Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AustralianRupert

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

AustralianRupert

Final (174/1/1); Closed as successful by ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! at 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: G'day, I am also interested in the Cricket Project, but my contributions there have been pretty limited mainly just to watchlisting and reverting problematic BLP edits or blatant vandalism on articles on current cricketers. I also occasionally copy edit those articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

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: G'day, Rich, thank you for your question. At the end of the day offline life ("real life") takes precedence over Wikipedia. I have a young family and a job that is basically 24/7, so sometimes even in the middle of a long copy edit I will have to stop what I am doing and change a nappy, read a story to my daughters, or deal with some work call, or even in fact go to work because something has happened (even at midnight). If necessary, I could come back later to Wikipedia and attempt to resolve the situation on my return. Or I could ask another admin to take a look if necessary. Unless one is on a two-way range, I don't see many situations where an action/decision would be required without the full facts of the matter. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Discuss-Dubious

19. As an admin, how would you be able to moderate natural negative reactions towards rude or confusing newcomers?

A: In such a situation they can help by reminding others of the need to assume good faith; they can also help by offering to mediate a situation and by trying to assist the new editor to understand the site's policies, and to help (if possible) them understand how they can contribute in a manner that complies with policy. Other options include steering parties towards trying to establish consensus (possibly through an RFC) or towards some form of dispute resolution. Nevertheless, at the end of the day all editors must demonstrate some level of WP:COMPETENCE and even new editors should be held to account for the way they interact with others. A lack of understanding does not excuse incivility; vice versa, it also does not abrogate the responsibility of established users to uphold their own part of the civility contract. If necessary, an admin can also help by protecting an article if an edit war becomes entrenched in effort to encourage parties to discuss matters, or in the worst case scenario (where suitably uninvolved), potentially applying a block to prevent damage or disruption. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up::-Erm, I mean, for you. Admins have to deal with a lot of unreasonable editors, how would you recharge your own AGF? (To be sure, you seem like a cool cucumber.)

Taking a break from the particular article that is causing the issue is one way, and doing some gnomish edits elsewhere, or getting off the computer altogether. Playing with the dog, going for a run, etc. Day to day life often has a way of highlighting what one's priorities actually should be, either in good ways or bad ways. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from NewYorkActuary

20. What are your views on having participants in an RfA discussion disenfranchised by other participants?

A: My personal view is that all editors should be allowed to express their opinion so long as it is civil and done in a manner that is respectful of the contributions of others. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

21. If you believe that there are situations where it is appropriate to strike out the !vote of an RfA participant, should such striking out be done (i) by any other participant in the discussion, (ii) only by administrators, or (iii) only by bureaucrats?

A: Ideally, only the editor who wrote it in the first place. Perhaps the way to deal with this is to agree to disagree and move on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from The Quixotic Potato

22. Why haven't you unstruck Engleham's vote with a message asking people to stop striking his vote?

A: G'day, sorry I have been very busy the past couple of days due to helping someone close to me deal with a death in their family and when I logged on last night, it seemed like the debate had drawn to a close. Adding a comment at that point seemed to me like it would have inflamed the situation. It is now 9pm my local time and I have been in the hospital most of the day. My personal thoughts are that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I did not feel the need to make a comment on their motivations, likewise I do not speak for anyone else involved in this debate. I personally would not strike anyone's comment, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I am more than happy to let any vote regardless of whether it is support or oppose, or whether it is backed up with a reason, stand. That is everyone's right in a democracy. I'm sorry that people have felt vilified for stating their position, it certainly wasn't my intention. Anyway, I will try to respond to the other questions a bit later, but for the moment I intend to sit with by my daughter's bed and quietly watch her sleep and then maybe hug my wife for a bit. It has been a long day, and one in which once again the preciousness of young life, and its fragility, has been brought home to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll understand that I have no way to respond to that. Sorry. I have deleted the other question and I moved my vote back to support. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from PCHS-NJROTC

23. There is a huge backlog at WP:AIV. A recent changes patrolman notices you have edited recently, notices that you are an admin, and he asks you for assistance because he is tired of playing whack-a-mole with the same people over and over again. Among 50 reported troublemakers, you see 1.2.3.4 (99% positive edits) reported for "vandalism after release of prior block, needs to be schoolblocked" and 4.3.2.1 (99% destructive edits) reported for "Vandalism after final warning." Another IP belonging to Contessa Gowan Middle School, with approximately 50% positive edits and 50% unhelpful edits reported for "vandalism after release of prior block, needs to be schoolblocked" (sorry, don't have time to make a pretty simulation for that one right now). What do you do with these three IPs? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 07:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A:: User:PCHS-NJROTC/1.2.3.4: Seems to be quite constructive in many regards with numerous successful GAs (apparently, based on the simulation talk page). The most recent 25 edits indicates largely constructive editing, with some disruption, albeit largely minor. The block log shows four blocks, spaced out over many years. The first couple seem to conform with the policy guidance of limited blocks of several hours, rising to a couple of days (per WP:IPBLENGTH); however, the most recent block was for one year. This seems counter productive in some regards, however, it isn't the current issue at hand. In this case I would decline a block for this one (and I would explain to the requester why). A warning would probably be more appropriate, followed by watching their contributions to see if there was further vandalism in the following hours. If further vandalism took place, the graduated warnings could be used, and then a short block, escalating as required. If no further vandalism took place, then the issue can probably be considered resolved.

User:PCHS-NJROTC/Neverland Memorial Hospital: assuming that the past 20 edits are all on the current day, a block of a couple of hours seems like it might prevent further disruption particularly given the type of edits. Given though that 99 percent of the IP's overall edits are apparently constructive, going beyond that, at least initially seems a bit heavy handed. Contacting the hospital's IT department might be successful also, per the guidance which outlines possible approaches to responsive incident response teams (Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses), but it might also not be successful. Given that there was a previously applied hardblock, I would seek to contact a checkuser, too, per WP:CUBL to see if there was something going on that I wasn't aware of.

Contessa Gowan Middle School IP: without a list of contributions it is hard to say. Have they been warned in the past? Are they currently on a vandalism spree (i.e. have they made numerous disruptive edits in the past few minutes, and does it look likely to continue)? What sort of vandalism is it? Is it BLP vandalism that might actually harm someone's reputation, or is it just immature, but ultimately low level stuff? A warning on the talk page, might work, but it may need to be followed by a short block of a couple of hours. Ultimately, with all of these, there are competing ideals: allowing and encouraging good faith contributions from other users who use that IP address v. preventing further disruption. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Deryck C.

24. What's your view on naming conventions for disputed territories? What should determine the article name when there is an editing conflict on Wikipedia where consensus cannot be reached - de jure sovereignty, military control, media coverage, or vote count?

A: G'day, interesting question, can't say I've had any experience in this area. From what I can tell in some instances there isn't necessarily a favouring of any particularly methodology of resolution. Media coverage might be appropriate if it involved a survey of what the majority of sources call a place, although if this wasn't conclusive, I think that sovereignty would most likely be how I would lean as it seems potentially to be more "objective". At the end of the day, though, these are editorial decisions, made in consultation with others. Thus, as the relevant policy (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)) indicates compromise or voting may be appropriate methods of resolving such disputes. Taking a vote and agreeing to abide by the result may be the best way to move on, with compromise being used to also give adequate coverage of alternative names within the body of the article (obviously so long as they are reliably sourced and covered in a neutral manner). Ultimately, it seems some of these disputes become so intractable they end up at Arb Com. Hopefully that is the exception, though, not the rule. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Question from Gerda

25. Do you have an idea how to improve peace in the historic wikimilhist infobox debates, most recently FAC Talk:Catherine Zeta-Jones/Archive 1#Infobox?

A: G'day Gerda, the inclusion of flagicons and other similar items such as medal ribbon images in info boxes does seem a rather perennial source of debate. My own preference is mainly a minimalist one, but to an extent I think the key to resolving these disputes is to try to get editors to realise that at the end of the day article content is the most important thing, not a small icon or whether an article uses a particular type of info box or describes someone as a particular nationality. Part of this is promoting a willingness to compromise in the interests of ongoing progress and collaboration. Likewise, some degree of project wide consensus could be explored through discussions around the MILMOS. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for a very general answer. I support the willingness to compromise. Looking at the particular case, a candidate for FA (in which - since I asked this question - 2 editors were blocked (and unblocked), and 2 parts of the discussion hatted), my view is like this: An editor questioned the "nationality" parameter of the infobox, in response the whole infobox was questioned and removed which had been there from 2006. A compromise in form of a collapsed infobox has been suggested. How do you approach this case - if you dare to. I am aware that many (if not most) reasonable people I know try hard to stay out of these discussions, but apathy and ignorance seem not the right ways towards peace and compromise. I am especially concerned how the requests of an editor have been treated who openly spoke about his disability and needs here (20:24, 6 March 2013). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

G'day, certainly not an example of one of Wikipedia's more collegiate discussions. I would like to think people would try to respond meaningfully (and respectfully) to issues that impact upon our readers' ability to understand our articles. That said, from what I could tell the discussion appears to have been sunk before it started as most participants appear to have brought the baggage of previous interactions with them, and largely it seems like it was the same few editors involved. Perhaps the way to solve it would be to find a way to get new eyes on the issue, and ones that weren't potentially conflicted by past bad blood. This could potentially help to find a compromise that could be supported by all. This could potentially be done through an RFC where the main protagonists agreed not to weigh in, or dispute resolution could also potentially help resolve the matter. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Question from CookieMonster755

26. I know you mentioned that you work in the subject of Military articles, but I want to know, how important is the Articles for Creation project to you? How do you think the project benefits the Wikipedia community as a whole?

A: G'day, CookieMonster, I have seen a bit of what AFC can do, mainly through the links several helpful editors have posted on the Milhist talk page. My involvement has largely been to help with formatting and copy editing and occasionally helping contributors with referencing. Overall, I see it as a worthwhile endeavour. Not only can it expand the encyclopaedia, but it can also help expand our editorial base. For instance an IP editor who has a good AFC experience may grow into a registered editor who learns the ropes and goes on to contribute more articles. It also serves as a good mentoring tool and a method of checking contributions prior to being moved into article space. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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)
102. Yes. Good quality contributions and good levels of communication. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
103. Easy decision. Jenks24 (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
104. Support I've never came across this editor in my time here, however after reading the answers to the questions, and reviewing the editor's work, this to be is a slam-dunk. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
105. Support --Saxum (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
106. Support Based on the answers to questions 10 and 14. These are the answers of a sane admin in areas of controversy about which he has had little or no involvement. David in DC (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
107. Support. Candidate seems pleasant and civil (though some time in the trenches will probably change that). Perhaps not as bold as my ideal candidate, but seems unlikely to abuse the tools and routine maintenance backlogs are becoming a big problem.The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
108. Support We need more admins like him--calm, civil, and assuming good faith. No reason to oppose. Peter Sam Fan 15:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
109. Support A solid candidate with a track record of good work, low drama, civil and helpful interaction with others over an extended period. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
110. Support Good edit history, logical answers to questions, civil discourse, just seems like a strong person to give the mop to. -SanAnMan (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
111. Support dont "vote" here often as I only "vote' for editors I have come across before alot (wish more did this). AustralianRupert would make a great admin - able to see both-sides of an argument and move things forward. Has a great understanding of why we are here and has vast knowledge of our protocols and conventions. --Moxy (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
112. Support a solid candidate! Thanks for being willing to take on added responsibilities. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
113. Support. Seems like the type of person who will do well here and will learn the right way to do things otherwise. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
114. Support No concerns. I'm happy to see pleasant interactions with other editors, and I like the answers to Q9 and Q14 in particular, which deal with some of the most important powers an admin possesses, deletion and especially blocking. Gap9551 (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
115. Support Based on their editing history, and the nominators statements, and the fact that no sensible reason to oppose has been brought up by anyone I support this candidate(despite their referring to "a right in a democracy" on Wikipedia, there is no such right here). HighInBC 19:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
116. Support Candidate looked good, the answer to my question confirms they realise that "do nothing, at least for now" is sometimes the best policy for a given person, even when "something must be done". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC).
     
117. Support – G'day, supporting in part per the rationales of Omni Flames, Music1201, Opabinia regalis, Anotherclown, and several others above. Also, Wikipedia significantly benefits from administrators who are content-focused, which demonstrates familiarity with article processes, guidelines and policies. For example, AustralianRupert has created and expanded a significant number of quality articles. AustralianRupert displays a friendly and helpful demeanor in their talk page discussions, and I'm also satisfied with their answers to the questions above. Also, for what it's worth, the oppose !votes below are not convincing whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
118. Support Very good candidate, with highly satisfactory answers to the above questions. Clearheaded and polite, he will be an asset to the project.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
119. Support An outstanding editor. I have collaborated with him on many articles related to the New Guinea campaign of World War II. A pleasure to work with. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
120. Support Solid editor and looks (from the answers above) as if they will be a solid admin. – SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
121. Support Why he isn't an administrator already makes no sense. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
122. Support Looks to be a solid and consistent editor for the past 7+ years. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
123. Support - To quote Northamerica1000, "Wikipedia significantly benefits from administrators who are content-focused, which demonstrates familiarity with article processes, guidelines and policies." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
124. Support - I don't see any convincing reasons for not supporting. Banedon (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
125. Support: A well qualified candidate who has answered the questions well and shown wisdom in silence.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

     Support Seems to be more than qualified for the task at hand. Good luck! TJH2018talk 00:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

126. Support: we need more admins and this editor appears well qualified. Jonathunder (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
127. Support: He's a good editor and he definitely deserves to be an admin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmando999 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
128. Support History of solid contributions and friendly interaction so is likely to use the tools responsibly. Orderinchaos 07:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
129. Support - I have no reason to think that this editor cannot be trusted with the tools. Happy to endorse. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
130. Support - No sensible reason to oppose has been given. I'd also like to commend the candidate for not stooping to the theatrics in the oppose section. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
131. Support Really no reason to oppose. Reading through the talk page of this RFA, I can see some very, very stupid oppose !votes were made, and all the childish drama that came out of it. This is RFA, not a clusterfuck. Candidate is clearly qualified to hold the mop, and it seems foolish to try and find a way to stop good editors from getting the mop to help out. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
132. Support - Pile on, of course, bout time :) Mlpearc (open channel) 16:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
133. Support From his answers to the communities questions and a quick check of some of his contributions I agree with those above me that he indeed has the qualities of a good admin. Reiva Xela (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
134. Support - Graham Beards (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
135. Support Welcome to the mop corps. Katie^talk 19:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
136. Support -- Per Ian Rose, Dank, Montanabw and others. I don't really know the nominee but I take comfort in some of the comments made by my colleagues above. AR seems like a worthy nomination, which will make a nice change. Cassianto^Talk 20:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
137. Support Qualified candidate, minimal concerns ~riley (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
138. Support - His answer to Q22 sealed the deal for me. Very qualified candidate, and he was mature enough to stay out of the drama surrounding the opposes. The mop is his. --The one that forgot (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
139. Support no sensible reason to oppose, and the non-sensible oppose votes further strengthen my view. To put it another way, if that's a sampling of who doesn't want you to be an admin, you can be fully confident that you're going to do just fine! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
140. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
141. Support --Lingveno (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
142. Strong Support - I am extremely impressed with the candidate's answer to question 23 (aside from the fact he misread about Neverland Memorial Hospital's IP, there's 99% destructive edits, most likely from a single person. However, I see some tweaking I need to do with the mock edit history. But he has a good understanding of collateral damage and has cited policy in his responses, which is what I want to see in an administrator. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 20:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
143. Support - has clue. shoy (reactions) 20:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
144. Support - looks good to me. Deb (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
145. Very strong support - Why not? Jdcomix (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
146. Support – one of the most sensible, cool-headed and dedicated editors I have ever had the pleasure to interact with. Certainly worthy of the mop. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
147. Support - Clearly, it will benefit the 'pedia to give this editor extra buttons, and the conduct during the Rfa is a big plus. Jusdafax 04:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
148. 'Support - Wikipedia would benefit greatly by entrusting the tools to this nominee. Opposition arguments do not seem substantial, not even strong enough for me to call them weak. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
149. Support - The answers provided have made me confident that this user is the kind of administrator we need here on En Wiki. I believe he will handle the administrator toolset with a cool and level head. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 09:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
150. Support - My primary criteria for supporting a nominee is that they have demonstrated that they are clueful. Rupert seems to be such a nominee, and as such has my support. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 13:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
151. Support Based largely on previous observations of the editor's work. --joe decker^talk 16:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
152. Support - seems levelheaded and good on deletion. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
153. Weak Support - Weak because I'd rather we carve off some of the compounding mold from the Administration before applying icing. But AR is definitely icing and deserves to take his rightful place among the exalted leviathans of the great and majestic colossus of Administrators-for-Life. LavaBaron (talk)
154. Support I have no concerns regarding AustralianRupert's ability to be a helpful and productive admin. His actions (or more accurately lack thereof) in response to "Oppose-gate 2016" has been a trial-by-fire of sorts and I believe that he has reacted admirably in a situation where there was potential to amp up an already riduculous amounts of drama. Well done.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
155. Support with no concerns, should make a fine addition to the administrative support roster. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
156. Support certainly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
157. Strong Support By all means...If anyone I'm familiar with on Wikipedia deserves the tools as an administrator it is Australian Rupert. I consider him a mentor; he has inspired me to keep trying when I was about to give up on an article I was having trouble with. He has always answered questions and concerns of mine honestly and has helped me on dozens of occasions when I needed guidance on an article. He is a very level-headed individual and can very effectively get along with a group as evidenced by his coordinator position he held with the Military History Project. He is a responsible person who always sees through with what he promises. Cuprum17 (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
158. Support (though I'm not an admin) — Australian Rupert appears to have a steady, civil bearing, and decorum — attributes I greatly admire in editors (and aspire to emulate myself), and which I think would render an administrator of great benefit to the project. Goldenshimmer (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
159. Support. G'day, AustralianRupert. Do Aussies really say "g'day"? I've heard mixed information on this. Happy to support, anyway, a cursory look suggests all is good, and no issues have been raised here that concern me at all. Welcome to the admin corps!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
160. Support. Why the heck not? We could use more admins. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 10:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
161. Support - good track record in content, clearly understands policy, good communicator, can put up with single stupid trolling oppose vote. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
162. Support Give this guy the tools! Certainly a net benefit to the project. NottNott|talk 12:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
163. Support - fabulous content contributor, and I am particularly impressed with the calm and respectful manner in which he communicates with other editors on contentious issues. The admin corps can only benefit from his addition to the roster. Zawed (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
164. Oppose: flooded the GA process with articles about Antichthones soldiers that none care about, taking precious time from valuable editors, who could otherwise have spent it bickering at ANI and AfD. Moreover, speaks a strange dialect of "G'day/Regards", and lacks the basic courtesy to get angry when insulted. Nah, strong support - strongly per answer to #11: "Ultimately adminship, I believe, is about helping people through performing maintenance work on the encyclopaedia.", which in my view trumps any concerns that one could have with admin work inexperience. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
165. Support - Great editor and in all likelihood will be a great admin. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
166. Support. See no issues, would make a good administrator to the project. —Prhartcom♥ 14:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
167. Oppose Due to the fact that he talks funny, calls everyone 'cobber', and has corks in his hat. And don't mention the Rugby... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
168. Support, per thoughtful measured answers to my questions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
169. Support, per all above...TJH2018talk 23:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
170. Support. Nothing indicates he'd abuse the tools. His answers show he's a thoughtful editor who will take his time making sure he gets things right. Perhaps more importantly, his response in the general comments section when I pointed out some best practices he was unaware of indicates he's open to reassessing when someone thinks he got it a bit wrong. ~ Rob^Talk 01:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
171. Support - I've worked with AR extensively over the years, primarily through the MilHist review processes, and I've long thought he'd make an excellent admin. Absolutely no concerns about granting him the bit. Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
172. Support - A fine editor who I believe can lend a capable hand as an administrator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
173. Support, no reason to suspect that this user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC).
174. Support No concerns. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:10, 28 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)

Oppose - Engleham (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Struck by Newyorkbrad [3] --DHeyward (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See WP:NOTAVOTE. North America1000 15:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Struck per this. Peter Sam Fan 16:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Just curious ... why did you not also strike Supports #45, 61, 97, etc.? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC) @NewYorkActuary: I didn't see those, and as some of them are by admins, I reversed my edit. Peter Sam Fan 18:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus this isn't relevant --DHeyward (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Striking blatent non-sense vote. I'm not the only one who thinks this should be struck.—cyberpowerChat: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) Vote struck out again, Quixotic Potato's explanation notwithstanding. Vote had nothing to do with the candidate or their contributions to the project and seemed to be a comment on the process itself or aspects of the position and the process. Rupert can read the talk page and be reminded of his toes, and the dingo. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oppose and will take all the flak that comes my way. I commend AustralianRupert on their pending adminship, I'm sure they will continue to be a great asset to Wikipedia and will wield the tools appropriately as their history is exemplary up to this point. Nevertheless, given the idiocy and time wasting that has occurred around this nomination and its lone dissenting voice I choose to second that dissenting voice. Throughout all the discussion that occurred I see no effort from Rupert to step in and diffuse the situation, for a potential admin that either shows a lack of awareness or a lack of desire to get involved in an issue that could clearly have been quickly put down. “The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing” and from what I see AustralianRupert did nothing, which is not what I'd want from an admin. If someone can point me in the direction of some positive effort from AustralianRupert in this instance then I will strike this with great pleasure - Basement12 (T.C) 21:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk page. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose AustralianRupert was in a unique position to act like an admin (should) by defusing the situation with a few well-chosen words (or at least attempting to do so), but chose not to. I cannot support those who do not speak up when a long-term goodfaithed user with a minority viewpoint gets bullied, censored and is falsely accused of trolling (even by an admin!). Maybe I change my mind; that depends on the answers to the questions of NewYorkActuary and myself. Note to the crats: there are currently 3 opposes; see 1, 2 & 3. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion moved to the talk page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? As per WP:RFAV, "you should qualify your reasons by including diffs of evidence you present." As it is, you haven't even provided any reason whatsoever for opposing, which will make it impossible to take your oppose as anything but trolling. Everymorning (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, @Everymorning: that argument applies to 'Support' votes too. It would exclude votes based on "as per X" or that contain 'reasons' preceded by the word 'seems'; be careful what you wish for. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I imagine it has a rather pointy relationship to their comment on another unexplained oppose vote. Mkdw^talk 05:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do ignore this vote. Don't take the bait and deny recognition. 'Crats aren't idiots and they know enough to give this !vote the weight that it's worth. Come on, we don't want another massive argument like the one on the talk page. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 08:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose per inadequate responses to Questions 20 and 21. Rupert, if you'd like clarification on this, I'll be happy to provide it, either here or on my talk page (your choice). To everyone else -- I am not interested in having a debate on this. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: I thought his responses were clear and concise, but you may have your opinion. Peter Sam Fan 15:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - apparently the community has decided that oppose views are not allowed so for the reasons stated previously I go neutral. It at least allows a no-hitter if not a perfect game so I hope the voracious fielders who chased down my comments and threw some rocket insults towards home plate will settle for this - Basement12 (T.C) 23:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

General comments

@AustralianRupert: You should probably delete your "this user is not an admin" userbox. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm sure he will, once the RfA is closed as successful in a few days. If he forgets, you can remind him then. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, user is too cocky and removed userbox before RFA was finished! --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, per User:Floquenbeam and because this user has no legitimate opposes so far.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we please nip this in the butt before it starts? This is just rubbing salt in the wounds of others.--v/r - TP 21:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean "nip this in the bud", right? --PatientZero ^talk 11:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this RFA could use some lightening up. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Unlike the actual opposes, it's clear here, that this was clearly intended as a joke, since it was not actually in the oppose section. But sure I'll stop.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I tried hard and asked a divisive question... but Rupert's answer doesn't deserve my changing to Oppose. But you're welcome to nit-pick his answers and come up with a legitimate oppose ;) Deryck C. 14:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• @AustralianRupert: For 4.3.2.1 in question #23, could you review the contributions and clarify if you would take any action other than blocking/not blocking on the basis of the contributions alone? ~ Rob^Talk 18:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

G'day, Rob, given that the unhelpful edits are to articles of high profile living persons, potentially there may be a need to investigate ongoing disruption at those specific pages. Additionally, revdel may be considered as some of the edits seem like they may meet the "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" criteria. In this regard I would probably seek another admin's opinion to confirm if my own was correct here. Apologies, I note I misread "constructive"/"destructive" in the question. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: While this is by no means a reason for me to oppose by itself, I was checking to see if you're familiar with WP:EMERGENCY (which is just an essay but certainly represents best practices). You may wish to review it when you have a moment. Any death threat should be forwarded along to the WMF staff at the emergency email (whether or not it "appears" serious). We're simply not trained to identify serious threats of harm or investigate such threats, and that information needs to eventually be forwarded on to the appropriate authorities. The Secret Service would be especially interested in hearing about a threat of violence against a presidential candidate that they're actively protecting. Revision deletion would also be appropriate, as you noted. ~ Rob^Talk 20:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

G'day, Rob, cheers for posting that link, I will most certainly take a look. Unfortunately I am still at work, editing on an iPad, but will check it out when I get back to my laptop tomorrow night. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Rob raises a good point here. 4.3.2.1 has had prior WP:OFFICE actions and has made threats against a presidential candidate, so WMF definitely needs to get involved. It doesn't deter me from the strong support because it's good to see someone not heavy handed, but do bear this in mind. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 02:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.