Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rudget 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Rudget[edit]

Final (113/11/4); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudget (talk · contribs)

I am pleased to nominate Rudget for adminship. This is his second RFA, the first is linked below. Rudget has been diligently working on concerns from his first RFA and I have been his admin coach. His primary area of interest on articles is Great Britain. He has been active in several admin areas, such as WP:CSD, WP:AN3, XFD, WP:UAA, WP:RFP as well as assisting at WP:GAN. He also previously worked as a CHU clerk. In addition, he recently became a featured portal co-director. I have been very impressed by his rapid desire to learn and dedication to the wikipedia project. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Ryan Postlethwaite[edit]

I'd like to co-nominate Rudget for the mop. I actually encountered him in his first RfA - although I supported at the time, in hind sight, he probably wasn't quite ready at that point. He's since taken the concerns of the opposers and I really to believe he has now got the necessary skills and understanding to make a very good admin. He joined us in April and he has a wide spread of contributions across a number of namespace. Rudget is a great portal editor and is was on the key contributors to the featured North West England portal. In my opinion, it's one of the best portals we have here, and certainly one of the most organised. His article editing is focussed around Manchester related articles, and he's made some great contributions in that namespace. I really believe nows the time to give Rudget +sysop, and I hope you guys feel the same way. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Ioeth[edit]

I would also like to nominate Rudget for adminship, and am extremely excited to do so. Being the first user I've nominated to RFA, I'd like to say that I can't think of anybody I would rather nominate. I often encounter him making reports to C:CSD, WP:UAA, and WP:AIV, of which I have never had to decline a single one of them, so I feel very certain the he knows what he's doing when it comes to policy. Rudget is also active in other important areas too: WP:AFDs, WP:RFAs, WP:HD requests, recently WP:ER, and the list goes on. His article contributions are top notch as well, and it's always nice interacting with him because of his consistently positive demeanor and willingness to help other editors, which I think is important for RFA candidates. He'll be great with the mop, which I think he deserves, given his history of quality contributions to Wikipedia. If nothing else, I want Rudget to have the tools so he can help eliminate the backlogs, rather than compounding them, which I know he'll do a fine job of! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. It is truly impossible to comment on these editors–they are simply fantastic–we have to remember that this is a voluntary project and we're here for the good of the encyclopedia, and for these guys to actually dedicate time here and recognise me for my contributions, I find truly oustanding. I would also like to make a special mention to OhanaUnited, Dihydrogen Monoxide and Phoenix-wiki who offered to a do a co-nomination, who I had to turn down. They too make great contributions and I applaud them for their efforts here on the Wiki. Good job! Rt. 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 would par-take in my current areas of focus, most of which are listed by Ioeth in his co-nom. Since my last RFA–which closed on October 24th–I have increased my edit count from 4000 to 10000+ and have gained much experience along the way.
XfD: In my 8 months around the wiki, I've participated in many discussions about the deletion or saving of an article, userpage etc. Since my article work is mainly based around encouraging the growth of articles and sometimes the rescuing of articles from deletion at AFD, I understand many of the concerns that face new editors there. This combined with my experience at GAN, helps me to achieve a good knowledge of consensus surrounding article work and be able to judge fairly with this in mind.
CSD: I'm not entirely sure, as I don't have access, what the exact amount is, but I'm guessing I have around 650 deleted edits. I am able to judge what qualifies as an article per the specified criterion, for example, many of the patrollers misconceive the idea of "repost content" who sometimes stick {{Db-repost}} on it, when they should bring to AFD or try to contact the creator, IMO. I'm pretty active over at NPP and I'm part of the very new new page wikiproject.
RFP: I have round about 20 edits over at page protection. I've got quite a good idea of what will be protected and what won't. It is usual for people to submit articles that don't actually need protection, due to a what I call HIE (or High Intensity Editing) whereby editors may consistently insert incorrect information, revert reverts by good faith users etc. In this case it would be apparent to warn the user and proceed from that point.
UAA: I often see usernames that come up at the newusers page that are too long, refer to Wikipedia or Wikipedia processes in a derogatory manner etc. and I see that I could be doing the stuff I file, instead of having to wait. I have to admit Slakr, bibliomaniac15 and Ioeth are pretty quick when it comes to this, but even still I'd like to help. I also regularly patrol Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over, as some usernames go missed by editors that have tagged their userpage with {{username concern}}.
SSP: I have worked a little a the suspected sockpuppets noticeboard but I believe I have gained good experience there and I presume this is where Rlevse thought to admin coach me from. :) I have had 3 cases posted, all of which were successful, see: 1, 2, 3 I know to list all the relevant information, including the dates, contributions, overlapping evidence etc. there. And would pledge to continue this if I were to be promoted. Additional notice, due to my small but okay knowledge of the DYK process, I may also help out there. Rtac contributions 13:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As Ryan notes, some of my best contributions are to the portal namespace, where as you may not know, I'm a featured portal co-director. The best contributions I have completed are:
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: As per what J-stan says in his! :) I suppose any good vandal-fighter has, but I've never let it cause any disruption. I once acted as a mediator in the conflict between Pedro and WebHamster on an RFA. I knew both the users in question, and immediately asked them to cease, which they did. I admired them for there responsibility after my posting–and as both are outstanding editors (IMO) I felt that it was due to try to stop them hurting both themselves and the place of conflict. I don't feel any particular stress towards any of the other users on the wiki, as I find this a friendly 'ole place and all the people who post on my talk page are civil folk. I would also like to mention Malleus Fatuarum—he also is truly brilliant editor who has about 4? FAs to his name, we've twice get into something about nothing but we've always felt that we can trust each other (although I can't speak for him! :P). I've never got into conflict over at XFD, as it is and was, my goal to try to voice my opinion whilst stating key policies for either keeping or deletion–and addressing the nomination statement with the same effect. I always remain cool, with a clean blocklog and the affiliated, I do my best to try to intervene in disputes and distribute equal comments etc. to those involved. I think I do a pretty good job, but that's for you to decide.

Optional Question from User:Keepscases

4. Do you plan on making efforts to meet fellow Wikipedians in person?
A: No. I'd rather keep the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a root for socialising. I had put my name on the UK meeptup, but decided not to go–seen as I don't usually get that far from Manchester, even though that looks increasingly like the place of choice. Rudget. 10:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from User:Tiptoety

5 What is your thoughts on wikipedia:Administrators open to recall, would you add yourself, why or why not? Tiptoety talk 21:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes and No. It never 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 the wiki. If admins are responsible for the well-being of the community then it helps for them to at least heed some of their advice. It is through discussion, that I believe a achievable (not necessarily perfect, going by some of the growing RFC's I doubt anything will be) goal can be set and grasped. Discussion = Progression, in my opinion. By finding a sort of middle ground between the users and the admins we can create a sort piece that we can end up developing into something bigger, that will affect the overall result, hopefully the desired one. I do understand Walton's (I think?) concerns about admins refusing to honour their presence in AOTR, but it is usually misconceptions (sometimes on part of the users) that ruin the overall profile with this one incident being their judgement. In my opinion, it is true to judgement to take into consideration the admins past actions and try to determine whether this is likely/not likely to occur again, and whether the results are just. I will hold myself accountable to recall if promoted, but I won't place myself in that category due to the undue stress it's causing users there. I will be willing to discuss this further if anyone has problems with this. Rudget. 22:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:JayHenry

6 I see you're interested in WP:UAA and WP:CSD. How would you have handled the situation at User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12?
A: Considering you've mentioned UAA and CSD, I'll address it from that point of view. Firstly, I would not (considering the oppose and the response by JayHenry) block the name at UAA (if mentioned), because of the pattern of characters wouldn't cause that much disruption/confusion. It is quite clear that the contributor was valuable, and has shown sufficient reason not to block. Instead, I would have just placed {{username concern}} on the talk page, and proceed from there. Even if they are unlikely to cause any harm to the wiki, it still constitutes as an unacceptable username. Regarding the CSD, I presume your in reference to the The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature section, I assume that this was what was on the page when deleted–deletion log–so I'll take it from there. Considering it was deleted under CSD A1, the restored version hasn't changed that much (apart from the odd categoristation) so maybe this is an indication that it shouldn't be deleted. It also seems the source which was given (in addition to other literary sources) is reliable and therefore verifies at least some of the content. In retrospect, I'd agree to a keep. Although I would remove the Selected reviews section, as it's unnecessary and itself unreferenced. Rudget. 12:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that's not what I was hoping to hear. I don't think the admins involved in this situation are bad admins, but they slipped so far into routine that they ended up doing something really horrific. With over 6,000,000 registered accounts, it's more and more difficult today to find a name you like. Having a lot of g's in a user name makes a contributor look like a troll. But don't let appearances deceive you. Don't slip into routine and assume bad faith with new contributors. As a general rule of thumb, trolls never create pages on C.S. Lewis's writings on Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Ask yourself: Is a lot of g's in a username that disruptive? What would have happened, for example, if you didn't block the account but instead explained to the person -- especially once you saw that they not making even remotely trollish edits -- that the user name could be confusing. What exactly would have been the harm of allowing an Associate Professor of Medieval Literature to make a few more edits? I won't oppose you because I know that's more or less the prevailing sentiment at WP:UAA. "Well, we can block your new account because if you're any good you'll just create a new one." One of the admins basically told poor ggg...ggg12 that. Here's an example where it's not true; where petty, almost unthinking, rule-mongering cost us a valuable contributor. Of course you're right about the CSD. It shouldn't have been tagged and shouldn't have been deleted. Not even close. The point is this: be careful. Admins that are good people do really awful things sometimes when they slip into routine; incidentally it's part of why some people have conservative standards at RfA. --JayHenry (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that a lapse of judgement let an admin (I dont know who, just referring to your anonmyity) say "if you're any good you'll just create a new one" - I am truly shocked that could occur, but without further understanding I can't comment further. I agree with the troll part, not many are going to create pages on writings about medieval literature, that's obvious. Were they labelled a troll? If so, I was unaware. And you're right, we have 6,000,000 accounts registered (keeping in mind about 80% of those are contributors, and as an encyclopedia we have to encourage that) that about 1 in every 105 people on Earth (I think?) - so I think it's important to remain civil even when in the face of conflict/dispute, because this is global and we have to respect the contributors opinion whilst being able to serve suitable responses. Regarding the name though, how would ordinary users be able to distinguish this name? Say someone but 12 g's, and it contained less or more. And thank you for replying so quickly, I appreciate that. Rudget. 16:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A simple solution would have been to suggest that he write on his userpage "my username is Ggggggggggggggg12. That's 15 g's!" A simple explanation actually makes it quite easy to remember. Or perhaps gentle friedly encouragement to register a new name. Instead his article was deleted after two sentences were written and he was indef blocked. I encourage you to read the page again and meditate on how terrible his Wikipedia experience was. Surely we can all agree that blocking professional academics is one of the worst possible strategies toward building a respected encyclopedia? --JayHenry (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your reasoning, he could have been able to change his name at changing username, and as you say we lost a valuable editor. I'll copy what he wrote, so other readers can get a direct thought on this. This being his response to being blocked.
Showing that maybe we can apply discretion in exemplary cases such as this. Although, I must disagree with exemplary scholar writing, although I can understand where your coming from this maybe a undue reliance on original research–something a respected encyclopedia shouldn't have. But this user doesn't seem to have done that, and backed up his page quite sufficiently with reliable sources. Of course, in positions like this where the user has shown they can contribute effectively in the interests of the encyclopedia, and most importantly is civil (or at least, not uncivil) that it maybe those times we question the report (if at UAA) and just apply {{username concern}} instead, something I have seen many times. Rudget. 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Pomte 15:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Today you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Montana Doll and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biography of Pope John Paul II. I find there to be a pretty clear consensus in each of them for an uncontroversial close. Why don't you?
A: Yes, I did HMD and John Paul II. I relisted them for two reasons: I've been ever reluctant to close AFDs since this - with the full story in Soleil's oppose. Although, I do sometimes close when I believe there is full consensus, such as here, here and here. So, getting back to the question in hand, I relisted them because I didn't feel there was true consensus. Taking the Hannah Montana doll for an example, there were two mergers, two deletes and one indented delete. There was an also a mention of merging the content in the nomination statement, and I felt I couldn't close it as no consensus as all had commented within a 3 hour time period. Although it seems, one user inparticular wasn't very happy with my relisting. Rudget. 15:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your reluctance is appreciated, but the circumstances in those past situations don't apply here: the AfDs have run for 5 days, and you have not commented. The two options for HMD are to merge or delete, and it can be gauged which had the stronger arguments in the AfD, though there isn't much difference between the two. Everything in Hannah Montana Doll already appeared in Hannah Montana, with the exception of two numbers of dolls (4 and 5) and the Fab Friends 3-Pack (a trivial grouping of the other dolls). This fact shows TonyBallioni and Ybbor's argument to be an exaggeration. Whether the numbers and the 3-Pack should be merged is an editorial decision, not really the concern of AfD. But it's clear that only 2 of 6 people opposed a merge, and on a flawed basis. Now, what do you think of Wizardman's close (now 2 of 9)? :) –Pomte 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my decision that relisting was in the interests of the AFD, and I understand and endorse Wizardman's closure per your explanation. Thanks for replying. Rudget. 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, your argument here seems to stem from this one incident. If you disagree with the matter, this should be discussed in detail on the AfD page. This page is to summarise the positives and negatives and whether appropriate to promote Rudget to Administrator level, however this does contribute, it's not constructive towards the purpose of this. The tone in your comments are not "Can you explain your actions here"; your tone is "Please fix this issue" which is an argument not designed for this page. --rm 'w avu 13:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nom, best of luck! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support, has shown great improvement, and would make a great admin. Wizardman 23:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as per nom, best wishes. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support as per nom, good answers to questions and I beleive that he would become a great admin.  Sunderland06  23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Excellent user.--Phoenix-wiki 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Has improved so much since his last RfA. He will be an excellent addition to the admin team. Keilanatalk(recall) 23:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Absolutely: a great editor, and an excellent future admin. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support. Outstanding contributor to the mainspace, improved greatly since his last RfA. Qst 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Dihydrogen Monoxide's excellent nomination. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite Dihydrogen Monoxide's disgraceful nomination :p Seen Rudget around basically everywhere, and he edits with experience as well as tact and clue. — DarkFalls talk 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Abstaining per opposes. — DarkFalls talk 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. What a horrible nom. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per Qst. -- ~ Ryan A. Taylor || screaming at me || DUMPING GROUND! 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fo+sho fo sho yo --'n1yaNt 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, fine candidate who has put in a lot of hard work to improve. Can be trusted to wield the mop. Dreadstar † 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Definitely. Absoultely. Great editor, who will make an awesome admin. J-ſtanContribsUser page 00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Change to oppose) And it's not even a self-nom. Dorfklatsch 00:06, January 5, 2008
  14. Strong support great contributor, positive attitude, improvement to constructive criticism from last RFA. Has shown he can be trusted with the mop. Good Luck! JERRY talk contribs 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support - I like your attitude. The Transhumanist 00:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. First J-stan, now Rudget. It has been a good week indeed. This user will be great as an administrator. SorryGuy  Talk  00:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. But of course! Snowolf How can I help? 00:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Sounds like a great editor that will do well with admin tools. Kakofonous (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Good editor, seems willing to handle the mop. MBisanz talk 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support good all-round experience. RMHED (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - (ec) definitely, would make a great admin.   jj137 ♠ 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support - of course, a great forthcoming admin. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. There is absolutely no reason not to bestow the editor with the added tools. Maser (Talk!) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support as a co-nominator! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 01:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I think Rudget has the necessary experience and would be careful not to abuse his admin tools. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, looks like a great candidate. --krimpet✽ 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support Basketball110 01:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Super Buff Macho Hercules Support Angel David (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Pundit|utter 02:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC) good luck![reply]
  30. Support--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 02:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per the many noms. --Bduke (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. M-ercury at 03:09, January 5, 2008
  33. Support - My interactions with this user have been positive and I am very sure that he/she will make a great admin :-) ScarianCall me Pat 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - very good editor. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support — a good editor who has worked in various Wikipedia areas; has made a conscientious effort to address issues raised in the interim since his first RFA. — ERcheck (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Sure Avruchtalk 03:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. A++ Support Mop time, GO! --Sharkface217 04:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Good luck. Timmehcontribs 04:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support 'Bout damn time :) VanTucky talk 04:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, works on admin tasks, can't see any reason why not to give him the tools. Lankiveil (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  41. Support JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support: Pretty well known around much of the mainspace, see no harm in giving Rudget2 administrator powers to further the good will. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Per all the noms. Great contributions to the project. Cirt (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  44. Support, An excellent editor who will make a great admin. GRB1972 (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support of course. Chris.B (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Supported first RfA and I still stick by it. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 11:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support of course! The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!) 12:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support GDonato (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support A fine candidate. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Yep As was promised on his talk page some while back. An absolute pleasure to support this fine editor, who in every interaction I have had has proved a sheer delight to work with. Pedro :  Chat  14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support With such a overwhelming nomination, he must be good! — Edokter • Talk • 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Oh yes - should be just fine docboat (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - The opposes don't worry me all that much. The "Users I've helped to block" list does concern me a bit, but it isn't actually forbidden by policy and isn't a deal-breaker IMO. All the other examples brought up by the opposers were from some time ago (mostly early November), and I can see that his experience and understanding of Wikipedia has improved since then. WaltonOne 16:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support The blocked user list is a bit antagonistic. Given some of the plague socks around, I could see someone manipulating you into building a Wall of Fame for banned alterwikegos. Outside of that, I think removing it was a good move, and you have certainly proven a willingness to take the advice of your fellow Wikipedians. Even more outside of that, and more to the point, I think you will be a fine admin based on your larger body of work, and the respect I have for your nominators. Best of luck! Hiberniantears (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support liking what I'm seeing! Mr Senseless (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support As per nom, well rounded user. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 16:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support this friendly editor who seems committed to helping improve articles and thereby helps make Wikipedia an enjoyable place to volunteer time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Weakly though. I dislike long term planning of RFAs - this has very clearly been planned for a while, and while some may think it is good to plan, I think one should concentrate on other things more and not dwell on it so much. That said, I think you're an excellent Wikipedian and will be an excellent admin. Majorly (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Per Docboats detailed support. // F9T 17:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Yep... I've got nothing to add that hasn't been said a dozen times. Great user, will make a great admin. -- Mike (Kicking222) 18:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I thought the candidate deserved it last time around. Since then Rudget has become an even better contributor. Rudget will make a good admin. Majoreditor (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Rudget's article contributions are first rate, and I think he has improved his understanding of policy since the previous RFA. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Has gained good experience since previous RfA, and is able to deal with troublesome users well. Epbr123 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Give em' the mop. Tiptoety talk 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - WP:DEAL and appears to be a very good editor. Gromlakh (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Responds appropriately to criticism, a good editor, doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools, and overall a pretty civil user. Donc pourquoi pas? Icestorm815 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Le même à vous, Icestorm815. :) Rudget. 20:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Merci, monsieur. Icestorm815 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - probably one of the best admins we (don't yet) have. EJF (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - I thought he already was an admin. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. ditto. BencherliteTalk 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support —Animum (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Good candidate. Kukini hablame aqui 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Experienced user, nice answers. No major issues raised by opposer. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - Issues raised by opposer not enough not to. -MBK004 06:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - Good candidate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - D.M.N. (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. The way I interacted with Rudget shows he's ready for the tools. Happy New Year. New York Dreams (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. I could have sworn you already were! --rm 'w avu 13:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Same as last time. east.718 at 14:53, January 6, 2008
  80. PeaceNT (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support a track record of improving and creating articles that demonstrates an appropriate recognition of the relationship between administrative responsibilities and the work of those building this encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strong candidate, no reason to believe you will abuse the tools, and concerns raised by the opposition do not concern me. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, strongly. I've had the pleasure of working with Rudget on an extra-WMF MediaWiki site, and I'm pleased to say he's excelled himself with his communication skills, and talent at dealing with teh drahma! His excellent personal carries over to Wikipedia, with his recent appointment as a Featured Portal director simply highlighting this. Rudget makes himself useful in a number of different locations around the project, and his XfD contributions are often insightful and reflective. I was seriously tempted to pile in another co-nomination, but stopped myself as it may have been a little bit much :) hopefully my +1 to the tally will be enough to carry this effective and reliable contributor through to the realms of Administratorship! Anthøny 20:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - Húsönd 01:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support About 25% of the contribs are on Wiki-related pages and among the top 15 in that domain includes the help desk, WP:AIV, WP:RFPP and the good articles pages, so I think he should be able to deal well with the tolls. --JForget 02:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. A friendly and helpful editor who has a good grasp of policy. Some valid comments below, but I think the good far outweighs the bad here.--Kubigula (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. I would have co-nom you too. Anyways, great work at feature portal candidates OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support, but death hair loss to pointless co-nominations. Neıl ☎ 10:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strong Support Civil user, well experenced, knows policy well. Will make a good admin! Tiddly-Tom 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Rather than listing users blocked, you can create lists of SSP reports, RFCU reports, ANI threads, etc. Such things are useful for future reference and do not create a bad appearance. Jehochman Talk 15:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Rudget has obviously come a long way and will continue to improve.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support By all means Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Secret account 01:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Can safely say yes on this one. :) GlassCobra 02:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support (moved from above) - Hello, I would like to support the candidicy of Rudget 2 to become an administrator. This user address all postings in a very respetful way. Sahilm (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Welcome to WP:100! Great user, listens to and gives advice. I am sure that Rudget will address the concerns listed in the oppose section, and will be a better admin, and Wikipedian overall, because of it. Good luck. Acalamari 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Good editor. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Seen this guy around a lot, he does great work. Useight (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. Good vandal fighter. Always appreciated for his work around AIV. Trusilver (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support per above. — Xy7 (talk) 19:57, 09 January 2008
  101. Support Support Rt but recommend that he consider the oppose comments if he is granted sysop tools. Archtransit (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Strong support Great work, great user. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Strong Support Everything's been said above really. Seems a really strong candidate, great answers to some of the questions IMHO. Have seen this user here and there, and certainly seems like a user that would use the mop to the benefit of Wikipedia. Well done you ;). TheIslander 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Seen him around and think you are a good editor. I hope you will take on the advice of some of the opposers. Woody (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - See no reason to think that he cannot be trusted. John Carter (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Great user. Good luck! Midorihana~いいですね？ 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support -- trusted editor. - Longhair\talk 07:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support After observing the discussion here and looking over some diffs, IMO this user has demonstrated a knowledge of WP policy and good judgement to convince me that he will be an effective and fair admin. Guldenat (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support As per Rvelse .fully trust his nomination and the track of Rudget is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose. Neutral. Support. I don't understand what this means: "with immediate effect pending the result of this RFA." (in the candidate's response in the Neutral section.) It seems to mean the candidate might be intending to re-instate the block list when the RfA is over, depending on the outcome (one way or the other). It suggests poor communication skills (or perhaps it's me who's having trouble interpreting the words; but I have the same trouble with some other things the candidate says on this page) and a continuing attitude towards blocked users which is not conducive to being a good admin. One can't change one's attitude in response to feedback on this page as fast as one can change one's signature. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the oppose concerning my supposed want to block users, hopefully I've addressed that here, I propose a period of at least one month before I block anyone, and read up more and get more experience in that field. (No response) Attempting to reassure you about "the list" - it has already been removed and I have addressed that in Soleil and NHRHS2010's opposes above, before this neutral comment, so this should have been seen. Rudget. 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You still haven't clarified what you meant by "pending the result of this RfA". I still oppose as explained above. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It actually meant I was going to remove it anyway, but it doesn't matter anyway because it has already been removed. Rudget. 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, perhaps you meant "pending the closure of this RfA". I apologize for the misunderstanding. Perhaps it was my fault. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (moved from Oppose to Neutral) --Coppertwig (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to "support". Very impressive response to criticism, re changing signature, re block log (see discussions on this page for both), and now re joke on Babel page. Any remaining imperfections this candidate might have are not a worry -- the candidate is a very fast learner and will overcome them. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support, not that you need more. Great answers to questions above. Cheers, Keeper | 76 22:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Merovingian (T, C) 23:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. miranda 02:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose - Your signature is misleading because it's not your username, and admins should be as accessible as possible, especially to new users. Trying to find you using the search box on User:Rt leads to a really weird place: see User:RT). Even googling "User:Rt" does not help. I think you should change your username to match your signature, or your signature to match your username. Then you'll be ready for adminship. Count me as a support vote once this problem is fixed. The Transhumanist 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Problem promptly solved. (Impressive). Changed to support. The Transhumanist 00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Doing... Rt. 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks for your comments. Rudget. 00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this a support now...? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The Transhumanist 00:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope you were joking The Transhumanist although unfortunately it appears you weren't. Think of it this way: opposing someone because you don't like their signature and how it could be misleading – that means, effectively you don't want him to become an administrator for that reason. You could have just solved it with a simple note on a talk page, or pinging him over IRC or some other messaging client. This is unneeded. Spebi 04:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it's so much easier to tell him here. -- ~ Ryan A. Taylor || talk || contribs 04:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Spebi. You shouldn't oppose an RfA just because of their signature. Besides, they can just click on the Rt.   jj137 ♠ 23:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose was for inaccessibility. Sure they can click on it, if they happen to be looking at his signature. But contacting a false nym from memory can pose a problem. The Transhumanist 20:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why oppose for something so minor that could have been solved by notifying Rudget by a note on his talk page? Why oppose for something that can easily be fixed in a matter of seconds? Why not just save Rudget all the trouble of worrying about an oppose which appears to be absolutely pointless? Opposes aren't meant to be reminders. Spebi 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just time we left this. I thank Spebi in my defense, but the TTH has already supported reflecting my response as a reason for his/her support. I'm sure all of were in good faith, but I think it's time to cut this before it grows into something bigger. Rudget. 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think signature was a valid reason to oppose (though I would no longer oppose for this reason now that it's been fixed -- very impressive how fast!!) I think an admin having a signature different from their username is considerably more confusing than an ordinary contributor having 15 repeated letters in their username. However, in future if I'm inclined to oppose an RfA for this reason, perhaps I'll first notify the candidate on their talk page and wait a day or so to see if they decide to change it. Jj137 said: "Besides, they can just click on the Rt." -- not necessarily, for example if the person is using a text-only connection, or is blind and using text-to-speech conversion, or has navigated away from that page, etc. Besides, one might want to oppose on the grounds that a good admin candidate should already have known about the signature issue. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I worry about this user's clue. For a while Rudget was a clerk at the rename board. While he did primarily good work, several of his comments were not helpful or wrong and indicated a lack of understanding of the rename process; he was contacted about this by three different people before he left a resignation note. When clerking at the rename board, it is important that the bureaucrats can trust that a clerk's comments are correct and relevant, otherwise the bureaucrats must check everything themselves, which defeats the purpose of having clerks. He volunteered his time at a place where it's important one understand what's going on, but he didn't fully. {{Rudget notice to readers}} should not have been in template space, (I pointed this out to him and he then userfied) which I also find alludes to a larger lack of wiki knowhow. A while back he closed these two AfDs as keep after commenting keep in them (they were ultimately relisted after a DRV and deleted). He says he didn't know that this was a procedural faux pas, and while that was almost certainly true, abstaining from closing discussions one has commented on is a huge deal in my mind, and the fact that he didn't know even that important aspect of the deletion process causes me to question the thoroughness of his policy knowledge. A similar problem was also exhibited on these two, which were also overturned at DRV, although I can't find a relisting of them anywhere interestingly. He reported a username at UAA (which means it is blatant and needs to be blocked right now), but quickly changed his mind after feedback from EVula. While it's good that he was able to understand he was wrong, if someone is going to report a user to be blocked quickly because of his username, he should be sure that his report is correct. His last RfA was also a bit over two months ago, and while waiting three months is not a steadfast rule, I appreciate when an editor can respect the community's norms; this isn't a huge deal though. Ever since being appointed to featured portal co-director, he has not given up a chance to make note of it (cf. Q2 and userpage). This seems to me as if he sees that this appointment (and therefore it is not unreasonable to assume he sees adminship this way) as a trophy. I'm also really confused about the answer to Q3 here. I assume that was written incorrectly; otherwise I think he may need to scale back his time here. This is extremely distasteful, and my biggest concern. Blocking is not something we strive to do, and then wear a list of users we have gotten blocked as a badge of honor. Interestingly, at least one of those users has never been blocked before. It is these several lapses in judgment that, while none are particularly serious, (although I still cannot get over his Users I've helped to block list), that cause me enough concern about misuse (although not neccessarily abuse) of the tools, as well as his attitude towards things if he were to become an admin. I (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm working an answer to this now. Rudget. 09:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With continuing respect, I am inclined to agree with most of your points there. I see most of them had come up at my admin coaching, and presume you took most of it from there. Would I be right in saying that? Well I'll try to address your points now:
    With the exception of your schoolwork comment, no; most I was either involved in or watched them unfold. I (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue regarding CHU conduct is something I inevitably thought was going to crop up. I had worked there for about three months, and the majority of the mistaken tags actually took place during the first of those. I had previously interacted with Deskana, WJBscribe and Secretlondon about both incidents and addressed these concerns in WJBscribe's RFB a few months back (you'll find me in the support section). I don't believe I was terribly frightful over there and I tried my best to support the renaming centre and it was with that in mind that I took the decision to resign. I removed my name from the clerks list and ceased my editing with immediate effect. I felt it was time to honour my notice (link provided in the oppose) and took the step to not edit the page anymore. It may also be in the interest of this request to say that I was asked by the bureaucrats not to leave.
    Knowing how the rename process works doesn't really matter when one is trying to become an administrator, really only a bureuacrat. I was concerned by this event because you spent time working there without knowing what is going on. It is important that one knows what procedures, policies and guidelines are before working in an area, especially when one has administrator tools. I (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the {{rudget notice to readers}} issue, I believe I addressed that concern correctly. I didn't want a big fuss about nothing, so I just moved it. I had (and still do) knew that user templates are not to be in the template namespace, as it just backlogs with stuff that may not even be used. I had learnt this from a userbox I created for a wikiproject a few months back (about 6) when the departed, Melsaran, had informed of this.
    I agree that you addressed the concern correctly. However, the fact that you did that is what concerns me. Obviously it's nothing serious, but knowing that that shouldn't have been a template is something rather basic in my mind. You just said in your response that you "had knew" they shouldn't be there. (I think) If you knew, why did you put it there? I (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the concern over those AFDs and DRV, I'll paste what I wrote on my admin coaching page as that best describes it. I didn't initially nominate List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 for AFD, in fact I was part of the project that created them, (or at least one other member of that project created them). I had been unaware of non-administrator closing guidelines about AFDs and so may not have followed the correct procedure, i.e. discussing the article on the AFD and not closing it. The Manchester Airport related pages had been "told" or suggested ideas about shortening the page and separating the list of destinations into daugther-pages. Another user then did this and almost as soon as, were brought to AFD. It was said that peer reviews are not authorative and should not be taken without prior consensus or notification, plus my improper closing and inexperience in closing AFDs resulted in the DRV on November 10th. 8 days later on the 18th, I closed an AFD about radio stations. It had seemed to me at both AFDs that consensus had occured. I had read over the discussion and the reasons for keep had been strong and valid reasons (but this "solid reason" was soon debated as the licenses they held didn't infact make the stations notable nor verifiable). This time I hadn't participated in the AFDs and I had thought consensus as apparent (as probably would most other editors) and the pages were reliably sourced with no POV etc, but the nominator of both articles wasn't too happy and decided to try to overturn the decision and relist the pages, back at AFD. It all ended soon after, and both were kept.
    I know the history; I was the one who brought them to DRV. You say in your response that the correct procedure is commenting on the AfD and then closing. This is wrong: one does not comment in a discussion and close it as well. That is my concern; you did not understand that procedure then, and if I am reading this correctly, still do not. As a point of correctness, your close was overturned and the articles were suppose to be relisted, but they weren't (as best I can tell) for whatever reason. I (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I couldn't find them either. And reagrding the editing AFDs and then closing them, I do understand, maybe once again I did not convey it in a sutbale manner. I definitely know that supporting the closure by deletion or keeping, and then closing as a non-administrator is generally prohibited. It is also worth of note that is a strict guideline that it is the closing editors recognise the importance of consensus, and hopefully I did. Rudget. 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • About UAA, there are only two names (out of a possible 40) that have been denied, the one you mention and Jonjacobdinklehighmershmitt. I think that's pretty good, but you can decide.
    I'll assume that what you just told me is true, and you do have a good track record of getting people blocked for their username. .. I still hope you are more cautious with blocking should this RfA succeed, which it looks like it shall. I (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the position of portal co-director, I do not think of it as a trophy. God forbid. I would never do that. Just the same as adminship isn't some title and any "big deal". I don't really think two places is an awful lot of "showing off"–many people aren't aware of the FPOC process and I was trying to make unknowledgable users feel more encouraged to take part. I have never once turned away a user who has needed help (and I've adopted 4 others) and I feel it is my duty to help integrate unfamiliar users into Wikipedia. You get a great deal of work but it pays off and the results can be seen where you've worked.
    This isn't about offering help (although doing so, as you have done, is a very good thing). I still think you might see it that way, but I'm willing to assume that you don't. I (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will try to address Q3 if I were to be promoted.
    • I'd suggest that you might usefully consider dealing with that question now, because if you're serious about the priority that you place on wikipedia over your school work then I for one will feel persuaded to withdraw my support, for your own good. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're 100% spot-on regarding the Users I've helped to block list – I should never have created that, and I thank you for bringing it up here. I never see a list blocked users as a sort of blacklist that I can be proud of–I was unsure of whether to keep it and decided not to bring it up at my admin coaching seeing as it didn't seem to fit in anywhere. I would encourage you to remove it if possible, but I would like to give the two reasons why I created it:
      • I had created to look back on. UAA requests (i.e. blatant names, role accounts), substing templates, I learnt a great deal from this. I knew which names were blockable immediately, and what sort of time and circumstances users should be reported to AIV. I know it doesn't seem right, and as you say some may find it distasteful, but it is with this I gained some of the knowledge I have today. I know that's not the answer you want to hear, but well that's true.
      • The other reason being a sort of a way of discovering my old edits and to see how I can improve them. I know that WP:CIVIL is a big concern nowadays, and I have never not adhered to that. By reviewing my past conflicts (or lack thereof) I believe I can gain a better understanding of not only where the other user may be coming from, but also the results and be able to determine an appropriate effect, whether it be a note, warning, last warning or block. And as for the not blocked user, I think I have removed the one you had in mind.
    I appreciate your offering of your reasoning, but I still do not see it as justifiable. As a side note, I would prefer it to be restored so that a potential commenter who is reviewing you (as they should, such a basic thing as reading your userpages) will see it, and not only become aware of its existence after reading the opposers. You indicated in your edit summary when you removed it that it could be restored for the purposes of the RfA, and I would appreicate you doing so. You can make a note on the page that that is why the section still exists, obviously. I (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is with the greatest respect that I anwser these questions, and I would encourage any other user who may have issues with my editing to come forward. Thank you. Rudget. 10:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you taking the time to answer with the amount of depth that you did. I (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose with general uneasiness of this and WP:DENY. - Dureo (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - per Duero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flesh-n-Bone (talk • contribs) 18:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak oppose, close to support NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 18:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This section has caused quite some controversy now, and I am being told in my support section that is is a good thing that I listened to my peers and removed it, yet I'm getting opposes for the exact same thing. Rudget. 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of them are swear words / vulgar, and displaying them kind of defeats the purpose of blocking them in the first place. On the other hand, the information is relevant to your RfA. Interesting trade-off. Nice job with the blocking assists, by the way. The Transhumanist 18:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. And in retrospect, I guess it does. Rudget. 19:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rudget, just because you removed the section doesn't make it any less of a problem. You still did it, even if you now have removed it, and it can still continue to be a valid concern, if you get my meaning. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I've added it back. Note though, I will be removing it after the end of this RFA whether it be successful or not. Rudget. 10:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I meant to say here but said below on accident, why did you re-add it? AD was saying that it being gone did not change the fact it had been there, not that it should be re-added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SorryGuy (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpreted that comment differently, and Soleil said it would be for during the RFA they can see what I am referring to. Although, I have been contacted quite a few times about removing it again. Would anyone oppose that decision? Rudget. 21:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay, I can understand that reasoning. It seems to me the diff always exists though and that you should be more concerned with removing it than with making those who do not want to view a diff happy. SorryGuy  Talk  21:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I oppose on principle strongly. He may be competent in many areas, but I have to question the judgement of someone who would try to get a new user blocked simply for being named "Jonjacobdinklehighmershmitt", a harmless reference to a children's song. Along with his "users I've gotten blocked" list, this shows that Rudget has an unsettling desire to block people, no matter whether blocking them actually helps the encyclopedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff please. --rm 'w avu 10:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't you just take his word for it? I'm sure Rspeer hasn't just made it up. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I appreciate your comments, I fail to understand opposition based on something that I created in good faith. I regret the decision to create it as explained below, and I apologise to those who may find it distasteful. Rudget. 13:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, I can now see your reasoning behind the mentioning of "block hungry" - Although I disagree with this view, I understand that what I did may look like that I may apply blocks incorrectly but with more personal interaction, I hope to regain your trust basings in edits relating the blocking policy. Rudget. 14:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What people are getting at Rudget is that although you did obviously create it in good faith, they feel that your judgement is put into question because of it (that's probably the main reason they're opposing, not because they think you'll be trigger happy). Ryan Postlethwaite 15:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. But I do question Rspeer, he seems to have opposed in my last RFA with an almost similar rationale. Most of the others that opposed have decided in favour this time. The only possible solution I can forsee, is to try to interact with admins I may come across, and reassure them of my true intentions. (i.e. not blocking whenever I want to). Regards, Rudget. 15:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the diff. Looking for the actual diff, I found he also got "Wikipuff" blocked for the name being "disparaging to Wiki".I can't find this one, but if as TwoOars says, he was also responsible for reporting (sorry, misunderstood the issue for a bit) The fact that he says above, in his answers to questions, that he would have blocked User:Ggggggggggggggg12, is the last straw. g1512 was a well-meaning contributor who got reported to UAA, then blocked, then had an unblock request pointlessly refused when he tried to change his name; he then left Wikipedia but left us a very pertinent message about how unwelcoming we were.
    When I last opposed Rudget, I thought he sounded excessively focused on blocking (and so did others). The things he has done since then have confirmed that perception. So I stand firm, now with a strong oppose, even though Rudget is "questioning" me for my consistency. Do we reward WP:BITE with adminship? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear we aren't going to agree, but I advise you re-read the answer to JayHenry's question (the one which Twooars quotes). Rudget. 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to mention, that I didn't get Ggggggggggggggg12 blocked. I was completely uninvolved in that case. Here is the reporting diff. Rudget. 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have read more carefully. But now that I see the context, it is still distressing that you say you would have blocked that user. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not a "real" oppose, but a little whacking for the initial response to JayHenry's question about a username... I feel that blocking someone, who is not a vandal/troll, for having a not-according-to-wikilaw username is bad enough; wanting to block an obviously productive editor is twice the sin. That and the other username example above makes me urge Rudget to be very careful while blocking. No one would want to go through all the hassle of creating new accounts or requesting unblocks just to do a bit of unpaid work. Even mistaken warnings could probably drive away some valuable editors. Worry about content or potential loss of contributions first. Username concerns, especially the one like the 15g's do not disrupt wikipedia and such issues can be solved by a civilized discussion before blocking. Blocking that username was neither an emergency nor was it preventive. But it seems like Rudget understands the problem (from the conversation with JayHenry), so I hope that good sense prevails. - TwoOars 16:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you still consider even the possibility that you might block the 15g12 account (according to the change here) makes me uneasy. Are you not yet absolutely convinced that you should not block a user in that situation? It is appalling enough that four people (the user who reported it to UAA, the blocking admin and 2 reviewing admins) saw it appropriate to block that user. You, Rudget, have the advantage of hindsight... Isn't it a clear cut case of ignoring the rules for the advancement of the project as a whole? - TwoOars 17:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If Wikipdedia has any grammar proficiency requirements for admins, then I oppose. If Wikipedia has no requirements, I have no opinion. This user seems to interject a lot of grammar into Wikipedia that needs to be cleaned up by someone else, as shown by a quick perusal of previous edits. See the following:
    • Example 1, "originating" is incorrectly used here. The word should be traveling or coming, or a synonym of one of those.
    • Example 2, because this is in a list, it should either be in one incomplete sentence or one complete sentence. Also, using sentences changes formatting from the rest of the list.
    • Example 3, unless "Inner-Core" is some kind of special term, which it isn't explained in the body of the text, and if it were, would be considered the addition of jargon, it should be spelled, "Inner core." Fredsmith2 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That has got to be the lamest reason for opposing an RFA ever. If this is an issue for you, you should look it up or go neutral, rather than guessing and opposing. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you disagree with me, there's a lot nicer way of expressing it than calling my comment, "the lamest reason...ever." I already stated that if this isn't a criteria in deciding adminship, then I have no opinion on it, thus it's not "an issue for me." I felt I was pretty neutrally bringing up a point that I thought should be looked at. Fredsmith2 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, yes it has to be an issue for you or you wouldn't have used to for the basis for an oppose. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also point out that those edits took place in very early July (six months ago), which was a good deal of time before Rudget's last RfA happened. Acalamari 22:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note spelling/grammar isn't necssarry in becoming an admin, as long has he is able to communicate in a way in which other editors can communicate with him. I have severe grammar issues as well (mainly because of a mild case of dylexsia), but it doesn't affect my status in the project, also Sumoeagle179 should assume good faith. Secret account 01:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, then we can mark this as resolved. I seriously meant no ill will to User:Rudget or his friends, I just wanted to neutrally raise this issue. It's raised and now closed for me. Fredsmith2 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. The answer given to this is, IMO, incorrect. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could remove warnings, but it's very, very highly frowed apon, especially if you clearly vandalised, like that editor. Removing warnings are mainly for people who was warned in bad faith or if it was mistake, or if you want to remove the past from behind you. Secret account 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Restoring warning messages that the user has seen and removed is blatantly incorrect behavior. [1][2]. Per Dan above. Dragons flight (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't warnings he removed, they were notices of blocks, which that guideline you cited doesn't reference. A block notification should remain on the page for the duration of the block, which was not abided by the user. --rm 'w avu 11:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither block notices nor warnings should be restored, for the same reasons. In addition, only one of these cases involved a block notice and in that case he restored both a block notice and a warning. Dragons flight (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Sorry - as per User:Soleil. Secretlondon (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. (Changed from support) Soleil's and rspeer's arguments convinced me that this is at least not the right time. Airily driving off clearly well-intentioned users with petty rulemongering, an evident fixation on blocking and the AfD keep closure after himself commenting to keep. This is going to succeed anyway, but I don't feel like adding to the WP:100+ when there's considerable reason to doubt the candidate's judgment in several areas. Dorfklatsch 16:17, January 10, 2008
    With all due respect, the AFD comments were in early November. I did propose not blocking anything for a month (see above) - but no users commented on the proposal. If I were to complete that month, would you consider a neutral? And one more thing, I've already proved (see diff) that I did not report G^12 to UAA, that appears to have been Bongwarrior (who has since been made an admin). Rudget. 16:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did you propose not blocking anything? Perhaps you meant did not propose? However, the arguments presented in the oppose section are still strong enough for my taste. In combination with what could be called canvassing[3], this still leaves me with serious doubts. Dorfklatsch 17:21, January 10, 2008
    You may see the block comment struckout in the Coppertwig oppose (now neutral). And I would not call that canvassing, as you'd already (!)voted, so what was I to gain? Rudget. 17:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, switched from support. Abstaining. Although I realize that it is now too late to make any difference to this !vote, in the interest of honesty I have to say that I have now seen too many signs of immaturity in this candidate to continue my support. Most recently here. A bit more growing up required I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I wonder, would it be immature if he was older or would it be funny? I don't see any harm in not being straight faced all the time. As for Rudget: remember to study for exams, because if you do not study you shall not pass! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nev1 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting question, but it would at least have the benefit of experience. I'm troubled by schoolkids spending too much time on wikipedia to the detriment of their real lives, as I think I said earlier. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's detrimental to the real lives of anyone to spend too much time on Wikipedia, not just schoolkids. But who are we to judge whether people spend to much time here? Epbr123 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if I disagree, I respect your opinion. Rudget. 07:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Token oppose per cluefulness concerns. I see similar concerns brought up in a previous RFA only a short while ago. What has changed? Are people really evaluating candidates, or merely supporting their friends? Friday (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully not the latter, I haven't come into contact with nearly 99% of those in the support section. Rudget. 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an odd calculation. Surely there are not 109 strangers to you in the support section. --JayHenry (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you know what I mean. :) Rudget. 22:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Four co-noms is silly, especially the last one. Dragons flight (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although this probably won't change your mind, I didn't initially include the 4th nom. Check the page history. Best, Rudget. 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to your neutral, what does the number of nominations have to do with the user's abilities to use the tools responsibility? Also, now that the fourth has been removed, are you willing to support? SorryGuy  Talk  07:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has little to do with Rudget, hence neutral. Mostly it is a way of calling people's attention to the fact they were getting carried away. Dragons flight (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was made aware by users (those who nominated, and some in the support section) that a nomination and two co-nominations is the generally accepted limit. I did turn away three other offers in the period leading up to this, so it's up to you to decide. Rudget. 10:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah now. Why would you add it back in when no one is really supporting it being there? SorryGuy  Talk  20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the neutral in response to the actual co-nominations? Rudget. 20:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was. I meant to put this on the above section, and am now going to do so. Sorry, totally my mistake, I hit the wrong edit button. SorryGuy  Talk  21:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated "oppose" posted above. Dragons flight (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Regretful Neutral Good user, but what keeps me from supporting is the removed blocked users list mentioned above. While as an admin I do block (sometimes a lot of) users, I don't enjoy it, and I don't believe someone should have a sort of "trophy" list of users they "helped" to block. Jmlk17 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you Jmlk17 that it is rather worrying as it can be perceived as a "trophy" list, but can it also be perceived as [almost] no different to one displaying their barnstars? It doesn't deprecate his contribution to this 'pedia too much, does it? ScarianCall me Pat 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully, I have to acknowledge that I made a mistake. I apologise sincerely–to both the people who have recognised this and to those who were listed–if it has caused any ill-feeling and put a taint on my other contributions. I regret the decision and it will be removed with immediate effect pending the result of this RFA. (Already removed) Rudget. 15:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not deprecate his contributions at all actually. It seems as if this RFA will pass, and I am pleased about that, and I am glad Rudget recognizes the mistake. Best of luck! :) Jmlk17 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Rspeer and Dragons flight. Daniel 10:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. neutral - I am a bit worried about the blocking but I can see you're helpful too. I can't make up my mind....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per concerns raised by Soleil, Dorftrottel and rspeer. Username blocks can be something which drive well-intentioned users away from the project, and so the username rules should be administered with tact, care, and impeccable regard for procedure, not with a sledgehammer. This isn't enough to oppose IMO, and this request will probably still pass, but my support is withdrawn. I do think he's a good editor, however, and I'm not especially concerned about "the list". WaltonOne 13:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rudget_2&oldid=1147992289"