Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clarkk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Clarkk[edit]

final (26/0/0) ending 13:43 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Whilst the number of edits a Wikipedian makes are by no means a qualification for Adminship, it should be mentioned that, at the time of writing, Clarkk has near 6,300 edits (click to see latest). He is a contributor of the utmost integrity and is always willing to help others, as he has done me often. I have no doubt that his efforts have improved Wikipedia, particularly Australia-related pages, considerably. Making Clarkk an Administrator will, I believe, enable him to continue his work with the added efficiency that comes from sysop abilities. Cyberjunkie 13:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
  • I accept the nomination. clarkk 11:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Cyberjunkie 13:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Appears to be a nice guy, a great contributor to Australian topics, and one familiar with Wikipedia. My only criticism is that he has a tendency to speak in all lowercase letters. I'm not going to oppose on this basis, but I would recommend that as an admin he use proper capitalization. Andre (talk) 17:45, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Useful contributions to Australia-related pages, including a focus on sharper categorisation and making the Wikipedia a more effective encyclopaedia. Always polite and willing to help. --AYArktos 21:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. ugen64 00:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Good user, and I think it's not that relevant if a user makes a lot of contributions on a narrow topic like Australia, rather than spreading the contributions out over a broader range. Categorisation is an important janitorial task, and Clarkk has done a lot of that. Sjakkalle 12:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. --JuntungWu 15:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. After reading the candidate's response to the questions, I can see now how he would use his admin abilities to better Wikipedia. He even took the time to create two more questions to respond to some of the constructive criticism we've been giving, which I did not expect. Therefore, I now support. — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 18:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  8. The answers below look good to me. Rje 14:16, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Changing from Neutral to Support. We had a bit of a "discussion" a while ago, but he acted with integrity and showed good admin qualities. I can see from his responses he will benefit from the admin tools. --Silversmith 14:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  10. support. Kingturtle 17:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  11. support. ScottDavis 05:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  12. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Great user. Support. Lst27 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  14. 6300 edits is good enough for me to qualify for adminship--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 09:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - Clarkk's Australian! :) Support from across the Tasman. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support.-gadfium 04:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. Dbiv 10:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  18. me too. dab () 17:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  19. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Proteus (Talk) 21:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  21. Certainly. No harm in a subject matter expert primarily editing articles where he knows his stuff. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  22. Of course. utcursch | talk 05:43, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support, good contributor and janitor, experienced in the ways of Wiki--nixie 10:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  24. Totally. Works to improve the encyclopaedia. Grace Note 10:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  25. 'Support, has made a significant contribution to wikipedia, which shows that he would make enough effort to be a good admin --Cynical 14:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. I spent about 10 minutes sifting through Clarkk's talk page and contributions. One thing that struck me was the percentage of his edits that are minor, most of which being recats. I'd say 80% of his edits are minor, and this can inflate one's edit count. This is not a reason to oppose however. I do see good things from this contributor and he seems very civil. I agree with a lot of the advice he gives contributors. Also, I'm not questioning his experience, being on wikipedia for almost a year, he knows what's going on. What I'm mainly concerned about is his narrow scope of editing. It seems like most of what he does is recat, or fix errors pertaining to the small slice of Australia related articles. He does some good work on Australian suburbs but he hasn't in a while. I just think he could broaden his scope and contribute more to other areas of Wikipedia. What's keeping me from voting to support is wondering what he would do with his admin powers. How would he use them? Why would they benefit the work he has already done now? Perhaps when Clarkk answers the candidate questions below I'll get a better idea and possibly change my vote to support. — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 18:18, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. He has amassed a lot of edits by puting articles into categories. It seems to be his main thing. I was going to oppose, but then I re-read the discussion I had with him a while ago. He was quite reasonable, more open to new ideas than others, and willing to suggest solutions on a win/win basis. A good admin quality. Undecided as yet.--Silversmith 22:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Mostly fixing redirects, rolling back vandals and such like. Often I am in a situation where somebody has botched a page move by using copy and paste, and they create a redirect that needs to be deleted. Many times this has happened and I would like to be able to use my admin status to fix such situations. I prefer to use my protection abilities sparingly and won't seek out pages to protect, but I can help out if requested. clarkk 11:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Overall helping out in structuring the Australia and Sydney pages (ensuring that there are appropriate summaries of Main articles for each section and generally implementing the Wikipedia:Summary style across the main top-level Australia articles). Creating the Template:Australia state or territory or working on the Template:Austlocalgovtarea and Template:Prime Ministers of Australia templates. Keeping the categories for Australia clean and sane. Applying consistent formatting across the articles and trying to keep consistency with more general Wikipedia-wide conventions. clarkk 11:24, 11 May 2005 (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 will deal with it in the future?
A. Mostly I have not had too many conflicts, I usually assume good faith and try and work for a compromise and with all but the most tricky disputes, this usually works. One way I deal with the stress is to take regular brief wikibreaks. clarkk 11:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
4. What about capitalisation?
A I prefer to use lowercase on user talk pages for speed (note that I always use correct capitalisation in articles), and will probably continue to do so in informal settings, but if in cases where I need to exercise my administrative powers or on Wikipedia: namespace pages, I will try and use more formal capitalisation (as I have done in these responses). clarkk 11:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
5. Why a narrow focus on Australia?
A. I prefer to focus my energies on an area I know about and have good knowledge to hand. It's easy to get too spread out on many topics on Wikipedia, so having a focus can help make my contributions more effective. That said, from time to time I will edit on non-Australian subjects especially on issues of site-wide templates/categorisation and consistency. As far as doing a lot of categorisation: it's something that I can do quickly and regularly and still be a useful contribution. I certainly don't do it to inflate my article count, but partly as a break from my day job... ;-) I used to work more on Sydney suburbs and areas, but have not had as much time to research articles as I used to. clarkk 11:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)