Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Quale

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

[edit] Quale

Closed (6/2/6) ending 23:16 October 8, 2005 (UTC)

Quale (talk • contribs) – I believe that this user would make a good admin. He has been here since March 2005, and has amassed over 4200 edits, 2868 in article namespace, 1019 in Wikipedia namespace. Reviewing his edits, Ive noticed that he is always courteous, he is an active participant on AFDs, and he actively uses edit summaries. I believe he deserves the mop! →Journalist >>talk<< 23:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: respectfully decline

While I appreciate the nomination, I wish to decline it. The work I enjoy doing most on Wikipedia doesn't doesn't require adminship. I rarely make edits to articles on particularly controversial topics, and I think being an effective adminstrator might require greater involvement in the sorts of things that I have mostly avoided so far. Recently in performing cleanup I've worked on articles far afield from the chess articles that had been most of my edits before, and my view of Wikipedia is still changing a bit. I apologize to anyone put off by my delayed response. It wasn't intended as a sign of disrespect—I was caught unprepared and just wasn't sure whether accepting the nomination would be good for me and for Wikipedia. I'm sure declining will be fine for both. Thanks to all. Quale 04:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

Support as nominator. →Journalist >>talk<< 23:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support, I saw some of the edits. --MissingLinks 07:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
3. FireFox ^{T C} 11:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Has enough edits, has been here long enough. Private Butcher 16:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

   Support. Resistance is futile; you will be administrated. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

5. An ideal admin. Andre (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Sounds good to me. I think a user's contribs speak broader than his answers to the standard questions here, and should note that Uncle G got a plethora of support votes before answering them, and have seen no reason to regret adminning him. Radiant_>|< 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Far too many Wikipedia namespace edits, too early. I suggest a long period of article editing to improve this editor's editing experience and broaden his perspectives. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Over the past two days, despite being active here (over 150 edits since his nomination!), this user has ignored this RfA, even after repeated notices on his Talk page. If he's not interested—that's fine, but the civil thing to do is let us know, one way or the other. Would people seeking his help as an admin also expect to be ignored this way? Note that only 1.5% of his edits are in the User_talk namespace. Owen× ☎ 22:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now and until I see his answers to the questions below. I would also want to what happened that with 4,000+ edits you only have 115 on Talk namespace. That is a concern as it shows little engagement with other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
2. I have had excellent experiences working with Quale. I will be delighted to support when I see his acceptance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral until user accepts nomination and answers the questions. I can't support anyone who hasn't, unless I've nominated them myself. — JIP | Talk 16:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral I don't remember seeing this editor about the place, so will wait for answers.Alf ^melmac 21:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral until nomination is accepted and questions are answered. Will probably switch to support. Deryck C. 16:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Shifting into Neutral - user has not accepted the nom despite several nudges on his talk page by various editors, leading me to suspect he'd rather be left alone. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Honestly, it seems as if this editor does not want to become an admin. He hasen't contacted me regarding his answer, and he shows no interest whatsoever. By studying his contributions, youll know that he has made edits since Ive contacted him, so Im sure that he has gotten the messages I left him. In fact, he has even spoken to other editors who left messages after I did. Im sorry, I no longer wish to support. →Journalist >>talk<< 22:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Has he anywhere informally said yes? Journalist? Moral of the story don't nominate without making sure. Maybe he just goes about his business and doesn't want to be bothered with this sort of thing—not a fault. Marskell 23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, User:Flcelloguy told me that he spoke to another user about it (after a bit of coaxing, it seems), saying that he hadnt decided yet, but I still find it a bit odd that he ignored me. See here. Dont worry about me, Ive learned my lesson. Next time, Ill make absolutely sure. :)→Journalist >>talk<< 00:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Journalist, you did nothing wrong. There's no harm in nominating someone who isn't interested; this is why we have the "Candidate, please indicate acceptance" bit. You've done everything possible to get Quale to respond to this nomination. Owen× ☎ 01:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A.

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

A.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.