Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Garykirk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Garykirk

Closed (0/5/0) ended 13:13 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Garykirk (talk • contribs) – I started off just using Wikiepdia to do research for homework and so on, then in September 2005 I created an account and began editing. I am a member of WikiProject:Harry_Potter. Gary Kirk 13:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Withdrawing nomination

Support

Oppose

1. STRONG OPPOSE, failed to do RfA self nom properly, which I had to fix (and got caught in an edit conflict with Deathphoenix, trying to fix). Failed to list ending time. Failed to answer questions. Too little time on pedia. Too little edits. I sense a pileon. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 13:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

   Poor answers to question 1, that does not take Admin powers. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 13:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. (triple edit conflict) Sorry, at 271 edits at less than two months of activity, you need some more time (and much more edits) to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia. With time, you'd be a good user. Even with this RFA, there were a few problems: Inserting a space before a line of text results in that text being displayed as a fixed width font, not as the Wikiformatting. You should "subst" the RfA template, otherwise when other people try to edit your RFA page, they get to the template page instead. Finally, self-nominators should already answer the candidate questions before putting themselves up for nomination. Come back when you have more experience (I might as well register my vote before perusing the now-answered questions, before I enter into yet another edit conflict). --Deathphoenix 13:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
   • Yes, I concur with NSLE, being a member of the Cleanup task force and articles to be created does not require admin powers. You have the ability to do those things right now as an editor. --Deathphoenix 14:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC) No need for further comments with the withdrawal of the self-nom. Good luck in the future, Gary. --Deathphoenix 14:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. He needs to do more editing before requesting for adminship. 271 edits is not enough. --Ghirlandajo 14:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose Do a lot more here over the next few months and try again. (Can someone end this?) --Rogerd 17:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose per reasons already given, too soon, more edits, etc. Quentin Pierce 03:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Just a note for Gary in the future. All the things you list as wanting to do if given sysop powers, you can do right now! Get involved in these endeavours, show you're a good member of the community, and try again for RfA with lots of edits and time on Wikipedia under your belt. Good luck. Harro5 06:01, 26 November 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

I would like to become a member of the Cleanup Task force, and am keen to carry out work sorting out the backlog of articles to be created, and wikified.

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

Not particularly, but I enjoyed starting and writing Myma Seldon, as I was able to contact the person to check certain details. It even survived AfD, which was pleasing.

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?

No, not at all. Everyone is very nice, apart from some vandals who use the same computers at school as me (we have a proxy server with a static IP address, and this caused me (the ip) to be banned for about 30 minutes before being resolved.

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.