Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arthur Rubin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Arthur Rubin

Final (99/2/3) Ended 01:52, 2006-07-20 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) has been here for 11 months (sans 3 days). Arthur is a (notable) mathematician, he is a friendly and thoughtful person, and I believe he can be fully trusted to use the extra tools for the good of the project. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept the nomination. — Arthur Rubin |(talk) 01:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Proud to be the first to support. Shanes 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. All around good user.Voice-of-All 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Fully Support Amazing credentials and brief overview of the user's edits leads me to believe that this user will in no way abuse the tools hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Naconkantari 02:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Suppport, as nominator. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Very knowledgeable person and appears to be level-headed. Would make a great admin. --Chris S. 02:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support I think Hoopydink said it best. ViridaeTalk 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. I agree with Viridae's agreement with Hoopydink. Agent 86 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. It's good to have the extra tools- especially for those committed to building an encyclopedia.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Brand new mop - 13 dollars. Camouflage-colored flamethrower - 650 dollars. Erdős number of 1 - priceless. For everything else, there's Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-13 04:11Z
    Orane (talk • cont.) 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support This Fire Burns Always 04:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support - need more mathematicians and scientists here. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Awesome! Strong Support --Jondel 05:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Merovingian (T, C, @) 05:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. DarthVader 06:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per Oleg Alexandrov and CrazyRussian.Eluchil404 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Arthur's committed to building a good encyclopaedia and won't abuse the extra tools. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 07:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support - nice work :-) AdamSmithee 07:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support - he has clearly proven himself to be a responsible member of the community and can be trusted with admin tools. --Draicone (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, does lots of good "administrative" work already. Kusma (討論) 10:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 10:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support per all of the above. Dmharvey 10:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support – a responsible and experienced Wikipedian; we're lucky to have him. ×Meegs 11:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Having reviewed his contributions, I can say that they seem very consistently good. No signs of problems. Alphachimp talk 11:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support.I'm not sure we desperately need another mathematician admin right now, but it's best to be prepared, and hard to think of a better candidate. RandomP 11:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Yanksox 12:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support, all fine here. Proto::type 12:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support shows civility in his talk page communication, unlikely to abuse tools. Kimchi.sg 12:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support as he is the master of the subject I will never ever understand ;). Seriously though, civil, helpful & dedicated - I rest my case. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 12:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support: We require as many specialists as possible as sysop. --Bhadani 13:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Extreme oppose, by which I mean support. Not only is he a subject matter expert, he is one who is willing to do all the nitty-gritty stuff on Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Mackensen (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Civility is the key. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Civil, friendly, very intelligent, and an Erdős number of 1, what more could anyone ask for?! -- Avi 15:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support.However, I would like to quote Archimedes Plutonium on this matter:[1] "If coughing while trying to sing the song Silent Night is a flaw in singing, then Arthur Rubin above coughed during the entire song."--CSTAR 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support per all above. Roy A.A. 17:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Strong support per nom. 1ne 17:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Seems to be a good egg, and have respected his edits. Paul August ☎ 18:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  43. Pythagoras support despite adding up my Q wrong. :) --Andeh 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Don't see anything wrong here. TuspmTalk | Contribs | E-Mail Me 19:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  45. Enthusiastic Support. will bring a little expertise to the project. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support!Per nom.QuizQuick 21:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support an admin who isn't enthusiastic for the tools is less likely to abuse them. Septentrionalis 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support It all ADDS UP..get it? ADDS UP and he is a mathematician! oh :P TruthCrusader 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  49. Per Blnguyen and Hoopydink. We need more technical admins. Support ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support for all the reasons above.--TeaDrinker 22:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support - appears to be a helpful and friendly user.An example is at User talk:Arthur_Rubin#Four_types_of_error, where he helped out someone who was upset about a proposed deletion of an article and suggested methods for improving it and fixing the concerns.--Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Geo. 23:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. Solid user, and there's nothing wrong with being a little under-eagre to be an admin. Themindset 23:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 00:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support You can count on my support. --Guinnog 00:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  56. 01001100 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01100010 01100101 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01010100 01100001 01110111 01101011 01100101 01110010 00100000 01010011 01110101 01110000 01110000 01101111 01110010 01110100 01110011 -- Tawker 00:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support excellent editorDlyons493 Talk01:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support –Joke 01:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support.Looks like a successful nomination to me, but let's just add one more!:)Mostly Rainy 04:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support I was glad to see his name here. My cat agrees, but I fear our votes don't count separately... ~ trialsanderrors 06:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support, of course. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support per my interactions with him. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  64. SupportJoe I 15:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. It must be fun because everyone is doing it. Just joking :D --Terrancommander 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  66. I very much like the cautious willingness to massively trim inappropriate material from articles. --Michael Snow 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support looks good.--MONGO 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support everyone with an Erdős number of 1.--Cyde↔Weys 18:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  69. SupportI would rather see an expert who is reluctant to use the tools than someone with little knowledge and great willingness to use them. CMummert 20:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  70. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 21:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  71. Strong support — I can't believe I haven't voted in this one yet! — Deckiller 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  72. Yes Jaranda wat's sup 05:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support changed per below - Glen 05:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support per Cyde (and my usual reasons, of course). BryanG(talk) 06:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support. Lack of desperation to be an admin is a plus, for me, when (almost) all the other boxes are ticked. Rockpocket 06:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support I like his answers to the additional questions. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support. I like to see more people with mature academic credentials on the project, this one is obviously an asset. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support An excellent member of the community. Abcdefghijklm 15:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support Reswobslc 16:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support per Michael Snow. 172 | Talk 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support Looks fine to me. — xaosflux Talk 05:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support absolutely Pete.Hurd 05:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support. --Klemen Kocjancic 07:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support. Responsible candidate who interacts well. JPD (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support. Thanks for answering my questions. --AaronS 14:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support An excellent member of the community, does very good edits, should be an admin —M inun Spiderman 15:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support ! - FrancisTyers · 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support we need more mathematically-inclined admins.  Grue  11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support An excellent editor who interacts well with the rest of the community and not overly eager to get his adminship. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  17:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support. —CharlotteWebb 18:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  91. Strong support :-) --HappyCamper 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support unreservedly.-lethe talk + 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support. I hate to seem like I'm jumping on the bandwagon, but I'm doing it anyway. The logical mind of a mathematician will make an ideal addition to the legion of admins. --Wine Guy Talk 00:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support. Candidate seems to be qualified, and I don't see anything to indicate that their adminship would be harmful to Wikipedia - - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support - Seems friendly and would be a good admin - T. Moitie 12:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support - Iolakana|T 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  97. 'Support' looks good.Semperf 19:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  98. Clear support inasmuch as a general reticence in using admin tools is propitious, and since, where a user is altogether unlikely to abuse the tools (or avolitionally to misuse them, acting in area about which he is insufficiently knowledgable), there is no reason he ought to be denied adminship; even if he uses the tools once per month, the use will surely be salutary, which should dispose the issue, since the only relevant concern in whether the net effect of a user's becoming an admin will be positive or negative (as best expressed supra by Triona).If one edits a page also edited by Rubin, does he earn an Erdős number of two? Joe 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support per above. Bucketsofg✐ 23:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Somewhat Oppose Could use some more article edits, doesn't appear to need or want sysop tools at the present. I'd possibly support with some more experience. Knowing Is Half The Battle 07:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Needs to have written or have contributed heavily to an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. Orane (talk • cont.) 02:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    You "voted" support on 13 July 2006, so I assume you are changing your mind? You should cross out your support vote if this is the case. DarthVader 04:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry for the confusion. I hadn't realised. I've fixed the problem. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral I agree Mr. Rubin certainly is knowledgeable and responsible, there's no doubt. I'm just not sure he needs nor actually really wants the tools? Answers show apathy (for want of better word) and reverting does not require sysop rights. May change this as nom progresses however - Glen 03:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to support upon considering answers to newer questions - Glen 05:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the bit about closing XfDs and page moves?Blnguyen | rant-line 05:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral, leaning on Support. Reversion does not require the tools, unless you want rollback.--Tdxiang 07:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    He did say that he would close debates. Anyway, if he is only going to use the tools sparingly, at least he is being honest.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral As he does seem to have experience in the right areas, I can't help but noticing how he does not seem too enthusiastic for the tools (as pointed out above). I do like my administrative staff to want their responsibilities, but I would support if he looked like he wanted them. --WillMak050389 14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    I actually commend him for his honesty. You should check the recently created admins list and see if any of them have actually done much with their admin tools like they promised to....Blnguyen | rant-line 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Though I realize many have not done too much, he just does not seem like he wants the tools. If he did want them, he probably would have replyed to my first post here. I'm sorry, but I cannot support him.--WillMak050389 02:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral More article edits will be better.--Jusjih 00:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments

All edits.Voice-of-All 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Arthur Rubin (over the 2693 edit(s) shown on this page)--(FAQ)
Time range: 301 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 13, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 15, August, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 97.65% Minor edits: 98.29%
Average edits per day: 20.12 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last (over the 2693 edit(s) shown on this page)--(FAQ)
Time range: 301 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 13, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 15, August, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 97.65% Minor edits: 98.29%
Average edits per day: 20.12 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 257 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 2693 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.11% (3)
Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 3.12% (84)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 12.14% (327)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 46.41%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 941 | Average edits per page: 2.86 | Edits on top: 4.05%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 48.53% (1307 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 16.67% (449 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 14.18% (382 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 18.79% (506 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 27% (727) | Article talk: 18.79% (506)
User: 3.86% (104) | User talk: 8.84% (238)
Wikipedia: 36.65% (987) | Wikipedia talk: 4.64% (125)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0.07% (2)
Category: 0.11% (3)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.04% (1)

Username Arthur Rubin
Total edits 2693
Distinct pages edited 941
Average edits/page 2.862
First edit 22:35, 15 August 2005
 
(main) 727
Talk 506
User 101
User talk 238
Template 2
Category 3
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 990
Wikipedia talk 125
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I'd probably work on closing some of the backlog of WP:RM and WP:XfD.I've contributed to opening enough of them

.I've been watching a couple of "semi-vandals", and I'd probably use rollback on those of their edits which are really of no value, rather than merely being misguided.I'd also use rollback rather than my manual attempts at rollback on clear vandalism.Otherwise, no real change, and I wouldn't be planning to look for opportunities to cause trouble use the admin tools.


2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I don't have any articles I'm particularly pleased with (yet).Back on November 7, 2005, I sorted all the elements of Category:Integers into the correct sort order (I think), moving about 10% of them.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:

...Seriously, I've had edit conflicts with User:RJII over Coercive monopoly and User:CarlHewitt over a number of his personal concepts (mostly in regard mathematics and logic).(Hmmm.Neither of them has been editing lately.Coincidence?).Also, currently, User:Jose and Ricardo aka User:Joseandricardo about a number of strange redirects, disambiguations, and copies of parts of other articles; User:Friedenr on Extreme physical information and variants; and apparently the vast majority of Admins about userboxes.I haven't really been tempted to counter-vandalise pages in response to the (remember, WP:NPA and WP:AGF) questionable edits I've run across, and I've only requested (on WP:AN/I) a block once.I did request a block on WP:AN/3RR once, but it was found inappropriate, and I can live that.I do admit I've twice massively trimmed an article because I couldn't see any way the rest of it was in keeping with WP:NPOV and/or WP:OR, which some people would consider vandalism.I don't think I'd block for anything not obvious without consulting WP:AN/I.

4. From Reggae Sanderz: How would you deal with the following scenarios if you become a sysop?
  • You block a user indefinitely and he asks you to unblock him.You refuse, and he creates a new account, thinking your action is unfair.Would you reblock or try and get another sysop to help?
  • A: Probably reblock and post on WP:AN/I for a second opinion.I'd only block indefinitely for a serious matter, or if it were a clear duplicate of an existing blocked account, so a second account would also be serious.
  • You are fortunate enough to have you own article in the mainspace.Many people try to create their own bio articles and you speedy one because you feel it's not "notable".Naturally, the article is reposted.What would you do?
  • A:The speedy criteria do not include not notable; they can only have no assertion of notability.So there seem to be two (or more) questions here.Nonetheless, I think I'd tag the article, and, if necessary, post on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions if the speedy tag seems likely to be removed. — Arthur Rubin |(talk) 13:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Andypandy

5 Would you take any action on an AfD being discussed if it had four delete votes, and no keep votes and was at the top of todays AfD log?
A:If the delete "votes" give valid reasons (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy), and I'm not involved in the dispute, I think 4 is enough.Otherwise, I'd relist.If it had already been relisted, and any of the votes give a reason, and I'm not involved in the dispute,I misread the question.No, I don't think I'd close early, unless it meets one of the speedy or near-speedy (WP:BLP) deletion criteria.

Optional questions from AaronS

6. You block an editor for disruptive editing, because you think that she was engaged in a revert war. The editor explains to you that she was reverting the edits of a banned user or sock puppet. Do you unblock the editor?
A: — no, I'm not going to answer this one.It's not intended to be hypothetical, and I haven't studied the specifics.If you want to treat it as a hypothetical, I would have to say that it would no longer be a WP:3RR violation, but could still be disruptive.
7. A number of editors have asked you to reconsider your decision to block or ban a user. You feel that your decision was absolutely correct. Suppose, however, that their objections are at least reasonable. Regardless, you know you are right. What do you do?
A: I don't think this is intended to be hypothetical, either.But I'll have to consider it as a hypothetical, and add an answer later.As a hypothetical, it wouldn't require an immediate response, so I'll get back to you.
A: continued.WP:AN/I seems the appropriate forum for discussion.I wouldn't wheel war, unless the user in question produced serious damage to Wikipedia as a whole.However, if another admin unblocked without consulting me, I might reblock, once, and bring the matter before WP:AN/I.If the banned user's actions would make it difficult for me to edit, I'd suggest bringing the matter to ArbCom for an injunction, if the consensus on WP:AN/I doesn't support the ban, and I still know I'm right.
8. Do you believe that it is inevitable for longtime users and administrators to eventually lose patience with regard to dealing with complaints and the questioning of their actions? Is this reasonable and at least somewhat acceptable?
A: It's understandable, but not really acceptable.Admins should be reminded of WP:CIVIL.I might add that, I've noticed much the same thing in the Open Directory Project public forum.

Optional question from Lar:

9. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of Category:Administrators_open_to_recall? What do you think of it? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in this category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of Category:Rouge admins? What do you think of it? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not?(note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here, my comment is already recorded...) ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 17 July 2006 (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.