Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Runcorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


[edit] Runcorn

Final (39/1/0) Ended 22:19, 2006-08-31 (UTC)

Runcorn (talk · contribs) – passes the basic requirements easily, having edited since last December with over 5,700 edits, 100% edit summary and a clean sheet with no blocks. As well as substantial article edits, he shows a sound participation in talk and project space and has acquainted himself with some of the less obvious areas. He is particularly strong in Articles for deletion, Templates for deletion and Village pump (policy), and has also done work in Stub types for deletion, Categories for deletion and WikiProject Stub sorting, as well as contributing to Templates and Categories. He is quite prepared to apply himself to repetitive, routine tasks (his recent list of "welcome" edits beng one such), and this is a necessary quality for many janitorial admin tasks. However, all this aside, the main reason I am nominating Runcorn is that he displays a sound, mature, capable and intelligent character, who has shown not only technical know-how, but balance, restraint and, when needed, firmness. He is someone who has proved he can be trusted as a committed member of the community, to know which end to hold the mop, and to know when and where to apply it. Tyrenius 20:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am delighted and honoured to accept. I hope and believe that if the community gives me the privilege of being an admin, it will enable me to do more to improve Wikipedia.--Runcorn 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would concentrate on "Cinderella" areas such as CfD, TfD and RfD. Of course, I would also do what I could to deal with vandalism. I have already done recent changes patrols and I revert other vandalism when I find it, but admins have extra tools. I would also monitor WP:ANI. I have been active in voting and commenting on various *fDs. I have already closed some debates that were clear keeps or where the item had been deleted but the admin had neglected to close. On one occasion, i made a mistake and incorporated more than one debate in the same closure, but I've learnt from that and it's one mistake I won't make again.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have written a few fairly substantial articles, such as Bolero (1934 film), Carole Jordan, Grenville Turner, John Zachary Young, Jonathan Baume and Nozipho Bhengu, and more are being researched. I have done a lot of work fixing minor errors in articles, sharpening stubs, adding categories, etc.; it is gratifying that other editors have expressed their appreciation for this work (see User:Runcorn and User_talk:Runcorn), which is vital to ensuring that Wikipedia looks like a meticulously edited encyclopaedia.
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: I had a conflict over Cost-weighted activity index and Alwyn Pritchard. It did not cause me stress; I replied abiding strictly by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and providing all the sources required [1],[2]. That is how I would behave in similar circumstances.
Comment. I have reviewed both these episodes and believe Runcorn showed great restraint and patience. His ability to remain civil and communicate clearly argue in favor of his RfA. :) Dlohcierekim 20:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope that these answers are full enough. By training and inclination, I aim for conciseness and getting straight to the point. However, I am very happy to amplify anything.

4 Bonus question from User:Dlohcierekim I notice strings of "welcome user' in your contribs. Are you just greeting, or do you also check for new pages that need cleanup or perhaps speedy delete tags?
A. I do some checking, and have flagged quite a few pages as a result, generally adverts. I admit that I have not been so thorough all the time; sometimes, I have been doing this when I was too tired to do anything else.--Runcorn 21:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I can relate to "too tired to do anything else." Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 01:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
5 Bonus question from User:Dlohcierekim Can you provide difs for the conflict in answer 3? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
A. I've supplied diffs that mark the conclusion of this incident. As the relevant material is on the talk pages of these articles and on my talk page, none of which is very long, I'm not sure that providing more diffs would be very helpful, but am happy to do so if people want them. I appreciate that this is not a significant conflict, but that is because I have been successful in avoiding conflicts. I always try to steer any potential conflicts into amicable dialogues, and have been successful, so I hope that others will regard my lack of major wars as a strength, not a weakness.--Runcorn 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 00:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Runcorn (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 201 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 25, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 6, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 40.08 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 91 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 7 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 1.08% (54)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.28% (64)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 57.24% (2862)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 6 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 28.76%
Special edit type statistics (as marked):
Deletion pages: 8.44% (422 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.06% (3 edit(s))
"Copyright problems" pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
WP:AN/related noticeboards: 0% (0 edit(s))
FA/FP candidate pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
RfC/RfAr pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
Requests for adminship: 0.52% (26 edit(s))
Identified RfA votes: 0.28% (14 support vote(s)) || (0 oppose vote(s))
Page moves: 0.56% (28 edit(s)) (14 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.04% (2 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
User warnings: 0.04% (2 edit(s))
User welcomes: 10.3% (515 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3876 | Average edits per page: 1.29 | Edits on top: 21.12%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 77.22% (3861 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 17.44% (872 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 2.9% (145 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 2.44% (122 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 62.66% (3133) | Article talk: 8.34% (417)
User: 0.66% (33) | User talk: 13.2% (660)
Wikipedia: 11.76% (588) | Wikipedia talk: 1.08% (54)
Image: 0.2% (10) | Image talk: 0.16% (8)
Template: 0.36% (18) | Template talk: 0.28% (14)
Category: 0.72% (36) | Category talk: 0.58% (29)
Portal: 0% (0) | Portal talk: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0) | Help talk: 0% (0)
Mediawiki: 0% (0) | Mediawiki talk: 0% (0)
Username Runcorn
Total edits 5728
Distinct pages edited 4503
Average edits/page 1.272
First edit 08:51, 22 December 2005
(main) 3829
Talk 426
User 33
User talk 666
Image 13
Image talk 8
Template 18
Template talk 14
Category 117
Category talk 37
Wikipedia 600
Wikipedia talk 54
Current tally: (39/1/0)
Support
  1. First support we need more people closing xFDs (where x != A) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Emphatic support. I agree completely with the nominator. His high edit count and extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy makes him wonderful admin material. He is kind and generous and welcomed me and made me feel a part of the project. Billy Blythe 22:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. What a great user! Srose (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Looks awesome, great nom. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support as nom for a very sound contributor to the project. Tyrenius 23:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Beyond my standards, sie's polite and civil. Ifnord 00:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Always looking for folks willing to do deletes. And the user writes, too! --CTSWyneken(talk) 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per above. Meets my standards. Assuming other users reviewed talk page and found no incivility. Quick review of AfD discussion revealed nothing troubling. Would encourage user to go slow blocking vandals, though. It can be easy to mistake a newbie mistake for vandalism, and a block for innocent mistakes would be something to avoid. Saw strings of welcoming newcomers. Saw no warnings about CSD's. When I welcome, I check new pages and try to let editors know if I tag for a speedy delete. But then I saw no speedy tags sitting on undeleted articles either. :) Dlohcierekim 03:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. (edit conflict)Support. A very good user, and noticed nothing worrying in contribs. However, I'd like it if edits like this were followed by giving the user, say, a test1 template. Picaroon9288|ta co 04:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Overall the candidate seems like he would be an asset, not a liability. A few of the edit counts bother me a tad, but I don't see any thing there worth opposing over.Voice-of-All 08:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support Rama's arrow 11:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support The reasons for oppose below are not substantial enough for me to go against the norm. I believe that this user has done some great things here. His added responsibilities would only benefit this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Looks good. I also do the little things, and I appreciate them more then some. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 12:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Strong in a wide variety of departments.--Brownlee 12:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support looks good Mad Jack 14:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Merovingian - Talk 17:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Weak Support per above. Michael 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. — FireFox (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2006
  19. Support. Looks like a good user. --Nishkid64 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. Appears to be a kind and hard working contributor who could make a fine admin.-- danntm T C 01:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Meets my standards, and after checking a few random AfDs I'm not all that concerned by the oppose reasons below. BryanG(talk) 06:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. He's experienced in the main space. He's not as deep in policy as he could be, but I trust him to use the tools well. Very civil, and interested in helping in multiple *fD areas. Mike Christie (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Yanksox 16:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Appleboy Talk 00:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support—Although I read Crzrussian with interest in each of these debates and often find those views compelling, use of the mop requires decent and steady, not brilliant. We run little risk that we'll regret giving the powers of adminship to someone who secretly plans to unleash a campaign of abuse. I'll sleep fine with Runcorn at the Admin controls. Williamborg (Bill) 02:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support per nominator; can't see any problems. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support — Saltmarsh 10:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Seems like a responsible, hard-working editor. On the whole "insubstantial" issue, I'm firmly of the view that mony a mickle maks a muckle, or your preferred idiom to that effect. If anything the world and/or the wiki's been set on fire a few times too many of late. Alai 04:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Strong support Courteous, erudite, extremely literate, conscientious, hard-working, knows all the ins and outs. A future bureaucrat, let alone admin!--Holdenhurst 16:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support The candidate seems to be quite trustworthy, so I see no reason not to allow Runcorn to use the extra buttons, as they would certainly help him be more efficient in recent changes patrolling. I also like his willingness to volunteer his valuable time to help out with the *fD backlogs hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support, contributions suggest sufficient experience and level-headedness. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support per all of above. Contributions in a variety of areas, no issues. Newyorkbrad 23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support per nom --Guinnog 08:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support A well deserving user who should get the mop & bucket of adminship. Jam01 06:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Meets my criteria. --Wisden17 14:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support per nominator, will make a great admin. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose per contribution review. Lots of welcomes, stub sorting, and bio tagging. Spurts of AfD, CfD and SfD voting, nothing earthshattering, just running down the list. Only 46 headers on his talk page since December - that's very telling. I get that many in about ten days... Basically, while user is unquestionably a nice guy, contributions are insubstantial. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn per lots and lots more review. I've been too harsh. My apologies to Runcorn adn Tyrenius. I will not be supporting, either. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look further into it and credit to your conscientiousness. Tyrenius 06:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Runcorn will not be an earth-shattering admin — which many people will be very relieved to hear. Nor will he be chattering away: as he's said, that's not his style by training and inclination. Let's be honest, a lot of talk could never happen and wikipedia wouldn't suffer as a result. He will be carrying on his sustained work (or spurts, as you put it) in the unglamorous areas, which most people never visit, but which are nevertheless vital and need admins prepared to devote their time to them. To write off his work as "insubstantial" is, to say the least, ungenerous. Over 5,700 edits allows for quite a lot of welcomes etc. to still be credible (although welcomes are also a valuable, even if dull, task). Tyrenius 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
As to talk pages, I believe that I am more of a doer than a talker. There are plenty of talkers on Wikipedia; I would go so far as to say that there's a lot of unnecessary talk going on (present company excepted, of course). My time and energy can be put to more constructive use, and I think that to do so is better for the project.--Runcorn 21:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What I meant by spurts, is that s/he seems to be going down the list more than once and just adding a bunch of AfD votes, a bit of "per nom" thing. Just sits down to AfD voting and runs through 30 at a time, as if s/he's working a shift. That sort of activity, while not objectionable per se, does not really indicate that s/he has mastered WP's policies and norms. The 5700 edits really do look extremely cheap. As to talking, I was referring to the number of times other had contacted s/him - either to praise him or to curse him or to ask his advice or to share their opinion on what s/he's done. That means very little of what s/he done has been worthy of commenting on. Incoming talk activity is a good measure of how well a particular user is plugged in, a key ingredient in a successful sysop. In any event, Runcorn, it appears you'll pass with or without my support, and I wish you only well. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Crzrussian is of course entitled to his opinion of my AfD votes, though I rarely vote "per nom". I invite others to judge for themselves whether I have mastered WP's policies and norms, and to look at my talk page. I am most grateful for his good wishes.--Runcorn 22:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Crz, I think you've done Runcorn an injustice over the *fAs, as I've pointed out here. Busyness, or lack thereof, of a talk page can have all kinds of explanations, not just the one you've made — such as, for example, people get a lot of talk when they cause a lot of trouble! Also, his contributions have been recognised (see his user and talk pages) as "unwavering and gentle enforcement of Wikipedia protocol", "hard work on categorizing and adding stubs to many articles" and "quiet diligence in adding the WPBiography tag to articles, thanks!" That sounds OK to me. Tyrenius 03:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose I believe that edit count doesn't show the persons true contribs. Also per CrazyRussian --Ageo020 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Crazyrussian juppiter talk #c 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn juppiter talk #c 08:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
(Editor has withdrawn) Sadly I cannot support at this time as user states in answer one, they have done recent changes patrol and reverted vandalism, yet I could only find little to no instances of a user being warned, so either the candidate isn’t aware they should warn vandals or simply hasn’t been reverting any vandalism. Thus suggesting inexperience with vandalism. But I always like a bit of honesty in a candidate (see end of answer 1). User talk activity is quite low too, apart from the welcoming new user talk edits, there isn’t a huge amount of talking between other users. Quite a bit of the 5,000+ edits appear to be welcoming new users and adding {{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}} [[User:Runcorn|Runcorn]] 22:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC) to many biographies talk pages. The user has done a lot of stubbing, categorising, manual typo-fixing and general clean up of small pages, this is great, and they probably know every stub and category by now! User has also left an incredibly kind message on a spammers talk page [3] (In my opinion anyway). I would gladly support any of the users future RfA’s if the user gets experience on tackling vandalism, interacts with users a little more, and gets a few comments/suggestions in at WP:AN. I’m guessing the user was spotted as a potential admin as they added themselves to the list of non administrators with high edit count [4][5]. If anything I have said is wrong or I’ve misinterpreted something, please do say. Good luck.--Andeh 00:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. So he's a gentleman who goes out of his way not to bite newbies too hard! He's very good at issuing gentle warnings: see User talk:Fosscape. Crash in with a warning template for a bit of silliness by brand-new editors and you'll frighten them away. I prefer his approach for a first offence.--Brownlee 12:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    I agree that RCP is not something that I have done much of until fairly recently. Perhaps I should have said so more clearly in my earlier answers. However, it is fair to say that I have not found all that much vandalism in my RCP work. I have found some in the course of my general editing, and must plead guilty to not leaving warning notices, but I do appreciate that this should be done and will certainly do it in the future.
    My feeling is that initially I don't see myself dealing with vandalism very much as an admin, so it will be something to build up experience with slowly. At first, my main admin activities will be my work with *fDs. It is important to have an admin with a sound knowledge of these discussions to close them to avoid erroneous results, and this is thus likely to be the bulk of my activity to start with. It is no disrespect to many of the current admins to say that they know a lot about vandals but perhaps not very much about CfD, TfD and RfD. Surely there should be a few admins willing to specialise in these relatively neglected areas, which are important and by and large need admin tools.-Runcorn 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    Admins should know the basics of dealing with vandalism as admins are very commonly targets of it, including personal attacks. I'm not asking you to do 1,000 reverts and 1,000 warnings, just to get an idea of the way of the vandal and dealing with them..--Andeh 01:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    I would not like to give the impression that I am completely incapable of dealing with vandalism and personal attacks. I am confident that I do know how to deal with vandalism, but on the other hand I want to be upfront and say that as an admin I will not spend all my time concentrating on AIV (though I will do my share) and sockpuppets. As my nominator, Tyrenius, says, there is much to be gained by admins specialising (as he does in sockpuppetry; see here and here) and using teamwork by for example posting on AN or AN/I. In the same way, Tyrenius asked me for help on categories here. As for personal attacks, the first requirement is surely to be able to deal with them calmly; see Dlohcierekim's comment on my answer to Q3.-Runcorn 07:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, but if the admin has no experience vandal fighting then there's large room for error/problems, such as blocking too early/long/short etc.--Andeh 09:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    Of course, nobody has experience of actually blocking people until they become admins. Maybe the best way to reassure people that although I am not an admin I know the basics of dealing with vandalism is to give my understanding of them.
    On the first case of vandalism, you put the first warning template on the user page, namely {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test1}} or {{subst:test1-n|NAME OF ARTICLE}}. Later vandalism gets test2/3/4, after which the user is blocked. Stages may be skipped in some cases, e.g. instant widespread vandalism from an obviously experienced vandal may need to be blocked immediately. On blocking, {{subst:test5}} or an equivalent like {{subst:block|NATURE OF OFFENCE}} is left.
    There is discretion for lengths of blocks but, per WP:BLOCK, 24 hours is a typical first time block for a vandal, gradually increasing for subsequent offences. AOL addresses start at 15 minutes due to the high chance of collateral damage, and should always be treated with care, often needing to be unblocked again if an innocent user is then allocated the address.
    I don't believe users have any need to worry about me in this regard. I never act in a heavy-handed manner, and know where to get advice if I need it. I already have plenty of practice in spotting and reverting vandalism. As I have said, this will not be my main area of activity, certainly to begin with. My main use of admin tools would be in closing *fDs, using the ability to delete when necessary.-Runcorn 21:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral atm pending answers to questions 4 & 5. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Changed to support. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:24, 27 August 2006 (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.