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

Kylekieran[edit]

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (1/8/2); ended 02:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC) - WP:NOTNOW Secret account 02:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Kylekieran (talk · contribs) – has contributed greatly to Wikipedia with over 5,000 edits, and I has been active in many areas in the last few months. I'm friendly and hard-working user. I feel like, I should be an admin. I like to change the way of editing.Kylekieran (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A:
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are the Portal:Trinidad and Tobago because it was very work and also it did change the impact the countries don't have there own Portal. Now a lots of people edit the Portal of Trinidad and Tobago and become a higher standard, well written Portal. The Other contributions is to improve other unpopular article to a well written article like the Hillsborough, Carriacou article.
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: I haven't been in any conflicts over editing in the past and also other users haven't caused you stress. If it does happen in the future, I will talk to them on their User talk and deal the problem on the spot.


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Moral Support Your intentions are great. Please continue to edit Wikipedia and read the feedback given in the "oppose" section. You can try re-applying for RfA when you have the necessary experience. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak Oppose Not convinced based on the statements I am seeing. Not a good first impression.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Concerns with the Wikipedia namespace. Not convinced based on the statements. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 01:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Copyright and other warnings on talk page are major negative factors. Giving himself a barnstar as shown at [1] is also rather questionable to me. This does not inspire confidence in his understanding of Wikipedia. I'm also rather concerned about the low number of edits to the article space (less than 30%) as well as a complete lack of any reports to RFPP and AIV- two areas where the candidate seems to want to work. I also can't see any evidence of him participating in speedy deletion, other than creating pages that were speedy deleted, and can only see him participating in a single AfD, which didn't demonstrate a lot of policy knowledge. I have to oppose based on a complete lack of any admin-area experience.--Slon02 (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Unwanted pages is the way an admin should not define pages that have been nominated for deletion. Long list of copyright problems on talk page raises concerns; all admins should demonstrate a full understanding of Wikipedia's non-free content policy. HurricaneFan25 — 01:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose currently Would want to see more work on content such as creation of good articles. Needs to prove self further.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Oppose Edit summary usage is 12%. No experience of any kind in vandalism. Edit count is not as important as quality. Also strong oppose per all reasons above. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Hurricanefan25 generally and lack of real explanation on any question. Lord Roem (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Concerns with experience. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral I'm a little hesitant to submit a support vote because of all of the copyright tags and deletion templates on the user's talk page, especially this warning. -- Luke (Talk) 01:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. The candidate has submitted a poorly-written self-nom. This, coupled with the tags and deletion templates, raise concerns. Perhaps the candidate will be better prepared for RfA in a few months. Majoreditor (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category