Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ruhrfisch

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

[edit] Ruhrfisch

Final (62/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 18:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) - Two featured lists, four featured articles and fifteen DYK. Over a thousand commons uploads. More than two years of tireless and flawless contributions. I'm delighted to nominate for adminship such a fine contributor as User:Ruhrfisch. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Second I would like to co-nom. or second Ruhrfisch for admin. In my experience he has always been a diligent contributor to wiki and calm and patient when dealing with conflicts. His work speaks for itself. Dincher (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am honored to be nominated and accept, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I added some information about myself and work here on the talk page Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Starting small, I would use the ability to check if an article is being watched or not, and add unwatched municipality articles in Ohio and Pennsylvania to my watchlist. I have over 1700 items on my watchlist and I find vandals this way frequently - when I do find vandals I revert, warn or report them to Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV), then check their contributions and undo damage done to articles not on my watchlist. Another admin tool I would like to be able to use is the rollback function - I have encountered two spammers in the past week and undoing all their spam is tedious, so anything to make that easier would be welcome.

I would also be willing to help tackle backlogs. I have some experience reporting images at possibly unfree images (PUI) and vandals at AIV, and would try helping with those backlogs, as well as with speedy delete requests. I also would check the Did you know/Next update to see if it is past the time limit, something I have found several times this past week (just checked and it is two hours past as I write this!). (I would not add articles to DYK update that I or frequent collaborators wrote.)

I often wind up doing things on Wikipedia because others have asked for my help or I tried something new, and not because of some great plan. So to be honest, I imagine there are also admin jobs I might do that I am not even thinking of now. As past examples, requests by others led me to start one Featured Article and several DYKs, and I have gotten more involved in Peer Review, Good Article reviews, and the Conflict of interest Noticeboard trying to help out. I think part of being an admin is a willingness to do mundane and thankless tasks for the good of the encyclopedia, and I am sure I could find more of those given the chance.

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

A: I am almost hesitant to single out articles and collaborators, as I try to make all my contributions useful and have worked with many, but here goes. While not claiming ownership, I will admit to being quite proud of my edits to the four featured articles and two featured lists I have made significant contributions to, as well as my contributions to three Good Articles and Did You Know (both edits and pictures I took). I have also made a fair number of maps and uploaded many pictures (mostly ones I took myself).

Larrys Creek was my first GA and FA and has served as a model for all the creek articles I work on. White Deer Hole Creek was my second FA and showed me the first was a good model (and no fluke). While other editors (particularly Choess and Daniel Case) had made substantive contributions to my first two FAs, List of Pennsylvania state parks (my first FL) showed me the real joy of collaboration, as Dincher, VerruckteDan and I worked to organize information on 120 current and 18 former state parks. I helped Dincher bring List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania to FL status, and Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) grew out of a request to get rid of a red link in that list. Plunketts Creek just kept growing and became my second GA and third FA. Continued collaborative work on state parks led to my third GA (Worlds End State Park) and fourth FA (Presque Isle State Park).

I am always thrilled when my contributions are of use to others, so seeing that Larrys Creek now is the subject of an article on the Chinese Wikipedia is indescribable (and sadly, for me, indecipherable), as is finding that a picture I took or map I made is used in another article or on other language Wikipedias. When Larrys Creek was Today's Featured Article in October, I was amazed at the efforts of so many first helping to get it ready (including Ben MacDui and Daniel Case) and then reverting vandalism around the clock. I was also pleased that useful new material was added to the article as a result. The longer I work here, the more I realize what a joint effort all this is, and I hope that I have helped others improve articles as much as many kind and helpful users here have helped me and the articles I have worked on.

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: My first edit as a registered user led to me being accused of being a sockpuppet here, which was stressful, but the kindness of Jwrosenzweig helped and taught me to not bite newbies. I kept a low profile after that for a while, but gradually got more involved with other users. I still leave {{welcomeg}} on red user talk pages that show up on my watchlist.

The other major conflict I had over editing involved my removing link spam in the Newton Falls, Ohio article (see the article talk page, the AMA case page, and my talk page). In retrospect I devoted too much effort to this, but now I do try to leave notices when I remove external links left by registered users. I benefitted from the calm advice of Dincher and Athaenara, learned to state my case and then leave it, to depend on others to defend me, and ultimately on the consensus of the community. I have not had any other major edit conflicts that I was directly involved in (that I recall), but have had lots of little encounters with vandals, etc.

One other way other users have caused me stress is by leaving - too many editors I have known and worked with have left the project for various reasons, and I miss them and their contributions. I especially miss ClairSamoht, ExplorerCDT (well, most of the time), and IvoShandor. I hope this has made me cautious in disputes - I would hate to be the cause of someone productive leaving the project, and would exercise caution as an admin too.

4. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A. Yes, I have operated the semi-automated peer review account (semi-bot) AZPR (talk · contribs) since September 2007. I had done the semi-automated peer reviews for all peer review requests by hand on several occasions when AndyZ was on wikibreak, but it was very labor intensive (took me about 5 minutes per peer review and there are well over 100 per month). So I asked AndyZ on August 31, 2007 if I could have the full script to set up an account similar to AZPR (see User_talk:AndyZ/Archive_7#A_standing_offer). He offered me the account instead (see User_talk:Ruhrfisch/Archive7#PR) and I have used it just to do the semi-automated peer reviews since. I have never used it for anything but peer review, only use it every few days, and almost always add Ruhrfisch to the edit summary when I paste the reviews I run into the current WP:PR/A page (the other edit summaries are automatic). Except to tweak the script (which I do not know how to do), I do not believe AndyZ has even logged into the AZPR account since September. (Correction - see AndyZ's comment below)

I apologize that I did not mention this here before. The User:AZPR page says at the top "This user account is a semi-bot operated by Ruhrfisch and/or AndyZ.". As noted above, this was on both our talk pages, and I have mentioned it in other places (such as Wikipedia_talk:Content_review/workshop/Archive_1#A_dissenting_view), but I should have explicitly mentioned it here as well.

Finally, I once made an account just to clear the login memory after using a public computer (the login for Wikipedia still said Ruhrfisch, then after I made the new account, it instead said the name of the new account). I have never made any edits with it (I created it in late 2006). I would prefer not to disclose the user name here, as it is a name I have used elsewhere on the internet that is more closely identified with me. I would be willing to email the account name to interested parties. As noted above, I do have Ruhrfisch accounts on Commons (close to 1500 edits) and the German Wikipedia (very few edits). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

• See Ruhrfisch's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Ruhrfisch: Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

1. The first support comes free with the nomination ;-) Good luck, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, a fine user. EJF (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Absolutley Dustihowe (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
4. If the first support comes free with the nomination, this support comes with a free subscription to the Signpost. Useight (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Excellent editor, good answers to questions and willing to work on PUI. Mr.Z-man 19:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
6. ...And this support comes with half the support of two supports. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Strong longtime contributor. Rigadoun (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Good news everyone! - I support this nomination. — Rudget _speak.work 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Support A fine editor and a reasonable voice and always willing to help. I really don't think that I would be making the contributions that I make without his friendship, support and encouragement. Dincher (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Strong support --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Per User:Pedro/RFA Standards. Another image-working admin? Yes please. Excellent work, excellent nomination. An absolute pleasure to offer support. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. Great content contributions to the project. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
14. Support. Go for it writer! --MoRsE (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Oh yes indeedy, an excellent editor. RMHED (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Looks good. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
17. I trust this user with the tools. -JodyB _talk 22:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Strong, knowledgeable, and even-keeled editor. Perhaps best, a record of no drama with other admins and editors. Michael Devore (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Can find no reason to say no to this user and lack of drama is always a good thing. --Djsasso (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Give him the adminship.--Sunderland06 00:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. Wow, a great editor. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Sieht alles ok aus. I dorftrottel I talk I 02:20, December 8, 2007
23. You have done some good work. Mønobi 03:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Support A great contributor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Support, of course! Auroranorth (!) 04:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
26. No way I can oppose this one. :) GlassCobra 04:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Support - reluctantly as I fear that administration's gain may be main space's loss. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Support don't know him but looks good. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Support I met Ruhrfisch through his work in Pennsylvania local history, and he has always been an outstanding editor. His articles are a joy to behold, and he's always impressed me with his amiable, reasonable and conciliatory temperament. I don't think Ben need worry — if I know him, I think the admin bit will enhance his editing rather than replace it. Choess (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Support per Snowolf's concise, compelling nomination. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Absolutely !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Certainly. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Jmlk17 07:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Support. We need more people with such skills. - Darwinek (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. Ruhrfisch has been a pleasure to work with and the quality and detail of his contributions are a great asset to Wikipedia. I am confident that he will have similar success as an admin. VerruckteDan (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
36. I agree with SandyGeorgia. Acalamari 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Support — Good lord yes. To those of you who bitch and moan whenever I oppose a self-nom, this is what I'm looking for. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
39. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Yes, surely — P.K.Niyogi (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Strong support Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
42. Support as an excellent, prolific, even obsessive, editor who can be trusted. I'm not sure he needs the mop, but why not? Bearian (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Support great editor who uses good judgement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
44. Support - I almost opposed, on the grounds that when you become an admin, you won't spend as much time uploading. The Transhumanist 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Support I seen the little green fish in many ponds, and trust it will make good use of a mop in its mouth.><>−−€ Slp1 (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Support - good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
47. Oppose that this should distract this fine user from his excellent article writing, support sysop bit being toggled. henrik•talk 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Support per snowwolf. User will certainly use the tools wisely. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
49. Support. His article work listed at User:Ruhrfisch/Milestones is impressive, and in my experience he is patient and diplomatic. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
50. Support though I have logged on since September ;) AZ _t 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
51. Support - our paths have never crossed before, but this editor looks super. Excellent track record, awesome contributor, polite and kind to all. Yup! Mop time :) - Alison ^❤ 05:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
52. Strong Support - Absolutely no reasons not to give the user the tools. PookeyMaster (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
53. Clearly. Geometry guy 22:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
54. Support will use the tools well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
55. Support Competent and trustworthy. An easy decision. VanTucky ^talk 02:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
56. Support My one interaction with the nominee was a positive one. In addition, looking at his record leads me to believe that he would make an excellent admin. —Travis^talk 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
57. Support -- he's done a heck of a job with mainspace editing and in creating excellent articles, and I'm sure he'll do just as good of a job as an admin. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
58. Support. Great candidate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
59. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 05:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
60. Strongest support I have yet given an admin candidate. I deeply appreciate his encomia to me in the answers he gave to his questions. A talented editor who is way way overdue for the mop. Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
61. Support. I've run across his contributions from time to time, and nothing in them or in this RfA suggests to me that he would be anything but an excellent admin. Coemgenus 17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
62. Support Evidently there's nothing to be said against Ruhrfisch, and I can certainly find nothing.--Bedivere (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral

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.