Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rlquall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rlquall

Final (14/2/2) ending 01:45 5 April 2005 (UTC)

Rlquall is a tireless Wikipedia contributor. He not only writes excellent original articles, but devotes enourmous efforts to copyediting, wikifying, and expanding existing articles. He has over five-thousand edits under his belt and seems to be familiar with standard Wikipedia policies and conventions. He is a valuable Wikipedia contributor and would make a great admin. Also, don't be fooled by his modesty, a large portion of the edits that he marks as minor are actually significant content edits and additions. Kaldari 01:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do accept the nomination. Rlquall 01:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. dbenbenn | talk 01:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC). 7451 edits since April 2004. Would benefit from more edit summaries, though.
    • Point well taken. Rlquall 01:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 02:57, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Cool. JuntungWu 04:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Is he a trustworthy member of the Wikipedia community? In my judgment, Yes. Will he misuse admin powers? In my judgment, No. Hence support. Dbiv 21:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Seems reasonable to me. But watch those edit summaries! Grutness|hello? 23:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support; slightly tentative as I would like to see more edit summaries; also, the practice of marking significant edits as minor needs to be exercised with a degree of caution, as many users have set their "recent changes" preferences to hide minor edits. Correcting a comma or two, adding category, or realigning an image should count as minor, but adding extra information should not, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I think there's a lot more in your favour than not, so I'm supporting you. David Cannon 23:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. If after more than 7000 edits the only complaints stem from lack of edit summaries - and he acknowledges the fact - this is an overdue nomination. - Lucky 6.9 07:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Since adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", my only criteria for support are experience and trustworthiness, both of which Rlquall exhibits in abundance. Kaldari 19:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Excellent contributor. Edit summaries and "minor/non-minor" is, in my humble opinion, a very very very trivial thing. Overdue nomination. Kevin Rector 20:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Makes good contributions to local articles and is well knowledged in the history of Middle Tennessee. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:59, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Thought you already were one though. :) -JCarriker 11:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  12. PedanticallySpeaking 18:58, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Cool. --JuntungWu 06:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Sounds fine to me. I myself forget to use edit summaries from time to time. BrokenSegue 01:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose: almost no summaries for edits. Also why do you ask for admin? I think main advantage of adminship is when dealing with vandals, less for edits. Pavel Vozenilek 18:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Not enough edit summaries. --Lst27 (talk) 22:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Marking significant edits as minor may be modest, but it's also misleading and unhelpful to other editors. See Wikipedia:Minor edit. Also, I'm not quite sure which activities would be enhanced by having admin tools. Carbonite | Talk 03:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. The lack of edit summaries seems to be related to a habit of making lots of edits in a row, as opposed to using show preview. That's not really a big deal to me, although it may annoy some RC patrollers or watchlisters. What's more important to me is that the pattern of edits seems more consistent with an editor than someone moving in the direction of sysopry. I would like to see more edits to the Wikipedia namespace, to demonstrate well-rounded familiarity with Wikipedia, and then I may support in a month. Rad Racer 13:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • 6857 edits to the main namespace; 465 to Talk:. —Korath (Talk) 02:42, Mar 29, 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. I think that my major skills involve proofing and helping articles conform to Wikistyle. I also am often commenting on Talk pages about the need to stop "correcting" Britishisms in articles that are about British, Commonwealth, or European subjects
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I would say that my favorites are probably those involving Tennessee political and historical topics such as John S. Wilder, James Naifeh, Riley Darnell, and Tennessee State Constitution, for example.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I have really tried to avoid "edit wars". For some reason a stub that I started early on (Square Deal) became the subject of a penile-obssesed vandal. I got over it, the page was protected for a while, and the vandal finally moved on. I suppose that the most controversial topic I have really gotten interested in is Holocaust denial, which is something that seems hard to take seriously when you have lived for two years in Europe, as I have, but has lots of hard-core adherents who are everywhere on the 'Net. I also have a lot of interest in topics relating to Mormonism, Judaism, Islam, and anarchism, particualrly Spanish anarchism, although I'm not a member of any of these groups. But I don't try to use these interests to make my points. I really strive for an NPOV, and try to take things toward it. I'm not much of a deletionist, except when it comes to fancruft, vanity, and primary schools — I'd rather see articles "fixed" rather than deleted in most instances.