Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rudget

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Rudget

Final (39/16/0); Originally scheduled to end 20:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudget (talk · contribs) - I have edited Wikipedia since April 2007, but did contribute previously under an IP. I have been known as User:Radio_orange and User:Onnaghar. I currently work inline with AIV and CHU processes, hopefully becoming able to block, ban and decide on users. Rudget Contributions 21:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please appreciate that I made that last statement in good faith, and as a basis so I could expand on it later on when I knew optional questions were to come about
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Rudget Contributions 21:33, 17 October 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: If my candidacy was successful, I believe I would follow my presence on the AIV, ANI and CHU processes, as this seems the most appropriate place for me to want to continue. I anticipate working on the AIV section primarily because of the imminent reoccurence of backlog on the page (although the bot does effectively contribute!). I routinely patrol Special:Newpages and flag inappropriate pages with the correct speedy tag. Using the experience here and my understanding of WP:CSD, I believe would help me to reduce the backlog of non-marked pages which have been missed. Although, pages that get flagged are usually speedied some are disputed and left to be marked on AFD where a broader range of editors can contribute to the discussion. However, working as an Admin, I would hope not try to limit me from the good 'ole edit on a page I would like to see achieve great status.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: WP:NEWBIE states "A place to get help with editing and finding your way around Wikipedia". And this is how we all started out. I would have liked, when I started (in April 2007) to have written great articles about Sligo, Manchester, and other UK articles. But as luck would have it they were already gone, taken by the users which would eventually help me to "find my way around Wikipedia". In one of my subpages User:Rudget/Contributions, it shows any Wikipedian what I have done. It shows that I have contributed significantly or created over 15 articles, although it could be a bit biased as I added them!, but nevertheless these are the articles I am most proud of. Didsbury, especially. I have completed over 280 edits to Didsbury, and is now very near GA standard, next Manchester with 45 edits (before and during the GA review). And so on. Didsbury has been very nice to me and not really given me any hassle or took me away from my coursework, that much. The first and failed GA review, Didsbury got confused me a little but I eventually got to understand that all nominees have to go under rigourous scrutiny. But, I have solved that now and now regularly read passed GA articles, without neccessarily editing them. I also like my edits to WP:GM, distributing newsletters and other such things, which has gained me recognition by other editors in the Project. Other edits that I find good are my delivery of Welcome messages, (see:Template:Rudget WM), with which I have welcomed over 900 new editors or so, some of which have come to me for advice. [1][2]According to this I have over 4000 edits, so taking away what's registered here, that means I've got 300 or so deleted edits, which I've mainly ranked up during NPW.
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: - Honestly, I have not been involved in any edit wars, but have disputed the personalities of two other users, namely Mike33 and Malleus Fatuarum. I did cease any sort of unfrendliness between me and those users, successfully. I now enjoy a great "editorship" with Malleus and we are working extremely close together trying to get Didsbury through GA. But to come to the second part of the question, I would first as done before, immediately review my actions and act appropriately. But if this did not occur I would then ask another editor to give an independent opinion, as I did with Deskana here. Then if it escalated after that, I would consult Requests for Arbitation and other appropriate processes.
4. Would you be willing to enable your e-mail address? Doing so allows blocked users to contact you, in order to discuss the block. Ral315 » 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
A: Yes, Ral315, I would like to enable my email address because as I do in real life I am always open to rediscussions of any events that may unfold. In fact, I'd like most of my users that I may block to contact me via email, as it would enable to me to interact more quickly with the user in question.
5. Seeing that you are willing to handle WP:AIAV, how would you handle accounts after the last warning for vandalism? VoL†ro/\/Force 06:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Sockpuppet of a banned user doesn't get to ask questions. - Jehochman Talk 14:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
A: Good question. As in the green box on the AIV page it says "...vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances". And by this I interpret it as a note to all admin as saying that don't always immediately block but use the block sparingly in only appropriate cases, but to further it it says in unusual circumstances - which means I would use my power only effectively and where due, but would not block a user which has been entered as part of an edit war etc. However, that is in exceptional cases, which hardly ever turn up at AIV. Generally, I would block any obvious vandal, promotional and spam only accounts and do so decisively and swiftly. However users can sometimes be more appropriate to ANI where a greater range of editors can contribute and act effectively.
See also: User_talk:Voltron#RfA
6. What's the difference between a block and a ban? Miranda 06:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
A: Well. There is a great deal of difference between a block and a ban. The first being used right across the board, at AIV, ANI and where admin find it appropriate where not reported on the two mentioned. A block can last from 15 minutes (I think?) to any time specified, mainly indefinite against vandalism-only accounts. A ban is used more effectively when dealing with sockpuppets etc, and prohibits most users from editing pages forcing them make new accounts and think about their actions. A ban can be used for a smaller period of time in comparison with a larger ban which could be permanent. Also, forgot to mention that only ArbCom rulings and Jimbo himself can do the favours.

A question from bainer (talk)

7. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: I'd like to say always, but I can't. An individual editor should only IAR when there is sufficient evidence in their favour in their situation. For example, when an admin (or editor for that reason) comes across a user that has consistently reverted another users edits (because of clashing personalities etc) then I think they should bypass 3RR and or other systems and just block with a reason in the edit summary. However, I don't believe this policy should be used as an advatange to an editor and should not be used in other cases where an editor has disputed the content additions of another editor, which is when they should consult the correct processes and if no response is concerned, then see dispute resolution.

Question from User:Wikidudeman

8. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not?
A: - Yes, actually I would. It nevers hurts to take a step back and let other people, and most importantly yourself, and look at your past actions and how they've affected Wikipedia. If admin are responsible for the community then it helps for them to at least heed some of their advice.

Question from User:Miranda

9. What is your interpretation of BLP? Miranda
A. Considering Wikipedia's legal responsibilities which are key, all such articles future must be conducted sensitively, comply with standards of V and have RS. As an admin, I would delete any article which qualifies or is blatantly an attack page, orignal reasearch and of course every article shouldn't have a POV which is biased or COI.


Questions from Bfigura

10. If you were engaged in a long content dispute with another editor, and they started cursing suddenly, what would you do?
A: - Well, there's a tricky question. I'd obviously look back to see what I had actually done and see if I had inflammed the situation in anyway. I notice how you've mentioned that it is a content dispute, meaning it would more likely involve another editor who would probably stumble across it randomly. I'd try to understand the user and see where their sources have come from and see if they have COI or are not reliable. In which case, I'd then refer the situation to ANI or ask another editor for advice, as stated before. But if they started cursing suddenly then I'd most probably flag the conversation and paste it onto another editors talk page for assistance, as my gran would have said, two heads are better than one.


11. If an editor you were on good terms with emailed you regarding a block that seemed to be poorly founded, what actions would you take?
A: - If it was an email, I'd respond accordingly. I mostly AGF when coming into contact with editors that have been blocked in the past or that have been marked as vandals. But if it was a poorly founded block that I'd implemented, then I would begin an inquest into my actions. As before stating that I would be available for recall (See:Question from Ral315) means that I'd only be too willing to assist in any investigation or request for comment. Also, because the first notice had been by email, I'd make that available too. Importantly, after this if I had been found to be in the wrong then I would apologise to the user in question and unblock immmediately. If they [the user blocked] were new to Wikipedia, I'd also give them any advice they needed on Wikipedia. Finally, I'd like to thank the user which first contacted me and me raise self-awareness.

Optional question from User:Jehochman

12 What are some effective strategies for dealing with disruptive users? What strategies are NOT effective?
A: First, I'd like to say congratulations on becoming an admin. Some effective strategies are reporting the user to ANI, AIV, and other processes. These help to give a greater input to the equation and give a more efficient and appropriate punishment to dispruptive users. However, as you state, some strategies that aren't effective are: making personal attacks to the user inquestion; thinking the world will come to an end and rush too fast through the process and losing your "cool"; and many more. I wouldn't advise any of the latter, but I'd also like to suggest where possible, AGF.

Optional questions from Kim Bruning

13. What is the policy trifecta?. Why did the author pick those policies? Do you agree with them?
A: Just before I answer, can I ask when you say author are you referring to the creating user?

(Will answer fully when clarified) Rudget Contributions 11:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he pretty much did write that page, and it's quite cool that you researched it!
Hmm, for now I'm especially interested in your opinion, though. You could think of the trifecta as a prototype for the five pillars. Why do you think Seth chose those guidelines, at the time?
A: - In short, I would agree with those three principles. Remaining at NPOV is probably one of the most important and necessary policies on Wikipedia, so including that is a major part of my understanding and awareness of the "trifecta". Saying that, "Don't be a dick", is an even more larger part of my edits complying mostly with the trifecta, being civil and keeping your cool, are two of the hardest things to do in life, never mind editing an article online with an editor you've probably or most of all, never met. Of course, there are other things which could come under that section, for example introducing deliberate errors into articles that are likely to be proved wrong, making legal threats and changing needlessly between American and British English. And as the trifecta, as it were, created before the five pillars, it came at a time when most people hadn't even started to use Wikipedia back in April 2005, so it may have played an influence for the five pillar rule, i.e "Ignore all Rules" and "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" both containing the same basic principle.
14. (Real world situation:) You have just created an article on a particular topic. Another editor comes along, edits the article to remove much data, and turns your definitions into tautologies, after which he puts the article up on articles for deletion with as rationale 'redundant'. All without leaving you a message. How do you proceed? (with or without admin tools).
A. - Could you just clarify what tautology means? - I looked it up here but I can't find a suitable substitute.
Tautology ~= when you repeat yourself in different words.
But... to make a long story short, someone comes along and strips all meaningful data from a favorite article of yours, then takes it to Articles For Deletion and proposes a merge immediately after. How do you respond? Also, would having admin tools make a difference here? --Kim Bruning 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Answer to 14: Okay, well to be honest, I'd just revert their actions. I wouldn't play Mr Nice Guy and pretend it didn't happen because I would appeal the decision and if it was put up at Articles for Deletion (AfD) then I'd would try hard my position with the article and make it clear to any users that my editorship on that article had been undermined, most probably by an editor who had ownership issues. I'd always note the user on their talk page of their actions with the template {{uw-delete_}} (with _ meaning the number). If the editor(s) made repeated attempts to remove content from pages that was in the interests of the reader or other editos for that matter, I would consign the case to somewhere where it would be dealed with best (i.e look at other answers given)
15. Do you promise to apply WP:WOTTA in future?
A: - Yes, I do. For beginners I won't use the acronyms as their neither helpful nor practical for them to learn. Although I don't want to sound patronising, it's not easy for anyone to understand, especially when you're starting off. If I do make references to Wikipedia policies or essays I usually link them as such, for example our speedy deletion policy and criteria, which makes it infinitely better for both the user in question to understand and any other 3rd party. However, that would only be practical to put in places where beginners are more likely to crop up, such as the help desk where they ask questions etc. but places like here at requests for adminship and the administrators noticeboard for incidents, more established users who understand policy more and are more likely to recognise their acronyms, it wouldn't really matter as such. This is my first visit to the link you provided, and I agree it would be better to use full definitions where appropriate, after all, this is a encyclopedia (even though its referring to Wikipedia namespace) and expanding acronyms should be recognised.
It's even handy in places like the administrators noticeboard, at least if we want to attract more new people there. :-) --Kim Bruning 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC) That, and places like Admins Noticeboard can quickly become unreadable after even just a couple of weeks of reduced activity, and you typically find yourself scrambling to catch up... And don't get me started on deletion pages. :-P Some have quite impenetrable jargon, even for typical wikipedia regulars ^^;;
Okay! :) Rudget Contributions 10:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from User:Dureo

16. I realize this is almost over, but I did have something I wanted to address, and maybe get some further discussion out of it, What are your criteria for marking an edit as minor?
A: Well, Dureo that's a good question. I've had an eventful time doing this request, and I'm glad for having the opportunity to express myself and gain some experience in this process. My criteria for marking a minor edit is the basics: correcting spelling mistakes (sp), reverting vandalism (rv or rvv) etc. I must have pressed the minor button accidently a few weeks ago, because most of my edits have now been marked as m for some reason, even when I make large edits. So I'm guessing that's why you asked the question, and I'm glad you brought it up because it's really starting to annoy me when I'm looking through my contributions. :)
Ahh alright, I usually go back through 2k-3k edits when I evaluate for RFA's (and yes usually checking every diff, I'm a tough cookie ;P) and I felt weird and couldn't figure out why, then noticed when I hit July 15, I figured it out, the wall of m's disappeared, not really a big deal, but be careful marking anything that could be considered controversial or reverted as minor, it won't show up on some lists. Dureo 10:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL at "Tough Cookie", the m's are very annoying. :P Rudget Contributions 11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

  • Considering the substantial number of oppose comments, Rudget asked, and I have agreed to mentor him whether or not he passes this time. I feel that he can handle some administrative tasks now, and with training, he will be able to handle more in the future. - Jehochman Talk 20:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support I looked through the contribs for a few minutes, and found that a report to AIV was commensurate with the vandal's activity, a comment at AFD was consistent with consensus, and a revert at Manchester Airport came with the explanation that the original edit did not provide a reference, nor could Rudget find one himself. These are all good signs. As an aside, I chanced upon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikortsminda, where Rudget commented under a previous username (Radio Orange), and I closed the discussion under a different username (YechielMan). Time flies, doesn't it? Oh, and let's thank the tireless bureaucrats who keep up happy with the username changing process. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Contributions indicate that the candidate seems to have well-rounded experience of the most significant areas of Wikipedia, sound policy knowledge (as far as I could tell), has contributed a respectable amount to article space and there are no civilty concerns. CIreland 02:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support This candidate has sound policy knowledge. He will be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. As far as I can tell the candidate has made solid encyclopedia-building contributions to several articles and understands policy. Majoreditor 03:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per Shalom, once again. — Dorftrottel⁠ 07:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Namespace editcountitis be damned! I see a nice spread of constructive, well-informed edits across most namespaces. Although more WT: experience would be nice, nobody's perfect. :) east.718 at 11:26, 10/18/2007
  7. Support. Great answers! I think this candidate will be a great admin. Good luck! -- Folic_Acid | talk  16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Weak Support Seems to know policy well and there aren't many users who would mention bans and blocks in their RFAs. Weak because of the ignoring of rules section. Rules should be ignored if doing so obviously helps the encyclopedia.--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    You truly deserve my support for answering my question clearly on my talk page. Wikipedia should have more admins like you. --VoL†ro/\/Force 17:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Sockpuppet of a banned user doesn't get to comment. - Jehochman Talk 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - Seems to know policy well, good answers to questions and I believe he would be a good Admin. Tiddly-Tom 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Previous interaction with user has been positive. Oldelpaso 18:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Appears to be a good user. Acalamari 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - Good answers. P.S., The fact that there are zero opposes makes me think that you haven't really involved yourself in a lot of disputes. This isn't necessarily a good thing. Most of the best editors who have several thousand edits and have been involved in several disputes tend to make enemies who oppose their Admin nominations regardless. A lot of people take things personally and oppose editors simply because they don't like them if they've ever had disagreements with the editor. So the fact that there are zero oppositions tells me that you likely need to involve yourself in disputes more often and get out of your zone of comfort. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Siva1979 is supporting many RfAs while opposing my RfA. Making me jealous... er, I mean, Support per Siva1979 NHRHS2010 Talk 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. SupportAs per Wikidudeman and find nothing in track to oppose.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Why the hell not? Ral315 » 06:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support, no concerns. Neil ☎ 11:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Should be fine, although interpretation of block/ban is a bit on the iffy side. Phgao 11:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support - I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, as I'm sure that many users that go through RfA don't fully understand the intricacies of what a ban is. Hoever, I urge you to read up on WP:BAN fully before use the tools should this RfA succeed. Apart from that, I think you're a very diligent user and I trust you with a few extra buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support good work in CSD; not all admins are expected to know all policies especially ones with which they do not expect to run up against in their early adminhood, so no real worries there. How many admins can build tomorrow's main page from scratch? Carlossuarez46 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support changed from neutral. The candidate gave mature an thoughtful answers. Per the discussion below, I'd suggest reading up on blocking/banning, but I'm not going to oppose over that. Based on that discussion, I think the candidate will ask others for advice before taking any deep plunges into areas that he's not entirely familiar with. --Bfigura (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - considering the relatively short amount of time this user has spent on Wikipedia, a lot has been achieved. Well done! :-) Lradrama 16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support he's level headed and learns quickly, a good wikipedian. Rlevse 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support—I don't see any damage being done. •Malinaccier• T/C 18:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - Good job. jj137 (Talk) 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Weak support With similar reservations as already expressed, I still think Rudget will be fine in the areas he plans to work in.--chaser - t 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support candidate has clue, and doesn't seem to be a process wonk. Which is good! Majorly (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support, but with concerns - A very likable and polite editor, but the answers to questions seem confused, as Daniel noted. Depending on whether or not you pass, I recommend you match up with an experienced admin so you can gain practical experience, or go through Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Start by doing the things you understand well, and then increase your activities as you learn more. I will support because you are polite, humble and don't show any sign of abusing the tools. Don't get in over your head. - Jehochman Talk 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Seems like a good candidate. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 14:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Strong Support - Good editor, no issues. Remember when you nominated me back in early 2007? You should of told me about this one! Brylcreem2 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support User seems reasonable, perhaps still a bit inexperienced (but aware of that and open to feedback). Given the relativley short time user has been around, there may be some rusty spots in terms of policy knowledge. However, seems to me that policy creeps to become ever more cumbersome and distracting from the task of creating/maintaining a quality internet resource.—Gaff ταλκ 20:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. No significant issues that I can see. The distinction between a block and a ban is of little practical importance. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support I don't think that the candidate's answers to the questions are problematic enough to warrant opposition. Captain panda 21:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support I agree with Panda. Sumoeagle179 22:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support This user has a calm, collected temperament, with sound judgement and a clear and sincere enthusiasm for furthering Wikipedia. I would welcome this user as an admin. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support As I was mentioned in 3A as being one of those users that this candidate has been in conflict with, I thought it proper to add my support for this nomination. I didn't consider the conflict to be anything more than a minor disagreement over editing policy. We worked it through, and the end result was, as Rudget said, that we now "enjoy a great 'editorship'", which I think demonstrates maturity for one so relatively young (I'm referring to Rudget, of course, not me sadly). With the support of an admin coach I've got no reason to doubt that he could be a good admin. --Malleus Fatuarum 14:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support I like the answers, and I don't find the opposes to be particularly weighty. Not being familiar with the percentages for successful RfAs just means he isn't very focused on the RfA process, which is in my mind a good thing. If you ask someone for a policy interpretation in a question, there will always be ways to nitpick the answer. The question isn't 'Does this guy have the same interpretation of policies as me?' its 'Will he be a fair admin and not abuse the tools?'. AvruchTalk 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support per Nom, seems to be a good user. No good opposes. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - Overall seems rational and it's "no big deal" according to Jimbo. However, I'm a bit troubled by the comment "hopefully becoming able to block, ban and decide on users." This statement seems to point to a control issue. Hopefully this new admin just needs a little more polish and doesn't really want to be admin just to show he or she has power. Mrs.EasterBunny 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support A great user and has always contributed greatly to Wikipedia. I am sure he will use the administrator tools well and we certainly need more admins to deal with all of the backlogs! Great answers to the questions too. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Per "A ban is used more effectively when dealing with sockpuppets etc, and prohibits most users from editing pages forcing them make new accounts and think about their actions". Someone who will unblock banned users' new accounts to "think about their actions" is not someone who I want to be an administrator. Daniel 06:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - I'm not sure that's what I was trying to get across. Rudget Contributions 14:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    The point he's trying to make is that you don't understand what a ban is. A ban means the user isn't welcome here, we certainly don't give them out so they have to go and make new accounts. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I know that. But that's not what I was trying to convey, even if that was what I stated. Rudget Contributions 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    Well, could you please explain what the difference is between a block and a ban? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    The difference is: a block is a means by which admin restrict the editing access of users It also means users are allowed to edit their talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, and so are able to participate, even if only on a small scale in Wikipedia, whilst the block is ongoing. Firstly, a ban (as stated) can only be done by Jimbo and ArbCom, but also as Miranda says, the community can also lift bans. The term is defined as a "revocation" or abolition of something, in this case the activity of the user in question. A ban is not to be used lightly and should only be in coalition with others, aswell as the fact that bans shouldn't be undone by a single admin. (Which I would never do, even if that was what I implied) Rudget Contributions 15:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    Sort of, the community can ban users as well - often there is a discussion at WP:AN/I asking for input. If there is a consensus to ban then the user gets banned. A community ban is described as a user being blocked for an indefinate period that no administrator is willing to lift, so if one admin wants to lift the ban, then the user can't be banned. Of course, Jimbo and ArbCom can inflict a ban, but I'd suggest more come from the community. When someone if banned from the site, they are not welcome to edit under any username. No single administrator can ban a user, but they can indefinately block a user. Ban's are only given out when the user has exhausted every other method that the community has to offer. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    Candidate, read up on WP:BAN. You're not expected to know everything as long as you stop and learn when something new comes up. - Jehochman Talk 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks - to both users. Rudget Contributions 15:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not convinced that the answers to the questions (in particular 3, 6, 7, 9, 12) show sufficient depth in judgment and maturity. Then again, perhaps I would not get that impression were I not aware of Rudget's age. But the fact is that I am and although some very young admins have done a great job, I'm afraid I can't support unless I'm confident that Rudget is mature enough to deal effectively not only with the obvious vandal but also with more subtle and often much more nasty disruptive editors. Pascal.Tesson 18:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Per 6, 9 and 10. (#10) When you are in a dispute with a user, you do not report them to AIV, unless they are clearly vandalising. (#6 - and per Daniel), I don't think you understand what a block v. ban is. (#9) The BLP question -- As an admin, I would delete any article which qualifies or is blatantly an attack page, orignal reasearch and of course every article shouldn't have a POV which is biased or COI. That's not all of it, some reliable sources (such as television stations and magazines which present one POV) can contain information which is libelous or false (i.e. see politicians' articles, for an example), and should be deleted. Miranda 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    Just want to point out that in Q.10 I did not write what is stated in your oppose. Rudget Contributions 11:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    Okay. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that question. However, I am really worried about the answers presented to me. Miranda 00:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I'm sorry, but your flaws in the answering of the questions pointed out by Miranda above are a bit concerning to me. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Fully agree with Miranda, surprising as I find this. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 09:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. I'm another who is concerned by the answers given to questions 3 ,6, 7, 9 and 12 and find I am unable to Support at this time. I'm never really happy when someone gets the answer to a question wrong then makes excuse after excuse trying to say they were actually trying to convey the correct answer through their response. Your response to the BLP issue is interesting and I'm not sure some of the comments directly above me are correct regarding their interpretation however. Reliable sources can and often do present POV or libel problems, it's how we use these references to correlate with the content that can present. Nick 18:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose– Answer to the first question, "...hopefully becoming able to block, ban and decide on users," gives me the impression that the user is only in it for the power. Ksy92003(talk) 19:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    Hi. I'm a little confused by this comment. When I became I sysop, part of the reason was so that I could directly block without having to go thru AIV. Perhaps this is his her reason? Efficiency. Is there anything wrong with desiring to help the project? Frankly, I'm left... scratching my head. Mercury 19:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    Well yeah, it's just the way that I read it, I read it as if Rudget was saying that he wants people to screw up so he could block them. I mean of course all admins would have to be willing to block users if need be, but this was just my interpretation. You never want somebody to have to be blocked, and that was something that I felt Rudget was trying to convey. I understand why you would block other users, but I don't think it should be something that you'd want to do.
    Again, that's just the way I interpreted it. It's just one vote, and at 30-7, I'm not sure my vote would be enough to reject the nomination, anyway. Ksy92003(talk) 21:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per above. Epbr123 11:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose There is simply too much evidence in the questions that the candidate has not gotten a good grasp of WP's policies yet. Xoloz 14:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - Does this not contradict itself? Rudget Contributions 14:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    It's obviously just a typo; Xoloz meant "has not gotten." Chick Bowen 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, Thought it was just a sneaky support-oppose, but then I just realised the neutral section. Rudget Contributions 14:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed. Typo fixed. I note also that the candidate just asked me a polite question, which is unfortunately also indicative of inexperience. Xoloz 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    The candidate knowing how RFA works is not necessary experience to be an administrator. I had no idea what a bureaucrat was or what amount of support I needed to pass, and I'm not exactly a bad administrator :-) --Deskana (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    In the context of the other things this candidate doesn't know, his unfamiliarity paints a bad picture. With greatest respect, Deskana, it is also true that anyone who reads the requested reading for admins (which we're all supposed to before applying) should know what b'crats are, and what standards they apply. That your otherwise excellent record allowed you to "get by" just by skimming that part is a reflection of your excellence ;), but it doesn't change my general expectation that candidates should read the materials before they apply, and expect opposition if their failure to do so exposes gaps in their knowledge. Xoloz 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Answers to questions make me uncomfortable with the idea of this editor using the tools in the area they intend to use them, as I don't feel they have adequate understanding of the policies in that area yet. GRBerry 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Must oppose at this time, per answers to questions, mainly 3 and 6, would like candidate to have better grasp of policies(ban/block et al) prior to voting support. Dureo 02:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. In his answers to questions, he quotes details from policy but seems to miss the big picture. That, combined with the fact that he seems particularly interested in blocking, makes for a dangerous admin in my mind. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - We need new page patrollers, but I don't like the answers to the questions nor the fact user does not know the difference between a block and a ban. Seems like user is simply paraphrasing appropriate policy pages without really understanding them, as others have pointed out. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 04:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - seems too inexperienced, see all of the above. Greswik 11:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I'm Sorry Rudget. I've looked back and forth of this, and nearly just abstained, but on balance I'm too nervous (largely per Miranda) to support this request at this time. I trust you will prove all the opposers wrong and develop over the next couple of months, when I fully expect another RfA if this one fails. If it passes, I hope you will just go easy to begin with. Pedro :  Chat  13:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Questionable policy knowledge; shouldn't be sysoped yet, but hopefully with a few more months' experience. --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral - I am worried that you don't know the difference between a block and a ban. A block can be lifted. And, many sockpuppeteers are not banned, but are indef. blocked. Also, when you say that the arbitration committee and Jimbo can make bans, you are partially right. The community can also issue bans as well as lift them. See also the banning policy. I have also asked you another question regarding BLP issues. And, I will make my decision from there. Miranda 20:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Switched to oppose.
  2. Neutral per Miranda. Your other answers seem very thoughtful though, so I asked another question or two. --Bfigura (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Moving !vote. --Bfigura (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't be expected to know everything at the time of our RFA. He can learn and is a good wikipedian. Rlevse 18:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There's "knowing everything" (which is impossible for anyone, incidentally); and then there's "knowing the basics." This candidate fails the latter test. I don't think anyone expects a candidate to know everything, so your comment rests on a false premise. Xoloz 14:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral per Miranda. It seems like you're a good candidate in the future, but I'm not entirely sure for now. I hope you reapply if you don't get it this time. Jauerback 19:58, 24 October 2007 (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.