Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AustralianRupert

AustralianRupert

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (101/0/0); Scheduled to end 06:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to nominate AustralianRupert for the administrator tools. AustralianRupert has been a highly active Wikipedia editor since 2009, focused mainly on military history topics. Since this time he has helped develop four articles to featured status, 19 to A-class and a huge 57 to GA status. But this is only the tip of the iceberg, as he has also developed large numbers of articles to B-class, and made a vast number of smaller improvements to other articles. AustralianRupert is a friendly, level-headed and highly collaborative editor, and a good source of advice to others - including through the many article reviews he's participated in.

In addition to his article work, AustralianRupert has a very substantial history of contributions to Wikipedia's "back office". He has performed a range of administrator-like tasks as one of the Military History Wikiproject's coordinators since first being elected to this role in 2010, and has served two one-year terms as a lead coordinator. In this role he has responded to requests for advice, helped solve disputes, and closed A-class nominations after judging the consensus of participating editors. In addition, he has been a frequent contributor to XfD discussions and discussions of proposed changes to guidelines or processes.

Overall, I believe that AustralianRupert has the experience and attitude needed to be a highly successful administrator. I recommend him to the community. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: G'day, Nick, thank you for the nomination and those kind words. I accept the nomination and welcome any feedback from the community. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I want to primarily help out with admin tasks as needed at the Military history project. Largely, this would be rather ad hoc, but I envisage that it would include tasks such as deleting A-class review pages or talk archive pages that have been created accidentally, article history merges, and page protection (but only in extreme cases and where I was unambiguously uninvolved). I would also occasionally use the tools to delete images from Wikipedia once they have been moved to Commons, but this would only be in cases where the images are clearly PD in the US and their home country (for instance images from the Australian War Memorial published in 1945 or earlier). Over time as I gain experience with the tools, I would probably consider getting involved in other areas of administrative backlog, although largely I would seek to remain focused on content creation. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

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

A: I really enjoy article writing and reviewing (for instance at peer review, GA, Milhist A-class, or FAC). Of my contributions, I would say the articles that I have enjoyed working on the most have been those where I have collaborated with others to promote through formal reviews. For instance, the Battle of Milne Bay article which I took to FA with Hawkeye7, and the Reg Saunders article I worked on with Ian Rose as well as the Australian Army during World War II article which was a group effort with three other editors (Nick, Anotherclown, myself and Hawkeye). The collaborative editing environment can be a very powerful tool for good content creation. Additionally, I have really enjoyed trying to guide new editors I come across within project space, particularly newcomers to the Military History Project's A-class Review process. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

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: I don't believe I've been in too many conflicts with other editors over the past years I have been involved in the project and I like to think that I can collaborate meaningfully with pretty much everyone. That said, it isn't always successful. I remember an incident with Bondigold in 2010 over edits to the 5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. I tried to communicate with the editor on their talk page, but for some reason it wasn't a very successful effort on my part and I believe an admin stepped in and blocked Bondigold for a short period. I believe they wished to file a complaint per this diff, but after others offered opinions here and here, the editor never came back. I regret that I wasn't able to assist Bondigold in understanding our policies and developing into a valuable content contributor. I was also on the periphery of a dispute with RoslynSKP, having tried unsuccessfully for quite a while to help her understand Wikipedia policies and to try to help her interact with others. You can see the incident on this archive. I believe the situation then flowed on to here and then here. There was also an incident on List of Brigade of Gurkhas recipients of the Victoria Cross and 4 Gorkha Rifles, although I believe that that was successfully concluded through polite discussion on the talk page. In terms of moving forward, I will continue to engage editors with discussion as a key part of the dispute resolution process. This is indeed my preferred way of dealing with conflict so that consensus can be established on the talk page. Not only does it prevent edit wars, it hopefully creates an editing environment where articles can be improved quite quickly through respecting the different strengths and knowledge of our many editors. Ultimately, though, if something causes too much stress, I will ask someone else to take a look and step away from it. As someone who has suffered from PTSD for several years, I have learned to recognize my limits and know when I need to take a break. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

4. Addtional question by KGirlTrucker87: Do you have an anti-vandalism experience? I'm a active vandalfighter in here. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 11:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

A:G'day, not in any formal sense, although I revert vandalism as it comes up on my watchlist, or when I stumble across it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I ran a search and it appears that I made a few reports to AIV many years ago. I had forgotten about these. [1] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

5. Could you tell me why many of your edits to Australia and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor (history) have been oversighted? Only in a general way of course, if there are BLP issues involved. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

A: G'day, unfortunately there was a copyright violation in the article before I started working on it (which I didn't spot). This subsequently remained in the various revisions as I helped with copy editing, so when Diannaa spotted it, she had to oversight all the revisions that contained the violation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from Xender Lourdes (talk)

6. Similar to circumstances documented in PROF for academicians, there are a certain other unique set of articles that, as documented and explained by Wikipedia guidelines, are often kept on Wikipedia irrespective of their not meeting GNG or SNG. Identify this set of articles and provide your views on whether such a retention of articles not meeting notability guidelines is appropriate (or not). This question is meant to test how well you've understood Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

A: The SNG for academics outlines a number of conditions which, if verified through sourcing, indicate notability exists. In a similar fashion the guideline for people (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) outlines several additional criteria for other types of people for instance entertainers, politicians and sports personalities. I would argue that of these, articles on sports personalities have a pretty low threshold and may be retained despite not necessarily appearing to have significant coverage beyond simple verification of their having played at a certain level. For instance, a cricket player who has made one appearance for a first class cricket team, so long as said appearance and match status is verified, will most likely be retained regardless of what other information is recorded in reliable sources or regardless of the depth of coverage available. Similar criteria exist for other sports such as football etc. I would also argue, though, that there are some military topics like this. For instance, a Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross recipient would arguably be kept despite a lack of significant coverage if their receiving the award was verified. In some regards this is reflective of the sources in these particular areas (or due to the subject's existence at a time when the media wasn't so prevalent), and also to a certain extent it is also potentially reflective of what readers would expect. In others, though, I think potentially inclusion based on arbitrary criteria can be problematic and can lead to instances of systemic bias. At the end of the day, like all things Wiki, consensus, though, should carry the day so regardless of personal feelings. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

7. An administrator prods a newly created unreferenced one-line article about a claimed new sport. An editor removes the prod and replaces it with a hoax speedy, mentioning that there is no such sport. The administrator replaces the hoax speedy again with the prod mentioning that the hoax speedy does not apply. Assuming that the said article is in reality not a hoax, did the administrator make any policy/guideline based mistake in removing the speedy and bringing back the prod? Do provide your view purely on the administrative action of bringing back a removed prod.

A: Generally prods once removed should not be re-added. That said, the replacement of the prod with the hoax speedy isn't per se an objection to the deletion, so it is a potentially arguable point depending upon which part of the policy one wants to hang one's hat on. Nevertheless, a speedy should only be used for "blatant hoaxes", and the writing seems to indicate AfD as a better method for dealing with such articles. I would argue that regardless of whether procedurally the admin can restore the prod in this situation, in the interests of good faith and maintaining due process, if the hoax speedy is not applicable then instead of restoring the prod, the admin should probably take the article to AfD if they still think that it warrants deletion. That said, if it isn't a hoax, as a type of sport, one hazards that there probably will be references somewhere, so a bit of research should be done to determine notability etc before pursuing deletion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from BethNaught

8. Following up from Q5, can you please explain what is your understanding of Oversight, Suppression and Revision Deletion, and in particular what they are and in what circumstances they are appropriate? BethNaught (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

A: G'day, Beth, thank you for your question. Revision deletion, suppression and oversight are tools/methods for removing revisions that are "problematic" for various reasons. Revdel is at the lower end of the scale, in so much as while general editors can't see the actual content of the revisions if they try to view the revision history of a page, they can see crossed out entries and there are still a broad range of other editors/users that can still check the actual content of the revision (e.g. admins, checkusers, etc). Suppression goes a bit further, in so much as the types of editors/users who can still view the content of the revision is reduced (e.g. general admins can't unless they have suppression rights) and the action is not recorded in the public deletion log once suppressed. Oversight went further as it meant that the revision would not appear in the page history at all; however, I believe it is now essentially just suppression as oversighted revisions were changed to suppressed a couple of years ago. The methods/tools are used for removing copyright violations and very insulting comments that go beyond simple incivility. It can also include removal of disruptive material or information that might breach a person's right to privacy or safety, such as an email or IP address, or someone's real life identity, or comments that constitute defamation. There are different options available including deleting the revision text, the edit summary and or the name of the editor who made the edit. AustralianRupert (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from Montanabw

9. There are concerns about a systemic bias problem on wikipedia in terms of article coverage, and how would this influence your decisions in assessing consensus and handling closures at AfD in light of the significant number of articles about women (and also people from the Third World) that are tagged for deletion? Montanabw^(talk) 16:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

A: G'day, interesting question, well presented. To a certain extent, systemic bias is a reflection of the demographics of our editorial base and also the site relying on volunteers. We can't force people to write articles on topics that do not interest them. That said, there are aspects of our policies (or our interpretation of policies) and the way people interact with each other that may also contribute to this, so we need to be mindful of this too. Ultimately, obscurity (or perceived obscurity) does not mean something is not notable. At AfD, we should try to be mindful that not everything appears on the internet, or in English, or in minute detail. Some sources are offline, and some topics may be more relevant to certain groups than others. Ultimately, I guess this is potentially a situation where IAR could be applied, but it would be a balancing act: core policies like WP:V and WP:CONSENSUS still need to be maintained in closing discussions. Ignoring these invites reviews of decisions, and implies that a closer feels their opinion outweighs that of others. As the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, this would be counter productive. Nevertheless, an admin can certainly work to counter any instances of maladaptive organizational behavior that they see such as bullying, harassment, incivility, so that all parties to a discussion can have a voice. Beyond this, I think all editors can also work to promote a broader conceptualization of what topics are important for the encyclopedia to cover by raising awareness about what isn't covered, or isn't sufficiently covered and by encouraging people to help out in these areas. For instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is making efforts in this regard, and I think individually we can also work to promote a more collegiate environment that encourages people from all walks of life to get involved and stay involved. This can be as simple as offering a new editor friendly advice, helping them negotiate and meet core policies when they create their first article, or add to one, to running targeted backlog drives within Wikiprojects, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

10. The situation colloquially known as the Gamergate controversy is an ongoing problem. To over-simplify, there was a major Arbcom case and the decision received significant press and a fair bit of criticism, as seen here and here. Upon review of this situation, should you encounter a Gamergate-related dispute subject to the ArbCom decision, and it appears to be, as The Guardian stated, “...a game of provocation chicken, both sides try to work as close to the ill-defined edge of acceptable behaviour to provoke the other into crossing it...," what process would you use to sort out the players so that well-intentioned editors are not inappropriately sanctioned and driven off wikipedia by other editors intent on gaming the system? Montanabw^(talk) 16:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

A: Wow, what a terrible situation. I actually hadn't heard of that before. Some of those actions are completely unacceptable, regardless of the situation. Ultimately, I would hope it could be stopped before it got to Arbcom, although I'm sure that the admins involved no doubt hoped to achieve that also. The key would be to try to get people talking and get them to realize what their goals are, in order to hopefully find some common ground. Potentially some sort of page protection might be a method to achieve this if there was an ongoing edit war, but a softer approach should be applied first most certainly. Self mediation, or Dispute Resolution, would potentially show who was interested in actually resolving the situation and moving forward and set the well intentioned editors apart from those who were there for some other reason. At the end of the day, it is important to realize that there are limits to what one can achieve as a lone editor or admin, so where necessary, sharing the issue is probably a good start, as would be taking a deep breath and not making hasty decisions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from QEDK

11. Considering that your primary area of focus has been MILHIST, including participation in discussions and so, don't you consider that you've been unaware of this (uselessly bureaucratic?) system?

A: G'day, I have poked around the edges of it for a while, so not totally unaware, but also I have chosen to limit my involvement, true. Ultimately adminship, I believe, is about helping people through performing maintenance work on the encyclopaedia. This shouldn't really be a big deal, but certainly I can see the need for due diligence. So like many things in life it is a balancing act, no doubt. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

12. Why do you suppose articles still have a US-centric view of everything (for example, many definitions are sourced from US agencies where there are other alternatives)?

A: G'day, there are probably a number of reasons for this. To some extent, there is probably a bit of systemic bias in so much as we are beholden to the interests and knowledge of our volunteers, but also we are potentially shaped by the ease with which sources from the US government can be accessed over other sources. For instance, rules governing reproduction of US government (or similar) produced documents and images mean that they can be used more readily than images from other jurisdictions. I am hopeful that over time we will overcome this as older articles are improved, and as our editorial base becomes more diverse, and editors strive to broaden how they research articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from Andrew D.

13. In Q1 you say that you would "use the tools to delete images from Wikipedia once they have been moved to Commons". Would you respect {{keep local}} requests?

A: G'day, yes, I would. If someone has made a good faith request to keep something local, I am more than happy to do so. I am only seeking to work in that area to help people, not cause stress to others, so if someone has requested a file doesn't get moved, I am not going to force the issue. At the end of the day the important thing with files is that they are appropriately licensed per our policies, not where they are hosted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

15. It seems that, as an editor, you've avoided troublesome issues, which is sensible. But, as an admin, it would be good if you were to help in resolving such matters. As a fresh example of the sort of issue which you, as a member of MILHIST, might understand, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian propaganda (2nd nomination). I have expressed a view on this myself but can see other sides to the argument. What do you make of this one, please?

A: G'day, as a topic I would argue it is notable, although its current form is problematic. I would argue that the topic probably should be kept and edited so that it meets requirements of neutral point of view with improved sourcing. I will be interested to see the outcome of the debate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Eric Corbett

14. What's your view on civility blocks?

A: G'day, Eric, my understanding is that blocking for any reason should be to protect the encyclopedia and should not be implemented merely to punish someone. As such, civility blocks should be used sparingly and only where the behavior is considerable and causing ongoing disruption. Other avenues should also have been attempted, e.g. engagement on a talk page, warnings, etc. It should also be balanced by considerations as to whether it will make the situation worse and whether the action will be contentious. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk)

Additional question from John Cline

16. In your answer to question 5, you stated: "Diannaa spotted [a preexisting copyright violation], she had to oversight all the revisions that contained the violation." I am curious about the implications that answer gives, namely that any revision with a visible copyright violation ought to be suppressed by oversight. Does that answer reflect what you believe is the appropriate action to take when a revision contains a copyvio? If not, please describe what the best action would be.

A: G'day, apologies I was too loose with my terminology in my response. Revdel seems appropriate to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from FiendYT

17. You're heavily involved with Military History. I see and appreciate your great contributions towards it, but what are someone of the other topics you might edit? I like seeing administrators that contribute in all sorts of areas. FiendYT ★ 18:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from Rich Farmbrough

18. You come across a "situation" involving editor behaviour, and make an initial investigation, it seems that Editor A is at fault, and not listening to reason. You don't have time to look into matters further, and have to leave for the day. What do you do?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC).

A:

Discussion

• Links for AustralianRupert: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for AustralianRupert can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support - Certainly a good candidate. Conversations like this seem to be the norm for how he interacts with other editors, and in general I see trends of pleasant and civil interactions. He has used all of the advanced permissions he has access to well without any outstanding concerns that I can find, so there probably won't be any issue with the technical use of the sysop rights. He has experience in all of the areas that he plans to work in; most of his deleted contribs centre around moving files to commons, but I don't foresee any issues with the candidate performing history merges or any of the routine maintenance specified in the answer to Q1 above. Thanks for volunteering! Ajraddatz (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support an excellent candidate. Quality content work, with numerous DYKs, GAs, As and even FAs. AFD votes could be a little more numerous I suppose, but that's not of major concern since they matched the result the vast majority of the time. Their position as a MILHIST coordinator shows that they've already got a great deal of trust from the community. I'm pleased that they've said that they'll work with history merges and deleting files which are now on commons as well - those are areas where we need a lot of help. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
3. After running a search for (Mkativerata + AustralianRupert) I couldn't find any instance of the candidate disagreeing with me. On a more serious note, obviously qualified, mature, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support I have no concerns. Hugely impressive content creation, AfD votes sparse but accurate, virtually no posts to drama boards (and the ones that I found, you were admirably courteous in). If I have any issues at all, it is that your answer to question 1 comes across as slightly reluctant to use the tools very much; but this is an entirely trivial concern. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
5. I have never interacted with the candidate before, but I do not see any red flags. SSTflyer 07:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
6. Support Enough 'back office' work to warrant the need for the tools. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
7. Support User has clearly demonstrated a need for the administrative toolkit and has quality content creation. The user has the experience needed to work in the area's he plans to work in, and the user can clearly be trusted with sysop rights. — Music1201 ^talk 08:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
8. Support Has been editing regularly since Jan 2009 and has created over 150 articles.Long term user and well versed in policy and the project will gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
9. Looks good to me. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
10. Support very well-qualified candidate. Good to see someone with such significant content experience stepping up. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
11. Support – I have worked closely with Rupert on Wikipedia for many years (and also know him in RL – COI disclaimer). He has been around for 7.5 years and has made approx. 63,000 edits, creating 156 new articles (including approx. 60 odd GA/A/FAs), and improving countless others. Whilst these are fairly crude statistics they give some idea of the value of his content contributions to date and the standards that he sets for himself. Since becoming involved with Wikipedia in 2009 Rupert has worked in many aspects of the project, and although he has focused on content creation, he has also volunteered for a range of other more administrative roles, including as a longstanding MILHIST project co-ordinator, where he has become invaluable in helping to run and maintain many of our backroom processes and organising the project in general, as well as helping countless editors through our A-class review process. Indeed, he has demonstrated a commitment to advancing the project on a broad front, helping other editors with their personal projects (and not just working on his own) through edits and / or advice, and often pitching in with backlog drives and many other tasks (such as article assessment, GA/A/FA and Peer Reviews, file renaming / moving, and commenting at AFD among others). In my experience Rupert is a highly collaborative editor, and has shown a commendable commitment to discussing any matter of disagreement in a civil manner and attempting to achieve consensus in order to move articles forward. Whilst examples of conflict have been rare, he has shown a remarkably cool head in these circumstances, approaching issues from the basis of reason, common sense, respect, and a broad understanding of policy. In my experience he is thoroughly competent, has a strong work ethic, and approaches any task methodically and with obvious attention to detail. I am certain that if given the tools he will use his powers for good, and not for evil, and once he finds his feet will no doubt feel compelled to assist in many areas beyond those he has already identified. For selfish reasons though I hope he continues to contribute high quality content as well. Bottom line – competent, qualified, right attitude / motivation, has a clue, and has a need for the tools. I would struggle to find another editor that I would recommend more highly (that wasn't already an Admin). Anotherclown (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
12. Support. I agree that this seems like a qualified candidate. My research at WP:ORCP didn't turn up anything concerning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
13. Support Very significant experience with content, as well as sufficient experience participating in the various processes. Amazing DYK/GA/FA record, would be a clear positive admission to the admin team. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 09:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
14. Strong support - Rupert should sail through with flying colors. He's a great person, great editor, and will be a great administrator, a position for which he is obscenely overqualified. +1 to everything Nick-D and Anotherclown have said, with the exception that I would not be able to find another editor that I would recommend more highly. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
15. Strong support Well experienced candidate that has already shown significant contribution and received a lot of recognition by the community. You should go for it! Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
16. Support per questioning his anti-vandalism experience. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 11:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
17. Support - An editor of the calibre and maturity that should be the default for running for adminship. If a little low on participation in some maintenance areas and drama boards, his knowledge of policies has been more than adequately accrued through his vast experience in content work, and when given the admin toolset he will not hesitate to step up to the place and use them as and when required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
18. Support, in recognition of his valuable and extensive content contributions Kablammo (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
19. Support. Gladly. Experienced, clueful, well-rounded editor. Should make a fine admin. -- œ^™ 12:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
20. Support - a strong and experienced content editor who engages with wider processes, and a good colleague to work with. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
21. Support. Echoing everyone above, AustralianRupert is exactly the kind of candidate we should be looking for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
22. Support per most everyone above.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
23. Support - I don't mean this in a funny way but like above I really do wish there was more like AustralianRupert coming here!, An excellent, experienced, clueful, knowledgeable and well.... the perfect candidate, Would make a great admin me thinks. –Davey2010^Talk 13:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
24. Support. AR is a more natural fit for the job than anyone I know, including myself. For anyone who's looking to understand and define what loyalty, steadiness, civility or leadership mean in a Wikipedia context, I'd recommend starting by getting to know AR. - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
25. Support You're not already an admin? Geez! Yes, yes, I support this nomination. I've crossed paths with AustralianRupert several times over the years, and I've been assuming he's already an admin, because of his exemplary interaction with others. You will be a very fine admin. — Maile (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
26. Support per above, particularly Nick-D's nomination and the support votes from Anotherclown and Ajraddatz. Just to be sure of my support vote, I began reading AustralianRupert's talk archives. It's quickly apparent that AustralianRupert is friendly, level-headed, and an outstanding content contributor. I saw only one negative message [2] amidst a staggering number of "thank you"s, compliments, barnstars, chevrons, virtual beers, and other tokens of appreciation of AustralianRupert from other editors. I appreciate AustralianRupert's candor in his answers to Q1 and Q3 and I think that his talk archives are fully consistent with them. Nick-D has been considering nominating AustralianRupert for adminship for over 5 years. I think it's time to give AustralianRupert the mop. « D. Trebbien (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
27. Support I've seen AR around, most recently here and here (where he gave Krishna Chaitanya Velaga much better advice than I did about a third GAN). Plenty of clue and excellent communication skills. Miniapolis 13:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
28. Support no concerns Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
29. Absolutely. Seems a genuine net positive. — foxj 15:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
30. Support A review of the contributions showed no concerns, except Q5, which was answered satisfactorily. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
31. Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
32. Support Appears to understand AfD and other areas, so no problems that I found. Collect (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
33. Support: I have had minor interactions with this editor on some of the horses in the military articles, such as Sergeant Reckless and Horses in World War I. Contributions of this editor were mostly wikignoming or other cleanup, generally helpful, and not a promoter of drama. I've sometimes had trouble with MILHIST-oriented editors taking an arrogant, know-it-all tone, and from this candidate's comments above, he's run into some of the same and seems to have managed them with minimal drama. I am going to raise a question of how this editor will deal with some topics where he may not have familiarity, but at present I have no reason to oppose. Montanabw^(talk) 16:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
34. Support. No concerns, I like what I see. Would be good to give them the mop. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
35. Support - Clean block log, more than adequate tenure, no worries. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
36. Support Happy to support this candidate. Aparslet (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
37. Support; I've come across Rupert through my work at AfC and otherwise, and I must say they've always been of help. Great addition to the mop squad. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
38. Support - Great editor, no concerns as to his past conduct.--Catlemur (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
39. Support, I don't see any major concerns with the candidate. Nakon 17:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
40. Support - I find no issues with this editor becoming an administrator. Glad to see a fellow allied servicemember is joining the admin fold! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
41. Support – no concerns. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
42. Support - no concerns. The one that I did have was allayed by a strong answer to my question. BethNaught (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
43. Support His contributions are high quality: seems to be a great candidate! You have my support. st170e^talk 18:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
44. Support No concerns. Seems like a great editor. clpo13_(talk) 20:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
45. Support - CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 20:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
46. Support Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
47. Support - excellent contributions, no concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
48. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 00:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
49. Support - Impressed by the answers thus far, especially Q6, which shows a willingness to understand the purposes behind guidelines that may result in outcomes that the candidate doesn't necessarily agree with. That answer has challenged my own negative view (a bit) on the preponderance of sports-related permastubs. I appreciate the candidate's level, explanatory tone. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
50. Support - a good candidate. I know him from the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history" section where he is a project Coordinator. He does a good job there and as others have noted above, has made excellent content contributions. Kierzek (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
51. Support – looks pretty good, has created 161 articles, and 160 kept! 333-blue 01:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
52. Support - solid candidate with clean record, working hard in areas where I myself am not customarily involved. Would ideally like to see a commitment to working in areas outside his comfort zone of MILHIST, especially that of Oz, where we are very strong in part because of his past work. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
53. Support. Good contributor, no concerns. utcursch | talk 02:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
54. Really, I don't see anything that is negative, so I don't see point in anything other than support. epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
55. Support – Excellent experience both as editor and MilHist coordinator. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
56. Support - Excellent contributor to and steady hand at military history.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
57. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 03:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
58. Support - per User:Orangemike --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
59. Support *shrug* No need to explain, this is an obvious choice.--v/r - TP 04:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
60. Support Very good content guilder with competent knowledge of policy. Relative little activity relating to deletion (mentioned because my own specialty), but what there is seems to be correct. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
61. Support -FASTILY 04:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
62. Support I dislike the fact that this user has been mostly involved with MILHIST (like the rest of the encyclopedia doesn't deserve him) but nonetheless deserves the mop. +1 --QEDK (T ☕ C) 04:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
63. Support His track record, experience attitude and commitment make this a very easy choice to make. I look forward to his appointment, as Wikipedia will clearly benefit from it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
64. Support Rupert is an outstanding candidate, a leader and consistent contributor to the Milhist project, interaction is always pleasant, very sound judgement. Will wield the mop with discretion and good effect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
65. Support -- I've known AR through MilHist for almost as long as I remember; his understanding of process and policy are sound. While I hope we don't lose too many precious hours of this steady content contributor's time to admin tasks, I can't think of anyone I'd prefer to see wielding the mop (who doesn't already have it). I like to think of myself as always keeping my temper in check, but I readily bow to AR's ability to keep a cool head in a conflict situation. Integrity and transparency are his middle names. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
66. Support - excellent at content creation and good knowledge of policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
67. Support - AR is a highly regarded contributor and Milhist coordinator. He remains calm under pressure, avoids faction biases and appears thoughtful and well informed on policy issues.Buistr (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
68. Support - Productive, thoughtful and valuable contributor. Great content work. Good interactions and judgment; helpful to others, including in review work. Thus, he has good demeanor, which is important for an administrator. He has contributed to several maintenance or administrative areas enough to show good judgement and a good grasp of policy. He can use the mop not just for maintenance but to help with content in several ways, such as file moves. I find him trustworthy and well qualified to be an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
69. Support - Extremely well-written contributions, civil, and conscientious. Shouldn't have to be active at AfD to have the mop if other contributions are of sterling quality. Hope he considers helping in administrative backlog areas as well as continuing to write excellent content. MisterRandomized (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
70. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
71. Support. I vagely remember the name from past interactions, and nothing negative about that. These answers indicate the right kind of temperament. It seems we only stand to gain from letting AustralianRupert use more tools. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
72. Support No issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
73. Support – no problems here. Graham87 12:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
74. Support Seems quite experienced and sensible. Andrew D. (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
75. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
76. Support meets my RfA standards, excellent overall, would help the encyclopedia. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
77. Support User makes a lot of great contributions and I believe they will use admin tools wisely. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 14:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
78. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
79. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 15:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
80. Support, after reading through the answers to his questions. No concerns. APerson (talk!) 16:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
81. Support a reindeer with a mop. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
82. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 17:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
83. Support. Seems a more than appropriate candidate, no issues whatsoever with respect to incivility or unbecoming behaviour. Best of luck. --PatientZero ^talk 17:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
84. Support A skilled content creator and has been civil in disputes. Taken part in my administrative-like tasks. FiendYT ★ 18:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
85. Support An experienced and trustworthy candidate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
86. Support Very experienced and diplomatic. My full support MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
87. Support Even if our best contributors have to be pushed to adminship, they do get pushed and we're all the better for it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
88. Support - I am confident in this editors knowledge and ability. It is clear that his motives are in furtherance of Wikipedia's best interests. With my support I thank the candidate for all he has done, and all he will likely do with the additional tools.--John Cline (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
89. Support. No concerns. Good luck with the tools. Nsk92 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
90. Support. Past contribution and answers to questions look good to me. Deryck C. 20:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
91. Support Experienced and trustworthy candidate. INeverCry 21:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
92. Support Solid contributions and seems to be an experienced editor. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
93. Support - Keeps a cool head, valuable contributor, so he understands what it takes to make articles and make articles better. Don't see any skeletons. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
94. Support because Wikipedia needs more active admins, and this editor is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 00:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
95. Support – Solid candidate with a good history of article and "behind the scenes" contributions. United States Man (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
96. Support This is a well-qualified candidate with a helpful temperament and a reasonable attitude. The opposers thusfar say nothing about this candidate, and will therefore be disregarded by the closing bureaucrat. The iconoclastic observations about the state of Wikipedia might be thought-provoking in another context. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
97. Stephen 01:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
98. Support Well-qualified candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
99. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
100. Support #100 - I see nothing indicating he/she will abuse the tools. SQL^{Query me!} 03:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
101. Support for pile-on purposes. long term productive (content creating) editor with clean block log, ability to communicate, and has gained a lot of respect at MilHist. As others have noted, a bit slim on deletion discussions, but what is there is good, and demonstrates the policy knowledge is there. No reason not to support, and several reasons to support, so I support. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

#Oppose Based on my review of the candidate's contributions, I have not found strong basis to support the candidate's command over policies and guidelines. May I clarify that my oppose would change to support should the answers to my queries (above) be appropriate? Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC) The candidate has provided capable answers to my queries. Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose - Universal adulation always suggests there's bodies rotting somewhere, and with a vote count that Kim Jong-il might envy, I'll vote nay just to tip a cold bucket of reality over the bedazzled mob, and keep Rupert on his toes. I shan't believe the dingo did it. Engleham (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Striking blatent non-sense vote. I'm not the only one who thinks this should be struck.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the striking of this vote, because I don't see a valid reason to strike through it. Please don't editwar with me, use the talkpage if necessary. I am willing to explain my position in detail. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion moved to the talk page. clpo13_(talk) 21:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)