Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean gorter

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] Sean gorter

Final (0/15/5) ended 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sean gorter (talk · contribs) – Sean has been on Wikipedia for about 2 months and already has made great progress in Wikipedia. He has started two new articles and edited Wikipedia:Article size. He has learnt how to join the Counter Vandalism Unit and Esperanza and is currently a member of each one of them. To take part in the "Counter Vandalism Process" he has to be an administrator to block the user from editing an article. Please support him and give him a high support percentage. --Kyle gorter

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support


Oppose
  1. Oppose. If you wanted to nominate yourself, nominate yourself. Don't make someone else show up to sign your own nomination. Also opposing on the basis that this was a horribly malformed RfA, and that you have less than 500 edits. You've also not accepted yet. I suggest you withdraw. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 10:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. I know I'm on a supposed wikibreak (I've edited too much for it to be "real"), but article edits are not up to standard either. One has been redirected, the other is very poorly written. You have no use for the admin tools as far as I can see. NSLE 10:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. In assessing your request for adminship, contributors will be comparing you with Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#What RfA contributors look for. You have four mainspace edits, and hardly any experience - this is just way too soon for you. More importantly, though, using a sockpuppet to sign an RFA that's not formatted correctly demonstrates that you don't understand how wikipedia works well enough yet. I suggest you withdraw your application, get a whole bunch of editing under your belt and, once you've got a broad experience and a good solid knowledge of policy, come back and try again. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Sorry, but not quite enough experience. Please follow the advice given in the above votes. DarthVader 11:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Not enough experience, below 100 edits, 35 of them on User talk. Feel free to nominate again when the user has more experience and takes an active roll with Wikipedia policy and the like. Havok (T/C/c) 11:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose and suggest withdrawal per Deskana. RandyWang (raves/rants) 11:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I'm a little confused by the different signing of the nomination, and extreme lack of edits. Yanksox 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per above. --Shizane 13:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per all the concerns reflected above. --Wisden17 14:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Speedy delete per above. Let's not get angry about something as ludacris as this. Adambiswanger1 18:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strongly oppose I looked at just one new article s/he created Cattle drives (needs a move to Cattle drive, singular), which is a worthy topic. Someone placed a cleanup tag on the original, very poorly written article, and s/he promptly removed it. That's enough for me. Pollinator 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, lacks of experience, low edit count, withdrawal suggested. --Terence Ong (talk | contribs | ESP) 14:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Oppose reccomend withdrawal, by candidate or beaurocrat.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 15:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - please don't use a sock to nominate and please respond to the questions below before listing on the main page -- Tawker 18:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose far too new.--Andeh 18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral - not a neutral vote but a vote for the opposes to stop. Newbie user who may feel bitten if this continues. I've dropped him a note to withdraw and why - Peripitus (Talk) 12:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Periptius. I think we can stop pointing out problems now; strong criticism is not appropriate for a user who clearly still has many things to learn. -- SCZenz 15:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Do you have to keep opposing? I think the point has been made. —Cuiviénen 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Well, the point has been made. Don't bite the newbies! --Siva1979Talk to me 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral per all above. Roy A.A. 19:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • Unless proven otherwise via CheckUser, I'd assume good faith here and guess that the nominee asked his brother to nominate him, or something like that. I suggest withdrawal anyway. Misza13 T C 12:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See Sean gorter's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

Sean gorter's contributions, retrieved from User:Interiot/Tool2 at 11:57 UCT, 14 June 2006:

Username Sean gorter
Total edits 67
Distinct pages edited 18
Average edits/page 3.722
First edit 14:35, 13 May 2006
 
(main) 4
Talk 5
User 15
User talk 35
Image 4
Wikipedia 4
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:
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
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 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.