Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Goodshoped35110s

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

Voice your opinion (talk page) Final (0/6/0); closed at 11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC) by Melsaran per WP:SNOW

Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs) - Hello. I have been in Wikipedia since 2007, and I may have been bad at first, but I have helped people, welcomed IPs, and warned vandals in the past. I hope you endorse me for bureaucratiship, because I will never abuse my power, and I will never personally attack anyone. I also provide good advice, but if I don't know anything, I ask others for help. I also make good choices and have leadership skills. Goodshoepd35110s 05:30, 14 October 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 blocking vandalists, cracking down on vandals, welcoming IPs, and helping people who uses {{helpme}}.

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

A:I believe my best contributions in Wikipedia are my images that I take because I go around San Francisco and look for pictures to take. They may be either bad or professional, but they are still informational.

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:Yes, I have been in numerous conflicts with two users, whom I will not identify, and I decided to pull the items I added and use the edit summary as an apology note. I have dealt with stress before, and those can be avoided by simply reading other articles that are not related to what I'm doing.

• 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.

1. No, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, you have been here less than three months. Second, you have accumulated only around 1000 edits, and while I don't like to count edits, I'd like to see some more contributions to properly judge you by. Thirdly, you are currently requesting adminship, rather than bureaucratship, as you mistakenly indicated in your nomination statement. Lastly, your answer to question one does not particularly inspire me, as you can do three of four of those things without the admin bit. I'm sorry, but you appear to be doing a good job, and I hope that you will not be discouraged and will reapply in a few months time should this fail. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose, per -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk, just generalized lack of experience. Your intentions are certainly positive though - Stick it out on Wikipedia for 6 more months or so, and then come right back here. Wisdom89 07:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose due to lack of experience. Like Anonymous Dissident, I find the answer to the first question to be underwhelming. I suggest withdrawing your nomination and trying again in a few months. Also, I suggest fixing your signature. Your signature is spelled similarly to your username but I think the slight deviation from your username may be slightly confusing for some users. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per all the above reasons. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after a few months. Your lack of experience is also a major concern here as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sry, Oppose. Goodshoped, I appreciate your enthusiansm, but you have to admit that you still have to learn a lot about rules, guidelines, and the inner working of WP. I see you have less than 50 contribs to talk pages, and those weren't exactly about solving hotly controversial issues. Your answers to the questions show that your understanding about admin tasks still has to develop further (hint: you donm't need to be an admin to welcomenew users). Obviously, you need more experience. Don't feel disencouraged, you're on the right track, and we would like to see your RfA again next year. Ok? Gray62 10:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong Oppose - No-way. I suggest you withdraw, seriously. There is very, very little experience gathered here and you've only been active for less than 3 months. A big no. Go out there and get some real experience, get an admin coach, withdraw this and try again in a few months. Lradrama 10:55, 14 October 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.