote. The only "contention" was according to a POV-pusher trying to denigrate the BLP subject. In other words, there was a POV-pusher who wanted to make the BLP subject look bad, and was claiming that the kinds of things that the BLP subject is noted for were somehow bogus and therefore he latched onto BLP as a way to claim that the quotes should be deleted. He was going from page to page, doing this about the BLP subject. So, paradoxically, we had someone trying to use the BLP policy to violate the BLP policy in order to make a BLP subject look bad in order to push a POV. And this could be figured out by examining the article talk page. I appreciate that you were responding in good faith and meant well. But you got taken in, and I want admins to be able to recognize those kinds of things.

That said, I'm sorry that I've taken up so much of this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, I asked! So here is the edit in question from the discussion. 3 paragraphs, in an article that was otherwise 4 paragraphs long, sourced only to the subject's remarks in a single podcast, and contentious, because another editor contested it. The solution to that is not to call that editor names; even if you could prove your case and get that editor indefinitely blocked, that's just not going to fix the problem of half the article sourced to a single source which is the subject himself. (And, frankly, though User:Netoholic does have a block log the length of all outdoors, he also has seven barnstars, and at least 14 years of contributions, I strongly doubt he's solely "a POV-pusher", I suspect he's trying to improve the article as much as you are.) The solution, the only solution, is to find more sources for that section, as has been done in the current version of Neil Gross. Not futilely try to defend the article by making personal attacks on people who find problems with it, fix the problems. In the end, Wikipedia is a source of knowledge, not a chat room or a debating society, and we editors are here to write articles. We should avoid fighting each other in an illusion of productivity. Any argument that turns personal, and doesn't end up in improved articles, is a waste of typing at best. --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

If what you take away from that is that you think I was making NPA violations, then I will definitely oppose your RfA. Period. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't make personal attacks at BLPN. You were civil, you didn't write "POV-pusher". In fact, you wrote "OK, I can see the point that GRuban is making." But the cure, in the end, was adding more sources, not arguing that the article was fine with the single source, right? --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I struck that (and that was a good idea, to make this a section). I don't think that I really was arguing that it was fine with a single source, especially given that it was I who went and added the additional sources. (The original version, with the reliance on just the podcast, was written by other editors before I ever got involved.) I was arguing that removing it according to WP:BLPREMOVE (as opposed to adding more sources – and remember that there was really never anything contentious about the quote) was unjustified and disruptive. In other words, when there is a reliably-sourced and genuinely non-disputed and representative quote from the BLP subject (something where there is absolutely no way that the BLP subject would feel misquoted or anyone else would reasonably feel that the quote was somehow unrepresentative, and multiple editors on the talk page were saying so, with just one editor insisting otherwise), this was far from being a BLPREMOVE situation. Just add some more sources, which existed in abundance. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That's great, we're cool then! The article is fine now, and that's the important thing.

Arguing over whether something was contentious wouldn't be going anywhere good; except possibly the Monty Python argument sketch, which it would bear a strong resemblance to! --GRuban (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from GorillaWarfare

Hey George! This is exciting news to me, and I look forward to showing up with my "strong support" if and when you do run. I do agree with Tryptofish that your statement is a bit on the longer side, though I don't think egregiously so. Consider also that all candidates get the set of three standard questions when they run:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
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?

Your nomination statement overlaps quite a bit with 1 and 2, so you can probably shorten it by splitting those pieces into your responses to those questions. I'd be curious to know if you've thought about/come up with an answer for 3—in my opinion it is one of the most telling questions.

I don't expect you'll run into any major opposition, although take this with a grain of salt given I don't spend a ton of time researching/!voting for RfA candidates; I mostly just chime in periodically to vote for folks such as yourself with whom I've interacted and from experience know to have good judgment.

One last thing—I'm not sure I know anyone fluent in Russian, so I'm coming to you—what does not capitalizing the R do? I tried putting "gruban" into Google Translate but it was not helpful... GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable advice, your Gorilla Ship! Yes, that's a real article; no, I didn't write it... Will rewrite, to spread the damage among the standard questions, and when done, will reping the list of people, since that didn't work right the first time.

As for GRuban, this explanation is likely more than it's worth. Capitalized, it's the first letter of my first name and my last name, which is a fairly common way of making an email alias, and I used it for multiple workplaces and websites, including Wikipedia, for years, without noticing anything. Then a friend pointed out that all lower case and in Russian, it's a slightly old fashioned term meaning a rude male person. And now I can't forget it. It's basically The Game, but just for me. You have to type the Cyrillic into Google Translate, then it says "coarse", which is close but doesn't quite capture all the nuance. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, that's both quite funny and somewhat unfortunate... GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll go with funny!! 😂🤣 ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• More like "hard", no? "Don't be so hard on me." "grub" is the word in Croatian, and I never associated GNU GRUB with it. wumbolo ^^^ 18:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Added question answers

@Alex Shih, Anna Frodesiak, Cunard, GorillaWarfare, Kudpung, Newyorkbrad, and SlimVirgin: All right, folks, after some gnawing of nails and much procrastination, I've edited the user page side of this with answers to the 3 obligatory questions per GorillaWarfare's excellent advice. Any other advice on the statement, running for adminship, or the price of tea in China? --GRuban (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me. If it matters, please note that I'll be on vacation from this Saturday, August 18, until next Sunday, August 26. I'll be online occasionally during that week, but less often than usual. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well! Best of luck with your run, I hope it is as painless as possible... GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Just read WP:RFAADVICE one last time to be sure you have missed nothing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Be prepared for some very awkward questions and/or votes concerning your AfD votes. Mail me if you don't understand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any issues; an intelligent person, a working professional, occasional unexpected humour, experienced Wikipedian, and level-headed. If people are going to complain about "temperament" again, I will be prepared to scream. Alex Shih (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi GRuban. I will enthusiastically support your RfA. Thank you for the great work you've been doing at WP:ANRFC and for writing articles like Rebecca Moore (scientist), Brad Smith (American lawyer), and Kathleen Hogan. I appreciate and am honored by your kind words.

I did not receive your first ping so did not see this page until now. From Wikipedia:Notifications#Notification messages: "Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent." Pings were not sent out because the timestamp did not get changed.

I think the nomination statement and answers to the questions are very good. I really like the links to your user page, User:GRuban/CoI, User:GRuban/RfC, and User:GRuban/Conflicts to provide supplemental information. I have a few pieces of feedback. For the "what are your best contributions", you link to those supplemental pages (which is good). I think the answer would be further improved if you were to choose several of your content contributions and RfC closes that you are particularly proud of and that are representative of your good work on Wikipedia. Some RfA participants may not take the time to read through those user pages (which describe 70 articles, 700 images, many RfC closes). It would be helpful to make their evaluation of you easier by presenting specific examples of your best work.

1. For content contributions, I really liked these intriguing descriptions in a footnote at User:GRuban/CoI about articles you created:
   • the man who turned Harlem black, partly by buying houses and kicking white people out of them
   • the successful pulp artist, who gave up being an anarchist after he left a bomb in a Pittsburgh outhouse
   • the local marathon runner who never left the US until she ran 7 marathons on 7 continents in 7 days ... and won them (Antarctica was so cold her iPhone shattered)
   • the man whom brittle bone disease makes live in a wheelchair and look like a three year old, but wrote the imageboard for trolls whom 4chan wouldn't accept
   • the black, female, Victoria's Secret model ... and iOS app developer
   The quote at the top of your user page advises editors to work on articles that "giv[e] you a nice tug at the heartstrings" and do "work on something you genuinely care about". These well-written, well-sourced, meaty articles that are about interesting topics or help counter systemic bias are perfect examples of how your work embodies that wise advice.
2. For RfC closes, your close of Talk:Freedom Caucus#RFC: far-right was meticulous in assessing the RfC's consensus. When your RfC close was questioned on your talk page, you then went the extra mile to analyze the RfC in excruciating detail. This discussion demonstrates you are a patient, scrupulous RfC closer who is willing to make difficult closes and spend substantial time explaining your decisions to RfC participants. A second example is your RfC close of Talk:Vaccine#Proposed merge with Vaccination; you noted at User:GRuban/RfC, "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." This shows you are willing to do the dull and painful yet beneficial necessary work others are reluctant to do. You went the extra mile in implementing the consensus in that RfC instead of leaving the undoing of the merge as somebody else's problem.
3. Regarding joining Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall, some RfA participants might ask what your recall criteria will be. It may be helpful to come up with your own recall criteria before starting the RfA. Sample recall criteria can be found on the user pages of admins open to recall. As a word of caution, RfA candidates who have said they will be open to recall in the past have been opposed for making that pledge. There is more background about why here. This is something to be aware of. It is not to discourage you from saying you're open to recall in the RfA. I am unaware of any RfAs' being unsuccessful because of such a pledge. In a recent RfA, a candidate said in response to a question that he would be open to recall and received no opposes for it, so this may no longer be a concern among editors.
4. Your RfA nomination statement notes: "capitalizing the R makes a difference, ask anyone fluent in my other native tongue". RfA participants likely will be curious about that, so I recommend adding or linking an explanation like the one you gave here.

Thank you again for your invaluable contributions to Wikipedia! I look forward to supporting your RfA and wish you the best!

Cunard (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

🕰

Hurry up, already. 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. You have a point, but unfortunately life things are coming up unexpectedly. I understand that to nominate, I'll need to commit to 7 days of continued attention, which I can't guarantee quite yet. --GRuban (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

7 days!!?? Lorty - for me, committing a day is overreach. 😆 ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the RfA firing squad requires 7 days, and the candidate must be present to personally receive each bullet. Or am I wrong? --GRuban (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You are rarely wrong. Wikipedia:Advice_for_RfA_candidates#Timing ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

2019

@Alex Shih, Anna Frodesiak, Atsme, Cunard, GorillaWarfare, Kudpung, Newyorkbrad, SlimVirgin, Tryptofish, and Wumbolo: All right, folks, I didn't steel up my nerve last year due to various factors, but most of those factors improved, and Atsme didn't give up, so I updated User:GRuban/RfA; take a look, if most of you think I'm ready to go, then I'm ready to go. Kudpung, I know I haven't ideally improved the factor you were worried about, but I'm willing to risk it; yes, I'm more of an inclusionist than a deletionist, I admit it, but I do !vote delete at times, nominated one just yesterday, hopefully it will do. If one or more of you with the mop would like to nominate me, I would be honored. --GRuban (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, GRuban. If I may suggest a little more emphasis on one of the many areas you excel (it is an area where you helped me, and one where it is not easy to find experienced admins) - IMAGES, licensing and copyright. It's an area that I think Justlettersandnumbers would appreciate the help. While Commons is the main site for images, we also deal with it on en.WP, including images that are not shared at Commons. Happy to see you taking the plunge. I trust you will do well as an admin. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks for the ping from me. Please understand that I do still have some concerns about what we discussed above, but at this point in time, I'm pretty likely to support your RfA. I think it would be in your best interest to have one (or two, but probably not more) of the admins you have pinged nominate you, rather than doing a self-nom. I'd also make sure that anyone you name, by name, has agree ahead of time, before you go live with it. Where you mention "no GAs or FAs, but a number of reasonable B/C class articles", I'd leave that out, because it needlessly draws attention to something that will probably cause a few opposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both,  Done and  Done. --GRuban (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

What a welcome respite it is to come across a potential RfA candidate who actually knows how to create decent sized articles, and BLPs about women to boot! I really liked the one about the kid who sells lollies. Your self-nom is not sufficiently compelling. I need a day or two to check that you don't have any nasties lurking in your cellar that some voters would jump on and create mountains of drama, but then I'll be happy to either work out a nom or a conom with one of the others. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Heh - if you want compelling, read the wonderful things that Atsme writes about me here, with smileys even. I'd definitely vote for the guy she describes! Living up to it, that's going to be the challenge. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, thanks for the ping, and I'll be happy to support. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

GRuban (talk · contribs), I also will be happy to support.

I enjoyed reading the articles you have created recently. You wrote about a recent article creation: "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)". Elly Mayday's story as told through the article is powerful and touching. Thank you for creating articles like this.

Thank you for your continued excellent work at WP:ANRFC. I liked your nuanced close of the divided RfC Talk:Ronald Reagan#RfC (Request for Comment) on drug trafficking aspect of Iran-Contra and your detailed analysis of participants' arguments in the no consensus RfC Talk:Bengal famine of 1943#RfC: Material from the 2019 Geophysical Research Letters study.

Cunard (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung and GorillaWarfare: Um ... I really appreciate your help, and hate to be a noodge, but I think it has been almost 2 weeks that you've been looking for nasties in my cellar? I mean, if you haven't yet found the bodies buried in my garage and covered with quick drying cement, you're not going to. Did I type that out loud? I would be honored if (as Tryptofish advises) you would both co-nom as detailed in emails, since one is the main "we need more admins!" person, and the other is a respected Arb, but, if one or both of you are busy, I'll understand and will ask others. Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Didn't you get my email? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No! So sorry, but there's nothing from you in my account that I can find, not in spam or trash or anything. Any keywords that I should look for? I'll try to wikipedia mail you again so you'll be able to resend. --GRuban (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung and GorillaWarfare: Ah, I found Kudpung's emails (2!) in the trash (sometimes I hate "helpful" computer programs, then I remember that I'm a computer programmer). I think I'm as ready as I'm going to be, if you agree; there's only one other RfA, nothing seems particularly on fire at WP:ANI, etc... According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nominate#To_nominate_someone_else, it looks like one of you makes a draft page, then we all edit it, then someone pushes it to WP:RFA. Of course if you're both busy, I can do the making part. If you're interested in the latest thing I've been doing, it's User:GRuban/Jess Wade Images - not tremendously adminish, except in the "willing to work to help others" bit. --GRuban (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

So that won't happen again (prospective admins need to be able to read email!), I made a new Wikipedia-only email account, so even the spam/trash folders will not get email; when that starts getting spam, I can make yet another. --GRuban (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung, GorillaWarfare, and SlimVirgin: Kudpung: I haven't gotten anything more from you on any email. So I've made Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GRuban: if one or more of the three you is willing to fill in the nominaty bits, I would be obliged. --GRuban (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I will get to this over the weekend. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung, SlimVirgin, and Newyorkbrad:: Thanks, Kudpung! Hopefully this should be the last time I ping anyone over this. I emailed GorillaWarfare over the weekend, and she says that while she will support, she is too busy to conominate. If Sarah or Brad want to co-nom, that would be great, if not, I'll be happy to go as is. I understand the nomitors is/are technically supposed to push the page live, but I can do it if necessary. --GRuban (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I don't have time to draft a co-nom in the next few days, but I certainly anticipate supporting. Good luck! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, same here, but best of luck with it. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, if you or Kudpung have no objections, I can co-nom this weekend. Thanks, Lourdes 05:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that was unexpected; absolutely no objection! Thank you very much! --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes:? If you're too busy I will be happy to go ahead with just Kudpung's nomination. --GRuban (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Morning. Doing. Thanks, Lourdes 17:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

GRuban, hi. Would you consider starting the first question's answer with identifying a few specific areas where you would wish to contribute? (I mean, instead of writing "As an admin, I don't have any specific areas that I plan to specialize in"). I appreciate your perspective and stand by it. However, you have this whole bunch of editors who would want to say, no definite need for tools. Tell me what you think. I am continuing making the nom. Lourdes 18:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Good to go. (Do change the first line of your response as stated above, if you can). See ya. Lourdes 18:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! And launched. The customary breaking of a bottle of champagne over my head will be done by the "oppose" votes, no doubt. --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)