Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Goalie1998


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

Nomination
Final (1/5/1); Ended 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC) - closed by non-bureaucrat user:Anonymous Dissident per WP:NOTNOW essay. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

– Cute and cuddly.Goalie1998 (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

While I am mostly active in articles relating to Judaism, I feel that I can have a large impact on the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. I am fair, understanding, and most importantly understand the rules. I hope the voting users of Wikipedia can reach a consensus and promote me to be an admin. Thanks.
 * ''Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:'Since I am nominating myself, I accept!'

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: As an administrator, I plan to work hard on the Category:Wikipedia backlog as well as the Category:Administrative backlog. While fighting vandalism is also very important to me, I feel that the backlogs need to be taken care of. I will still of course, focus my time as an admin on vandalism as best I can. I also would take part in any informal dispute resolution that I can. Hopefully, as an administrator, I will be able to keep many disputes from going to the Arbitration Committee. As the Wikipedia community grows and evolves as I know it will, the work that I do to improve Wikipedia will evolve with it.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia are on the article talk pages. I try to keep users calm and promote civil discussions of disputed topics. When users get upset and focus on proving their point no matter what the consequence, the Wikipedia process is hindered and and productivity stops. I believe it is through discussion and collaboration that Wikipedia will benefit most.


 * 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 was recently (today) in a conflict with a user over vandalism of an article. The other user involved did not believe that the edits he (or she) was making constituted vandalism. I will admit that I did not deal with this user as well as I could have - instead of starting a discussion on the article's talk page, or on the users talk page, I just reverted the edits continually. However, as soon as I realized what I was doing, I warned the user that he would be blocked if he continued to make the same edit repeatedly without discussing it first. (The user was blocked from editing the article for 24 hours.) In the future, I know I will deal with disputes like these better. I will confront the user and encourage him to start a discussion on the talk page, or start a discussion myself, and not take part in an editing war.
 * 4. Additional questions from  Were Spiel  Chequers  How do you decide whether to warn a vandal and if so what warning to give?
 * A:

General comments

 * Links for goalie1998:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/goalie1998 before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Support beat the nom; friendly and experienced user Lets  drink  Tea  03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Experienced? Nom? Skomorokh  13:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Not active enough, same with experience. -- Kanonkas : Talk  13:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose -- <500 edits to date. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Suggest WP:SNOW closure, unfortunately. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) oppose inactivity, 60 odd edits in the last 12 months and 6 non bot edits to you talk page since yur account was created in 2006. Gnangarra 14:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) I think you need more overal experience - your current contributions are simply insufficent to demonstrate your aptitude. That's not to say you'd not be a good admin - more that I have little to base a support on and at RFA support is not, in my opinion, the default position. I also think you could do with using edit summaries more - clear communication of the nature of edits is vital, particularly given some of the areas you edit in - many are topice with many people watching the pages (Bible, Jews, Holocaust etc.). WP:NOTNOW has some useful links. Pedro : Chat  14:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) You've been here a very long time, but your level of activity is such that I wonder if you have the width as opposed to length of experience to be an admin yet. For example I only had to go back a hundred or so of your edits to find  you correctly reverting recent vandalism, but leaving the vandal unwarned. Your talk page doesn't show sufficient interaction with other editors for me to judge whether you are ready for admin yet. However your ability to operate in one of our most contentious areas without ever being blocked is commendable. So I'm neutral leaning to oppose at present, though I will watchlist this and may shift as the discussion proceeds, for example I'd be much more comfortable if you also had experience on say commons.  Were  Spiel  Chequers  14:03, 26 February 2009 (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.