Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snowded


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

Snowded
FINAL (2/8/1); Withdrawn by candidate; Ended 06:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC). - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– I am putting forward User:Snowded as my first nomination for administrator. I have watched Snowded's edits over the last year and a half or so and I've always felt that they would make a good admin. Often found watching and editing the articles and talk pages in the controversial Ireland area, Snowed has aquitted themselves very well in the face of the antagonistic nature of these articles. While Snowed has put forward the fact that they have Irish Republican leanings, this doesn't come through in the edits and manages to portray the edits in a very neutral and calming fashion. Their ability to help calm down conversations, not get involved in the heat of the moment and assist in mediating what I can personally attest to as a very difficult area of the project. As I said I've watched Snowded for a while now, and spoke with a couple of other users on both sides of these particular areas and got a thumbs up from them. So here is my nomination for someone who I think would be a great moderating force and someone the others can trust. Canterbury Tail talk  11:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination and will post a statement and answers to the questions below (and any others) over the next couple of days. --Snowded TALK 13:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and if I had known people would start voting straight away I would have waiting until I could answer the questions (including dealing with the Ayn Rand case where I wanted to talk with the Arbcom member involved before posting). That will take a day or so.  --Snowded  TALK 14:48, 9 June 2009 (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:


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


 * 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:

General comments

 * Links for Snowded:
 * Edit summary usage for Snowded can be found here.

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

Discussion
In general i think Snowded would make a very good Admin, he has shown over a wide range of articles that he is willing to contribute to wikipedia and act in a fair and calm way. However after many encounters with him over the past 8 months (since i joined wikipedia), i do have some concerns on how he would get involved with certain matters where there may be a conflict of interest. I intend to ask a few questions above and i hope Snowded will be prepared to answer them. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Editing stats posted at the talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should this have been transcluded? I see Snowded accepted but he seems to indicate on his talk that he was getting round to answering the questions? I see no discussion from him requesting transclusion? Pedro :  Chat  14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support - Obviously as the nominator for this editor as per my above listed reasons. Canterbury Tail talk  14:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - With the understanding, that he'll avoid the Ayn Rand article. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. Sorry, but Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand and Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand are too recent for me at the moment. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) *You know, for some reason I misread those dates and thought it was 2008. Darn it. I still feel Snowded has what it takes, despite this war that they have learned from. Canterbury Tail talk  14:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I have to agree with PeterSymonds here regarding the ArbCom case. Sorry, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) As per the edit warring related arbcom case highlighted by Peter Symonds - simply too recent. Sorry. Also - err - some answers to the "optional" Q's 1 -3 wouldn't go amiss prior to transclusion to be honest. Pedro : Chat  14:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I too was thinking along the lines of PeterSymonds. Much too recent for me. -Djsasso (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I also feel those events are far too recent. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Me too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - Anyone with several ARBCOM cases either about them or related to them shouldn't be applying to be admins. Skinny87 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. I agree with above.  Otis  Jimmy  One  15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral, inclined to support contingent on answers to questions above, and no reason to believe that the candidate won't abide by RFARB. Cheers, This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 14:41, 9 June 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.