Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary Kirk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Gary Kirk

Final (11/13/14) Ended Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:38:12 UTC

Gary Kirk (talk • contribs) – I have been a Wikipedian for just over 12 months now. Since discovering the site through many define: queries on Google and deciding to investigate just what it was, I have been hooked. I am a student and edit mainly either at school when I can and at home on a PDA. Although I tend to edit articles about things I know or enjoy - Holcombe Manor, which I started for example, I also regularly do RC patrol using Lupin's anti-vandal tools and check Special:Newpages. Though very useful, I would like to be able to use the revert button to revert these in normal Recent Changes. I also vote on XfDs and RfAs and other project-space work including reporting to WP:AN/I. I like to consult other Wikipedians using their talk pages, email and occasionally the Freenode IRC channels, for communication about an article, project, policy or dispute, and also to help newbies and others when they need it. I believe that with the mop I will be able to contribute to Wikpedia even more effectively, while still contributing much to the main namespace. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Gary Kirk // talk! 11:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination - I accept. — Gary Kirk // talk! 12:08, 6 October 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As well as that which I have stated above - ability to speedy delete copyvios, nonsense and so on I see in Newpages and Recentchanges, I would like to start going through the backlogs like Redirects for deletion as well as dealing with Category:Requests for unblock and acting on decisions at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Of course, I will also deal with vandals more easily by using the test templates as I do now, and applying the final {{test5}} and blocking them.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I created an article about a local historic house, Holcombe Manor, which is now part of a school. It is a beautiful but old building and I enjoyed finding out information about it, taking photographs of it and expanding the article. I believe there is still more work to be done, however, before I nominate it as a Good Article.
Update: I must say, I now think it was a mistake to say Holcombe Manor was the article I am most pleased with. Although I did not create it, I have done a lot of work on Chatham Grammar School for Boys, transforming it from an extremely poorly-written stub to a fairly good article with photographs, an infobox and lots of information. I am currently looking for sources to cite before adding any more information and facts. — Gary Kirk // talk! 12:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
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: As I have spent more time here, I have become more involved with the community. I see editors around and become familiar with them. Looking through my contributions I cannot recall and particular incidents. Until the new blocking system was implemented, I often suffered collateral damage when my school's proxy IP was blocked, but this is no longer the case. I do however get stressed when good editors decide to leave the project due to actions on it. Personal life is of course much more important than Wikipedia, and editors leave due to things in the real world, but when they leave because of stress others have caused them here, that is a shame. As of now, I haven't experienced this.
4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? What is your opinion of the recent blocking policy changes? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
If an established user went "off the rails" so to speak, they should be treated as any other user would. No editor is above any other in Wikipedia (Jimbo and the WP:OFFICE excluded). I would first bring the matter to WP:AN/I though, to gain consensus for the block.
General comments

Gary Kirk's editcount stats as of 14.30, October 6 2006, using Interiot's PHP tool. (aeropagitica) 14:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Indeed, that was, when I had been here only a few weeks. Sorry, I didn't realise I should have mentioned it. — Gary Kirk // talk! 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm having a little trouble swallowing this. Are one of the reasons people are opposing Gary his signature? Blimey. Is it really that big a deal? I barely notice it, and I've seen him around before. I can see at least one user here whose signature is definitely in violation of WP:SIG. Of course, they're not on RfA. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 01:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note: I have taken your comments on board and have reduced my signature. — Gary Kirk // talk! 17:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What the flaming photon is going on here? Who has created these obvious socks? Why? I hope that wasn't the candidate, because if so that's any hopes of adminship gone. Moreschi 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Weak support. Not many edits, but is a pretty good user. Great answers to questions. --Coredesat (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - The answers are articulate and mature. Wikipedia is in shortage of administrators who have this skill and can fit in the role those niches - "admin WikiGnomes" so to say, where the apparent lack of experience with administrative duties during RfA is not reason enough to oppose. This is a user that knows how to be careful with the sysop bit, and how to learn using it through keen observation. I get the sense it will be used in a measured way, and if anything, would be one of those admins who quietly and effectively do clean up tasks without anyone noticing. The oppose comments in my mind are not convincing. Wholeheartedly support. --HappyCamper 16:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support - Per HappyCamper. Also, if Gary is to contribute mostly through his school computers and with a handheld device he may make less edits in a certain time period than others. What I see as more important is the attitude shown, particularly in his question responses. While without a personal computer he cannot just trawl through edit after edit, his contributions will certainly be more intelligent, more concise, more informed and far more notable than most people could manage. Size doesn't matter, as they say ;) and surely Editcountitis is not a good thing! Horatio Apple 17:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. I hereby waive my edit count requirement. I see no reason that giving adminship to this editor will be detrimental. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 18:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Seems like a wellmeaning candidate, who will use the tools responsibly. Plus, he meets my standards.-- danntm T C 19:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - per WP:AGF - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Not that many edits, but seems like a good user who will use the tools wisely. I'll give him my support. Hello32020 21:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak Support A low amount of edits for being around a year, but I think he will be a good sysop. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support  Doctor Bruno  16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak Support Well familiar with wikipedia, Makes valuable edits in my opinion, and has a good amount of edits + time at wikipedia ...could have a bit more wikipedia space edits though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iced Kola (talk • contribs).
  11. Support Seems like he won't abuse the tools. Possibly a little unexperienced. Good article writing, though. Charlie MacKenzie 09:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose - lack of actual WP edits a major concern and way too many userpage edits. Pretty userpages are not really what either WP or adminship are about. Moreschi 14:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Do you mean Wikipedia/_talk: namespace edits? — Gary Kirk // talk! 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Wikipedia edits, yes. IMO 101 is not enough. It doesn't really show me that you actually need the tools. Nor do you need to the admin tools to decorate your userpage, my other reason for opposing. And the amount of code in the sig is just horrific. Ouch. Moreschi 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    What's wrong with my sig? It's just my name, two //'s and talk! I don't think I decorate my userpage as such, nor have I given that as a reason in my nomination. — Gary Kirk // talk! 16:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Gary, your sig takes up more than 3 lines of code. .--Alex (Talk) 16:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I see - in wikitext, but on pages this does not show. — Gary Kirk // talk! 16:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    But it's a help to editors on talk pages if you have a shorter sig. --Alex (Talk) 16:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, ok, point made. :) — Gary Kirk // talk! 16:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Good answers, but I am concerned with the low edit count for 12 months. Step up your pace and I will support you next time.--Húsönd 15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: I often use the preview button and make big edits in one go. — Gary Kirk // talk! 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    That's commendable. But your edits for administration-oriented tasks are too low. You need to prove why would you need the tools.--Húsönd 16:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose insufficient answers to questions, blocking attitude, edit count. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment:Could you expand on "insufficient answers" and "blocking attitude" please? — Gary Kirk // talk! 16:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. I'm not quite sure what has changed since I opposed your last RFA. The lack of project-related edits, quite crucial for an admin, is unsettling. – Chacor 17:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Per my criteria, not enough mainspace or mainspace talk. Also, I find the ratio of userspace edits versus mainspace edits to be a little strange. Themindset 20:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I would like to see a larger edit count. Michael 23:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, no user with less than 3000 edits will ever get a support vote from me. Apply again once you have contributed more to Wikipedia, and if you haven't done anything stupid, I'll more-than-likely support. But for now, oppose. Daniel.Bryant 02:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    As I have stated before, this is ridiculous. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 06:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe you'd like to see users who have hardly contributed to the community become admins. I don't. Daniel.Bryant 07:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    He's entitled to judge candidates as he sees fit. Please respect WP:CIV. – Chacor 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Edit count isn't really a reason to oppose, but for me article writing is very weak, your best article is a stub with several citation needed tags, so more experince is needed there, Oppose Jaranda wat's sup 05:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    I have also worked very hard on Chatham Grammar School for Boys, from a simple stub to quite a good article. In fact, I am probably more pleased with it than Holcombe Manor, although I did not create it. — Gary Kirk // talk! 14:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose until candidate has more WP-space contributions and smaller ratio of user / main namespaces. Candidate can still be a very valuable asset to WP by article building. I also hate the fact that the sig takes up almost 4 lines of code. shudder.--Storkk 19:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Not enough WP experience. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  00:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose I was extremely unimpressed by Holcombe Manor, and the combination of low mainspace and disproportionately high userspace, plus the general lack of WP space, lead me to question the user's experience and grasp of WP, his rationale and well-meaning demeanor aside. TewfikTalk 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Tewfik, Aqu01rius, Storkk and others. Try again in a little while with a few more WP edits. 1ne 05:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    Strong oppose. Blatant sockpuppetry. --Alex (Talk) 19:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral.
    Comment: I somehow think that Gary Kirk is not silly enough nor naïve enough to support his own RfA with sockpuppets named "...Kirk", don't you think? This is not sockpuppetry. — FireFox (~) 20:25, 12 October 2006
  13. Oppose. More WP-space edits, please. Nishkid64 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Lack of Wikispace/ XfA participation & little demonstration of knowledge of policy in answers. A good editor and on the way to adminship. Would be happy to support in future with evidence of participation in the community. (aeropagitica) 14:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per aeropagitica's comments. You do not deserve an oppose opinion but the low XfA participation is a concern for me. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, needs more experience in practical process. - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral it's not an edit count thing. Without a significant number of edits, I can't judge accurately whether you actually need the tools or not, and whether you will use them appropriately. Contribute more substantially, and I'm sure you will gain more support !votes in a future request. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 12:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral leaning to support My thinking mirrors that expressed quite cogently by Riana. Insofar as, consistent with my RfA standards, the question on the disposition of which my conclusion apropos of adminship depends is whether the net effect on the project of a user's becoming an admin will be positive, I essay principally to ascertain whether a user is likely to abuse or misuse, even avolitionally (e.g., by acting in an area with the policy and practice of which he is not particularly conversant), the tools; whilst such ascertainment can sometimes be made quite quickly, I can't, from Gary's record, draw a conclusion here. His knowledge of policy, deliberative temperament, and judgment seem quite fine, but there's not much on which to rest that evaluation. Joe 05:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, can't oppose, you need more experience in the wiki proccess. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral per (aeropagitica). Markovich292 20:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral—after much angst. Things I like: Wikignomeship, edits, general maturity of comments. Things I worry about: limited Wikipolicy work. I could make a case for voting either way. Just about supported this time. Get some more wear on the tires, come back soon & I'll support with pleasure. Williamborg (Bill) 03:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. I am concerned about the relatively low number of main space edits. Nephron  T|C 19:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral. I can't oppose. Please wait an other 3-4 months, work more and you'll become an admin. NCurse work 16:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Neutral - Gary would put in the time and effort to become a good admin but I do not know if he has enough experience. Therefore I shall not support or oppose him. He is a bit sexy too. --Waggishmab 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    Huh? 1ne 05:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral apparent sockpuppets GandalfKirk, GregoryKirk, and GillianKirk
    Comment: As I said above, I somehow think that Gary Kirk is not silly enough nor naïve enough to support his own RfA with sockpuppets named "...Kirk", don't you think? This is not sockpuppetry. — FireFox (~) 20:27, 12 October 2006
    and Me! Against Gary's will they were added. Now they are gone. Eddie Segoura II 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Struck for obvious reasons. — FireFox (~) 20:30, 12 October 2006
  13. Neutral Gary is coming along well as an editor, but needs just a little more experience. Try again in a couple of months and I'll more than likely support. Also, sorry for my oppose vote before - I admit I was a little quick to judge, so I apologize for that. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 20:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Neutral Great answers to the questions. Seems like an outstanding editor interacting with others. Very good, just a little more time. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:51, 12 October 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Gary_Kirk_99f2.html"