Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:36, 20 October 2007

Rudget

Voice your opinion (talk page) (21/1/1); Scheduled to end 20:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Rudget _{Contributions} 21:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: If my candidacy was successful, I believe I would follow my presence on the AIV, ANI and CHU processes, as this seems the most appropriate place for me to want to continue. I anticipate working on the AIV section primarily because of the imminent reoccurence of backlog on the page (although the bot does effectively contribute!). I routinely patrol Special:Newpages and flag inappropriate pages with the correct speedy tag. Using the experience here and my understanding of WP:CSD, I believe would help me to reduce the backlog of non-marked pages which have been missed. Although, pages that get flagged are usually speedied some are disputed and left to be marked on AFD where a broader range of editors can contribute to the discussion. However, working as an Admin, I would hope not try to limit me from the good 'ole edit on a page I would like to see achieve great status.

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

A: WP:NEWBIE states "A place to get help with editing and finding your way around Misplaced Pages". And this is how we all started out. I would have liked, when I started (in April 2007) to have written great articles about Sligo, Manchester, and other UK articles. But as luck would have it they were already gone, taken by the users which would eventually help me to "find my way around Misplaced Pages". In one of my subpages User:Rudget/Contributions, it shows any Wikipedian what I have done. It shows that I have contributed significantly or created over 15 articles, although it could be a bit biased as I added them!, but nevertheless these are the articles I am most proud of. Didsbury, especially. I have completed over 280 edits to Didsbury, and is now very near GA standard, next Manchester with 45 edits (before and during the GA review). And so on. Didsbury has been very nice to me and not really given me any hassle or took me away from my coursework, that much. The first and failed GA review, Didsbury got confused me a little but I eventually got to understand that all nominees have to go under rigourous scrutiny. But, I have solved that now and now regularly read passed GA articles, without neccessarily editing them. I also like my edits to WP:GM, distributing newsletters and other such things, which has gained me recognition by other editors in the Project. Other edits that I find good are my delivery of Welcome messages, (see:Template:Rudget WM), with which I have welcomed over 900 new editors or so, some of which have come to me for advice. According to this I have over 4000 edits, so taking away what's registered here, that means I've got 300 or so deleted edits, which I've mainly ranked up during NPW.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: - Honestly, I have not been involved in any edit wars, but have disputed the personalities of two other users, namely Mike33 and Malleus Fatuarum. I did cease any sort of unfrendliness between me and those users, successfully. I now enjoy a great "editorship" with Malleus and we are working extremely close together trying to get Didsbury through GA. But to come to the second part of the question, I would first as done before, immediately review my actions and act appropriately. But if this did not occur I would then ask another editor to give an independent opinion, as I did with Deskana here. Then if it escalated after that, I would consult Requests for Arbitation and other appropriate processes.

4. Would you be willing to enable your e-mail address? Doing so allows blocked users to contact you, in order to discuss the block. Ral315 » 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes, Ral315, I would like to enable my email address because as I do in real life I am always open to rediscussions of any events that may unfold. In fact, I'd like most of my users that I may block to contact me via email, as it would enable to me to interact more quickly with the user in question.

5. Seeing that you are willing to handle WP:AIAV, how would you handle accounts after the last warning for vandalism? VoL†ro/\/Force 06:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Good question. As in the green box on the AIV page it says "...vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances". And by this I interpret it as a note to all admin as saying that don't always immediately block but use the block sparingly in only appropriate cases, but to further it it says in unusual circumstances - which means I would use my power only effectively and where due, but would not block a user which has been entered as part of an edit war etc. However, that is in exceptional cases, which hardly ever turn up at AIV. Generally, I would block any obvious vandal, promotional and spam only accounts and do so decisively and swiftly. However users can sometimes be more appropriate to ANI where a greater range of editors can contribute and act effectively.

See also: User_talk:Voltron § RfA

6. What's the difference between a block and a ban? Miranda 06:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Well. There is a great deal of difference between a block and a ban. The first being used right across the board, at AIV, ANI and where admin find it appropriate where not reported on the two mentioned. A block can last from 15 minutes (I think?) to any time specified, mainly indefinite against vandalism-only accounts. A ban is used more effectively when dealing with sockpuppets etc, and prohibits most users from editing pages forcing them make new accounts and think about their actions. A ban can be used for a smaller period of time in comparison with a larger ban which could be permanent. Also, forgot to mention that only ArbCom rulings and Jimbo himself can do the favours.

A question from bainer (talk)

7. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?

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

Question from User:Wikidudeman

8. Would you add yourself to Category:Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall? Why, or why not?

A: - Yes, actually I would. It nevers hurts to take a step back and let other people, and most importantly yourself, and look at your past actions and how they've affected Misplaced Pages. If admin are responsible for the community then it helps for them to at least heed some of their advice.

Question from User:Miranda

9. What is your interpretation of BLP? Miranda

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

Questions from Bfigura

10. If you were engaged in a long content dispute with another editor, and they started cursing suddenly, what would you do?

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

11. If an editor you were on good terms with emailed you regarding a block that seemed to be poorly founded, what actions would you take?

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

Optional question from User:Jehochman

12 What are some effective strategies for dealing with disruptive users? What strategies are NOT effective?

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

General comments

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

• Links for Rudget: Rudget (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Would you mind adding an nomination statement and accepting? --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 21:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Done Rudget _{Contributions} 21:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support I looked through the contribs for a few minutes, and found that a report to AIV was commensurate with the vandal's activity, a comment at AFD was consistent with consensus, and a revert at Manchester Airport came with the explanation that the original edit did not provide a reference, nor could Rudget find one himself. These are all good signs. As an aside, I chanced upon Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nikortsminda, where Rudget commented under a previous username (Radio Orange), and I closed the discussion under a different username (YechielMan). Time flies, doesn't it? Oh, and let's thank the tireless bureaucrats who keep up happy with the username changing process. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Contributions indicate that the candidate seems to have well-rounded experience of the most significant areas of Misplaced Pages, sound policy knowledge (as far as I could tell), has contributed a respectable amount to article space and there are no civilty concerns. CIreland 02:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support This candidate has sound policy knowledge. He will be a great admin. --Siva1979 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. As far as I can tell the candidate has made solid encyclopedia-building contributions to several articles and understands policy. Majoreditor 03:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Per Shalom, once again. — Dorftrottel⁠ 07:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Namespace editcountitis be damned! I see a nice spread of constructive, well-informed edits across most namespaces. Although more WT: experience would be nice, nobody's perfect. :) east.718 at 11:26, 10/18/2007
7. Support. Great answers! I think this candidate will be a great admin. Good luck! -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Weak Support Seems to know policy well and there aren't many users who would mention bans and blocks in their RFAs. Weak because of the ignoring of rules section. Rules should be ignored if doing so obviously helps the encyclopedia.--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
9. You truly deserve my support for answering my question clearly on my talk page. Misplaced Pages should have more admins like you. --VoL†ro/\/Force 17:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - Seems to know policy well, good answers to questions and I believe he would be a good Admin. Tiddly-Tom 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Previous interaction with user has been positive. Oldelpaso 18:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Appears to be a good user. Acalamari 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - Good answers. P.S., The fact that there are zero opposes makes me think that you haven't really involved yourself in a lot of disputes. This isn't necessarily a good thing. Most of the best editors who have several thousand edits and have been involved in several disputes tend to make enemies who oppose their Admin nominations regardless. A lot of people take things personally and oppose editors simply because they don't like them if they've ever had disagreements with the editor. So the fact that there are zero oppositions tells me that you likely need to involve yourself in disputes more often and get out of your zone of comfort. Wikidudeman 19:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Siva1979 is supporting many RfAs while opposing my RfA. Making me jealous... er, I mean, Support per Siva1979 NHRHS2010 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
15. SupportAs per Wikidudeman and find nothing in track to oppose.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Why the hell not? Ral315 » 06:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support, no concerns. Neil ☎ 11:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Should be fine, although interpretation of block/ban is a bit on the iffy side. Phgao 11:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, as I'm sure that many users that go through RfA don't fully understand the intricacies of what a ban is. Hoever, I urge you to read up on WP:BAN fully before use the tools should this RfA succeed. Apart from that, I think you're a very diligent user and I trust you with a few extra buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support good work in CSD; not all admins are expected to know all policies especially ones with which they do not expect to run up against in their early adminhood, so no real worries there. How many admins can build tomorrow's main page from scratch? Carlossuarez46 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support changed from neutral. The candidate gave mature an thoughtful answers. Per the discussion below, I'd suggest reading up on blocking/banning, but I'm not going to oppose over that. Based on that discussion, I think the candidate will ask others for advice before taking any deep plunges into areas that he's not entirely familiar with. --Bfigura 23:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support per everyone. Poohead 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per "A ban is used more effectively when dealing with sockpuppets etc, and prohibits most users from editing pages forcing them make new accounts and think about their actions". Someone who will unblock banned users' new accounts to "think about their actions" is not someone who I want to be an administrator. Daniel 06:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - I'm not sure that's what I was trying to get across. Rudget _{Contributions} 14:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

   The point he's trying to make is that you don't understand what a ban is. A ban means the user isn't welcome here, we certainly don't give them out so they have to go and make new accounts. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I know that. But that's not what I was trying to convey, even if that was what I stated. Rudget _{Contributions} 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, could you please explain what the difference is between a block and a ban? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

   The difference is: a block is a means by which admin restrict the editing access of users It also means users are allowed to edit their talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, and so are able to participate, even if only on a small scale in Misplaced Pages, whilst the block is ongoing. Firstly, a ban (as stated) can only be done by Jimbo and ArbCom, but also as Miranda says, the community can also lift bans. The term is defined as a "revocation" or abolition of something, in this case the activity of the user in question. A ban is not to be used lightly and should only be in coalition with others, aswell as the fact that bans shouldn't be undone by a single admin. (Which I would never do, even if that was what I implied) Rudget _{Contributions} 15:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

   Sort of, the community can ban users as well - often there is a discussion at WP:AN/I asking for input. If there is a consensus to ban then the user gets banned. A community ban is described as a user being blocked for an indefinate period that no administrator is willing to lift, so if one admin wants to lift the ban, then the user can't be banned. Of course, Jimbo and ArbCom can inflict a ban, but I'd suggest more come from the community. When someone if banned from the site, they are not welcome to edit under any username. No single administrator can ban a user, but they can indefinately block a user. Ban's are only given out when the user has exhausted every other method that the community has to offer. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

   Candidate, read up on WP:BAN. You're not expected to know everything as long as you stop and learn when something new comes up. - Jehochman 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - to both users. Rudget _{Contributions} 15:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - I am worried that you don't know the difference between a block and a ban. A block can be lifted. And, many sockpuppeteers are not banned, but are indef. blocked. Also, when you say that the arbitration committee and Jimbo can make bans, you are partially right. The community can also issue bans as well as lift them. See also the banning policy. I have also asked you another question regarding BLP issues. And, I will make my decision from there. Miranda 20:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral per Miranda. Your other answers seem very thoughtful though, so I asked another question or two. --Bfigura 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Moving !vote. --Bfigura 23:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)