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

(talk page) (2/10/0); Snowball closed at 12:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs) - Hello. I am Goodshoped35110s. I have edited since August of this year, and yes, I ran for an RfA last month, but had mine withdrawn because I wasn't that ready by WP:SNOW. But now, I have been an active vandal fighter, and have been looking for spammers and telling them to "clean it up". Ever since that day when my RfA was closed prematurely, I got my edit count up, and sought about enough experience, and, by being an Admin, I will add my name to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. I believe that I am ready, especially the fact that I have almost 3000 edits registered (about 2500 counting everything except userspace). But, I hope you support me. Thanks for reading! -Goodshoped 05:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept my own nomination. -Goodshoped 06:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to take part in cleaning up Wikipedia by protecting pages that have been a high target, blocking vandals and spammers who like to abuse their editing privileges, and I would delete any spam pages on the spot, whether nominated or not. (I think?)

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

A: I would say my username reports to WP:UAA because I am really good on cracking down on spammers.

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 hope not now, but I currently am, and in the past, yes. In fact, there was this one occasion where I was "taught" something about being an admin, but yes, I would like to be civil, so I won't provide a diff link.

4. What do you want Wikipedia to be ten years from now? Marlith ^T/C 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Let's see here. I hope Wikipedia still exists and that it beats out the other two Wikis that are against Wikipedia, and to offer free education, free images, and basically free content to the world. I would also see Wikipedia as an metropolis full of people that need help with their homework, research for their clubs, and corporations that want our free content.

• See Goodshoped35110s's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Goodshoped35110s: Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Goodshoped35110s before commenting.

• Candidate, I would suggest you withdraw, with head held high. Community consensus is that running at RfA twice within a short period of time, particularly if self-nominated, shows slightly poor judgement and an over-eagerness for the tools. You're doing some great work here, and the community, I am sure, will agree with me in expressing the desire that you continue to do so. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  10:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user is offline at present, and there's more chance that it will be snow-closed rather than withdrawn (in my opinion). Daniel 10:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which would probably be best, to avoid further pile on. Pedro :  Chat  10:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support I see no reason to oppose, a healthy user who can fight vandals from using WP for bad purposes. Marlith ^T/C 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. I do believe there is improvement necessary, but you're human - so you will make mistakes (like we all do). I'm going to support this, as you do help out a lot and, I don't think you deserve a pile on oppose, even though this is not going to succeed. Keep up the good work, —Qst 09:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't think you are ready. Your last RFA was a month ago. Also, I am not particularly pleased with number 2. Miranda 06:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Sorry, but waiting only a month suggests a rather inappropriate want for the tools, especially since the user was told point blank by several users to wait several months before running again. I also agree with Useight below; this user has really had barely more than a month of good, positive work here. The answer to Q#1 is particularly unsatisfactory, the statement "I would delete any spam pages on the spot, whether nominated or not. (I think?)" suggests that the user is unfamiliar with CSD policy. To be honest, this user's entire approach to WP really suggests a high amount of immaturity, particularly all the needless junk on the talk page and the ridiculous number of subpages. I wasn't impressed with my interaction with this user over a rather annoying blue message bar that they had on their user page. This user may have good intentions, but I simply cannot support in good faith at this time. GlassCobra 06:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Weak Oppose. A vast majority of your edits have been in the past 5 weeks, I'd like to see a longer time to gain experience. I also want to see more work in the Mainspace, it's the whole reason why we're here. However, you do a lot of communicating with other editors, which is great. And your work in the Wikipedia namespace is good, too. Overall, a couple more months and some more work in the mainspace, and you have my full support. Useight (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose: Per the comments of User:GlassCobra. Wait a while, more than a month or two. Keep working on the vandal patrol, but why not do some other stuff too? - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sorry Goodshoped, but I don't think you're quite ready ret. However, return in a few months with a better understanding of adminship and what it entails, and we'll see what happens. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Editor not ready for the tools. Unimpressive answers to questions, only a month since last RFA, and per GlassCobra. Jmlk17 08:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong oppose, a combination of less-than-convincing answers to the questions, a heavy focus on editountis, a failure to demonstrate through editing or nomination process that this user can make educated decisions for themselves (I reference the use of automated and semi-automated tools) and with it a lack of encyclopedic contribution, and an overall impression that this user has a deficiency in maturity at this stage which would make them a poor administrator. Daniel 09:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose You can't nominate yourself a mere month after a clearly failed RfA. Merely by doing so you show you're not ready. Nick mallory (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per all above, sorry -Pumpmeup 10:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose. I'm sorry, but there are simply far too many concerns for me to be able to trust you'd use the tools with wisdom. Aside from the answers to the questions, a number of things came up when I reviewed your recent edits. I realize at this point, it may seem to be me piling another "oppose" opinion, but I hope that you can benefit from learning from things that are pointed out to you, and I hope you will take this comment as a list of things to work on. While how you arrange your talk page is your choice, you have over 16 banners there, and that seems not only unnecessary, but highly visually disruptive to anyone wanting to leave you a message, as they are quite unlikely to read through them all, and it suggests a level of immaturity I'd rather not see in an administrator, particularly the banner that reads: "If you are here to get anal over a mistake I made that I admitted to, well, I'll just say that Admiral Kirk knows very well how I would feel". I do not believe that you have sufficient understanding of the guidelines, and policies. This recent comment about your reports to AIV, further indicates that you don't have the knowledge of how the system works that would indicate you would make a good administrator at this point. I also think you jumped in to fighting vandalism without a good grasp of the basics, and a bureaucrat has expressed concern over your methods, as well, only a month ago. Another thing that concerns me is the creation of projects, along with your friend User:Gp75motorsports, that either are redundant, or possibly unnecessary. This category seems a bit unnecessary, as well, and while many editors may have a subpage to place SSP notes, I'm not sure that they all need to be categorized, because WP:SSP exists for a reason, to document the issue officially. This category, to me at least, seems a bit presumptuous, and I am concerned this could lead to problems in the future. Previous categories created that have been deleted, this comment, where you warned an editor for blanking their own talk page, further shows you do not understand policy. It is perfectly acceptable for any editor to remove comments from their talk page, and it is an indication that the notice has been read. The only time warnings should remain is in the case of Shared IPs, because the header is important, and the warnings serve as a record of the shared IP activity. Honestly, there are just far too many recent issues for me to even list them all, but your improper use of the {{helpme}} template recently (to ask someone to translate an edit made to your userpage), this kind of thing, this concern by another editor about your civility on November 3, this conversation, and finally, this. All these add up, and are only scratching the surface of my going through your edits. I do hope you will see this as constructive criticism, but you simply are not ready to be an administrator at this point. I think you should concentrate more on actually editing articles, improving content, less about organizing "meetings", "briefings", and clubs and projects, and learn some of the basics, which come by writing, and editing articles. I'm sure if you do that for a while, and take it easy on the vandalism fighting so you're not biting newcomers so often, once you get a firm grasp of policy and guidelines, you'll do much better. Best of luck to you, Ariel♥Gold 10:58, 21 November 2007 (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.