Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Runcorn

Runcorn's participation in *fD
CrzRussian has suggested, "[Runcorn] 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."

This surprised me, as it wasn't my perception when I looked through prior to suggesting the RfA, and I wondered if I'd got it wrong, so I looked through again. I can see why it might appear that Runcorn was simply totting up edits mindlessly and therefore not contributing anything worthwhile, and this is because he has a very economic approach, saying what he needs to get the job done without excess verbiage.

I have extracted all of Runcorn's comments from 4 of his sequences of *fD participations. The top sequence, CFD, is very revealing. The three repeated comments make it look as if he's not thinking properly. However, when he feels an explanation is needed (presumably because the point has not been made by anyone else) he does this accurately and concisely. What is even more telling is the AfD sequence, where he breaks off from his "shift", when he feels the necessity to (presumably search out and) add a reference to the article under discussion. This is clearly indicative of a conscientious approach, not a mechanical one.

I always have a sense that whatever he says, he means it, that it has come about through the application of intelligence, not rote, and that it is an intelligence grounded in a sound knowledge of policies, apparent by the many different ways he has alluded to them. This is also shown by the targeted comment in each case with rare repetition, and not one "per nom" to be found.

Categories for Deletion, August 24, 2006

 * Rename Definitely
 * Keep Fictional freemasons, as that's something separate; Delete the others
 * Delete This is a nonsense. Actually, a mutant could be anyone who has any genes not identical to either of their parents', and probably there are such Wikipedians and probably they don't even realise!
 * Keep It's a question of definition; minor planets are (as their name indicates) small planets, and there are plenty of binary minor planets that could go here. rename to Binary minor planets?
 * Delete Ill-defined; is this American football, soccer or Australian rules?
 * Delete pretty pointless
 * Delete pretty pointless
 * Delete pretty pointless
 * (I repeated myself because there were three almost identical cats and there seemed no need to search for elegant variations.--Runcorn 20:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

NEW NOMINATIONS - National museums of England
 * Delete, Empty category; unnecessary because there are no National museums of England (as opposed to Great Britain).

Articles for Deletion, 24 August, 2006
Runcord added a source to the article:  === Reference === * National Trust handbook for 2006, p.34 
 * Keep Enough notable people involved to make it notable.
 * Delete Purely of ephemeral interest.
 * Delete Of only local notability
 * Delete I don't think even a redirect is useful, as it is in Wiktionary
 * Delete as copyvio.
 * Keep It is a well-known beach; I'll add a source
 * Keep Clearly a notable person, though the article could do with further work
 * Delete I can't see how it passes notability
 * Keep Possibly all supercentenarians are notable, and certainly those in Guinness are
 * Keep There's enough there to demonstrate notability.
 * Delete Absolutely no grounds for listing.
 * Delete at present. Restore if it becomes notable.
 * Delete per Sandstein
 * Delete Not enough verified info to prove notability.
 * Delete Seems overkill to have a list and acategory.
 * Delete Does not seem to meet criteria for notability.

Miscellany for Deletion, August 10, 2006

 * Delete Clear violation of NPOV.
 * Delete Does not benefit Wikipedia.
 * Keep Seems harmless; we should be wary of deleting user pages that aren't copyvios or grossly offensive.
 * Keep Histories should never be interfered with unless there are exceptional reasons.
 * Keep until early September.
 * Comment I support userboxes that are relevant to a user's interests and attitudes. These are very marginal from that point of view
 * Delete Clearly unencyclopaedic even for a talk page
 * Delete Confusing; it covers too broad a sweep

Templates for Deletion, 18/17 July, 2006

 * Delete Misleading and unused
 * Keep the issues raised by the nominator seem to be resolved
 * Delete I much prefer the new template
 * Subst and delete as it is a one-off. As subst version can easily be copied if it is needed for the next election
 * Comment Shouldn't the debate be here, not on VPP?
 * Keep May occasionally be useful.
 * Delete Quite pointless
 * Delete Pointless
 * Userfy Harmless amusement but should be kept in user space.
 * Delete Quire pointless
 * Reluctant Keep - silly, but does not seem to meet deletion criteria
 * Keep at present, then bring back here
 * Delete all