Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kirkoconnell

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

Kirkoconnell

Final (0/11/2); Ended 04:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Closed per WP:NOTNOW--~TPW 04:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Kirkoconnell (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself for adminship. I have been editing Wikipedia for several years now and have thousands of edits, minor changes and been involved with several discussions and feel that I have evolved to a point where I can be more active in the community. Kirkoconnell (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Helping monitor websites, try to inject balance into arguments and basically try to help people create an article that everyone can be proud of.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I believe my discussions have been the best part. I do review a lot of articles and make edits (signed in and sometimes from a public computer so not signed in) to be sure that the information is sound and accurate.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: A few times I would get repeat users sock-puppeting articles making changes and calling me names. At first I would revert the changes and not even bother discussing the issues. I have learned that sometimes people believe the information that they edit is correct and discussions are the best way to determine if they are just being deconstructive, constructive but not accurate or accurate but not sourced. Generally now I like to let the people explain their case and once they have completed I accept or reject arguments on merit and accuracy. Sometimes it is not white or black but I make an effort to be as objective as possible now and respect the Be Bold approach when applicable.

General comments

• Links for Kirkoconnell: Kirkoconnell (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Kirkoconnell can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kirkoconnell before commenting.

Discussion

Oppose

1. Sorry, but WP:NOTNOW -- I need to see some edits in the Wikipedia space before I can judge how you'll do with the tools. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose Answers to questions 1 and 2 not very satisfying. You don't have to have adminship to perform those tasks. Not only that, you have too few edits too. You don't seem to be familiar with certain aspects of Wikipedia that an admin should. BejinhanTalk 03:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
3. At this stage, not enough experience in administrative-type areas for me to be satisfied that the candidate is qualified. It is not clear what administrative tasks the candidate intends to undertake "helping monitor" and "injecting balance" are things any editor can do. After some more contributions to adminisrtrative areas (eg WP:AFD), I'd be happy to support.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Q1. Nothing listed there needs the sysop tool set. I'm happy to support candidates who don't indicate they plan to use the tools much, I have a problem with candidates who answer Q1 in such a manner that I'm left wondering if they truly understand the role of administrators. Admin tools are not a trump card in a content dispute; and everything you've listed can be done with nothing other than the edit button. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose Q1 shows no need for the tools. Also, per WP:NOTNOW. Not nearly enough experience, barely any activity, almost nothing to project space. I know I sound harsh, but please take a look at WP:GRFA—I just don't see it right now.  fetchcomms☛ 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
6. (edit conflict) Oppose - Sorry to say this, but you don't have enough experience to be an admin. Your edit count is way too low, and you don't have a lot of edits in the Wikipedia namespace. Sorry. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 03:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose Not enough experience, not very active at all, only around 50 edits to the project space. WP:NOTNOW. Swarm^(Talk) 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you. You may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read

   • Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
   • WP:Admin
   • the admin reading list.

   Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 6,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 6,000 edits and 6 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.

   • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
   • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
   • Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.

   My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 6 months and 6000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 04:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

9. Oppose due to answer Q1 (the mop isn't needed to accomplish the goals you outlined) and lack of editing experience, particularly in WP space. With additional experience you may make a fine admin. Majoreditor (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
10. (edit conflict) Oppose - Although I hate to pile on like this, you really do need more experience. Although you've been editing for a few years, you've only made about 1000 edits - not enough to gauge your experience. Looking at your answer to Q1 seals it; not only do you not need admin tools to do what you suggested, but your answer implies that you see adminship as a way to lead others. This is absolutely incorrect. Try editing a little more actively and involve yourself in a few policy space activities (say, !voting on a few RfAs), and you might want to re-run in a while. —LedgendGamer 04:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose, concerns about answers to the questions and lack of experience in multiple varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. The tasks you've stated in question #1 do not require administrative access. I'd be happy to support if you do gain more experience in administrative areas (RFPP, AIV, UAA, etc.), but I don't think you are ready just yet. Sorry. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral per answer to Q1, you do not require access to the mop for your stated tasks. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:37, 5 March 2010 (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.