Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Quarl

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] Quarl

final (81/3/3) ending 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Quarl (talk · contribs) – Quarl has been a registered user since April 2004 and has been an active editor since August 2005. He has almost 9000 edits, and has been very active in AfD and RfA. But that is not all, Quarl is a fantastic programmer and has created (and upgraded) quite a few wikipedia scripts that is used by different users. He has been very actively working and improving the scripts on a daily basis. It's hard to describe how useful his work has been, you have to try it yourself. —This user has left wikipedia 19:16 2006-02-01

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I welcome scrutiny to find out whether I've been doing anything wrong. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 23:27Z

Support

1. Support ~ Per nominator —This user has left wikipedia 19:46 2006-02-01
2. Support ~ I have thought for some time that Quarl would be a great addition as an admin. Pattersonc(Talk) 3:04 PM, Wednesday; February 1 2006 (EST)
3. Support - a very intelligent user who'd make a fine admin. PJM 20:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Also hereby nominate user for sainthood. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, one of the good guys. I am confident Quarl will make good use of admin tools. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Very Strong Support I wanted to nominate him soon, good lord yes Excellent work in AFD's --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - A good editor. Mushroom (Talk) 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - Solid contrbiutor. No Guru 00:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
10. While he has only been really active since December (how can one possibly make 6610 edits in just one month?! amazing!) and has had relatively little interaction with other users at Talk and User talk pages, his efforts make him a clear case of quality of his contributions over quantity of time. Happy to say yay! to quality. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Good judgement. Dlyons493 Talk 00:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, looks good. —Kirill Lokshin 01:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, solid contributer, good editor. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Trustworthy editor, who has done everything right as far as I see. Good show! Xoloz 02:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I'm a bit concerned about burnout (99% of his 6.5k edits in under 2 months...) but observing his behavior in AfD a bit he seems sensible and has knowledge of process, seems to make good contributions, so he should make a good mop bearer. --W.marsh 02:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Support --Jusjih 04:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Support If he can tell me what the character before and after his edit summary is because my computer shows an unknown character ;) j/k Dr Debug (Talk) 04:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
19. NSLE _(T+C) 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. Good editor. Grutness...wha? 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Hard to participate in AfD without running into him, and even harder to argue with his judgement or logic. Will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, very valuable contributor at AfD (useful comments), deserves admin tools. Kusma (討論) 05:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Merovingian {T C @} 08:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. --*drew 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, great editor. Very active participant in AFDs. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Support — fantastic all-around editor. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 10:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Support : A great editor and all-around helpful Wikipedian. -- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 12:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Support - Liberatore(T) 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Level-headed, active. Ifnord 14:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support This is obvious [[User:Mjal 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]
33. Support. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Good editor --rogerd 02:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Support per above. --tomf688^{talk} 03:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Seen this user around, good impression. enochlau (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
37. A no-brainer. And I don't mean Quarl has no brain, I mean that the decision requires no brain to make. But that does not imply that those who do not vote support have no brains, and ... I .. oh, fuck it. Strong support. Proto t c 11:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Support anyone who makes life easier for editors. youngamerican (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
39. Squarl. howcheng {chat} 18:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Support: --Ahonc (Talk) 19:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. Good qualifications, valued user. Highly unlikely to abuse admin tools.--Dakota ~ ε 20:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, good editor. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
45. Support - Coders rock! Always need more of them around. --Cyde Weys 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
46. Am surprised he isn't one, frankly. Johnleemk | Talk 05:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
47. Support --kingboyk 05:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
48. Ok. ENCEPHALON 07:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Strong editor, excellent technical contributions, no evidence of abuse. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. Punkmorten 18:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
52. Support --M@thwiz2020 20:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
53. Support -- seems like a nice person. Thumbelina 21:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
54. Support: I awarded Quarl a Barnstar and I think adminship is reasonable too. Stifle 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
55. Support--Ugur Basak 02:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
56. Support His monobook is really cool. ~MDD4696 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Good editor. Sophy's Duckling 04:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. Solid editor plus those scripts as an admin could be a good combination. NoSeptember ^talk 12:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
59. Support, I see no potential for abuse. Hiding talk 16:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
60. SuperBowl Sunday Support Image:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
61. Who cares about the superbowl, I watch for the ads! Support (I love wireless networks!) Quarl has expressed doubts about whether his nom was too soon. With 9000 edits! We need admins who are good editors and toolsmiths, as having a variety of perspectives is important, not all admins should be policy wonks and nothing else! ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
62. Support. Valuable contributions at AFD and elsewhere across Wikipedia. --Aude (talk | contribs) 05:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
63. Support per nom. Quarl is a great contributor to Wikipedia. --Rory096 05:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
64. Support, I'm amazed he isn't already an admin. I wonder how many times I've seen "Merge per Quarl" on the AfD pages -- a fine editor, and if 9000 edits is not enough, I don't know what is (I feel like a seasoned veteran with about 330...) Grandmasterka 09:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. Jonathunder 13:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
66. Support, He's a great editor and his scripts are doubleplusgood! --Dragon695 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
67. Support, would make a nice sysop. — TheKMan^talk 05:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
68. Support --AySz88^-^ 06:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
69. Support Would be a good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}13:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
70. Support. Pilatus 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
71. Support Nothing wrong with this editor! Joke 16:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
72. Support Good judgement, polite, industrious. An excellent choice. Avi 17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
73. Support, should make a fine administrator. Hall Monitor 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
74. Support Seen his good work around. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
75. Support naturally. ComputerJoe 19:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
76. Support Monicasdude 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
77. Support Pschemp | ^Talk 01:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
78. Support Quarl has what it takes to be a good administrator. -- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 14:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
79. Support, and welcome aboard. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
80. Support --Myles Long/cDc 16:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
81. Support --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose, user seems to be well-versed in AFD but shows little experience with other processes. Or if he does, please point out where. >Radiant< 17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Quarl has been active here in RfA, working on templates and discussing templates, wikifying, & programming. ~ Cheers —This user has left wikipedia 20:19 2006-02-02

   Some other processes in which I've participated: proposed guidelines such as WP:SOFT WP:SOFTWARE, WP:RFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD, WP:PNT, WP:AIAV, WP:VIP, WP:DRV, WP:VP. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-05 04:04Z

   • Sorry, but looking over your last month of contribs doesn't give any indication of that, nor does the history of WP:SOFT. But judging by your contribs you'd probably learn quickly at need, and it seems your nom will succeed, so good luck. >Radiant< 11:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
     • Oops, wrong shortcut -- I meant WP:SOFTWARE, not WP:SOFT. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-05 21:24Z

2. Oppose for now. Main activity in December and January, would prefer to have waited a month or two longer. --pgk^(talk) 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC) I note the candidacy statement says active since August, but 15 and 18 edits in October and November doesn't strike me as active. --pgk^(talk) 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Correct statem should be: registered user since April 2004 and has been an active editor during August 2005 - September 2005 and December 2005 - Present. ~ Cheers —This user has left wikipedia 20:19 2006-02-02

   It's not a big problem, but is misleading. Regarding Quarl's technical competence that really isn't a question here, the question is would Quarl make a good admin, there doesn't seem to be any connection between the two to me. I prefer a bit of patience (not a lot more) and consistent activity over a slightly longer time. --pgk^(talk) 07:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Radiant!, not enough active time to fully understand all policies. Also, good at scripts != qualified for adminship.--Alhutch 20:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Majority of edits coming only in the past few months, so technically, he/she has been active for only 2 months.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. as above. good god man, 6000+ edits in a month? I hope you don't burn out. Or that you use a bot. or something
3. Neutral. I came across his "location canonicalization", changing [[City, State]] to [[City, State|City]], [[State]], and it immediately struck me as fucking useless. I have no idea how and if this would affect his actions as an admin. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• With all due respect, the change by Quarl alters one link for the city into two links for the city and its state. It's a minimal change and something most editors wouldn't even bother with but it's that attention to detail that, IMO, helps make for a good Admin. Pattersonc(Talk) 9:37 AM, Tuesday; February 7 2006 (EST)
  • SPUI, thanks for your concern over this content dispute and bringing attention to the issue. As you can see at AN/I#"Location canonicalization", five of the six admins that replied to your post think my changes are useful. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Location Format, although I am the only one active at the moment because I just revived it yesterday. I would be interested in getting MoS consensus for or against these changes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 19:50Z

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Quarl's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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 contribute to closing AFDs and speedy deleting. I have lurked on WP:AN and would participate more actively. I would welcome access to protect pages; I have some strong ideas regarding security problems with the way user scripts are currently hot-linked. I expect to do the obvious tasks like blocking vandals. I do a lot of chores that don't require sysop status (e.g. cleaning up or AFDing deadend pages) and would continue doing them. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 23:27Z

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

A. I am particularly pleased with various "synthesis" articles I have created or merged together. I believe Wikipedia should be organized top-down, i.e. big articles that have sub-sections splitting into "main articles" as necessary, rather than a bunch of stubs that all overlap each other. You can view the articles to which I have contributed the most via Interiot's tool's display of my Article-space edits. Market trends is an article I synthesized recently. I enjoy contributing to Computer Science articles and am excited that Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science has recently been revived. I am also pleased with my user scripts, for example User:Quarl/auto_summary.js is quite useful. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 23:27Z

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 hairiest conflict with which I was actively involved was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunk Land. I (and some other people) said some things which were insensitive, and things got a little personal. It was becoming a revert war but things were resolved peacefully and everyone seemed to walk away satisfied [1]. I learned a lot in that episode, and WP:Hoax was one of the results. I haven't been in many editorial disputes, usually I have resolved disagreements via Talk pages. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 23:27Z

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.