Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Goodvac

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

Closed as not successful: My !vote notwithstanding, there is no consensus to promote Goodvac to an admin now. I think two or three months of more experience you surely will make a good admin here and may even get a nomination offered. Keep up the good work you're doing! -Barras (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Goodvac

Goodvac (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 08:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been a member of this community since May 2010, but have recently become very active in the last few months. Mainly, I've been working on rescuing articles (i.e. those that IPs create in good faith but qualify for quick deletion), creating articles by simplifying en articles, and reverting vandalism. I also contribute at RfD and DYK. Having administrative tools will allow me to better develop this encyclopedia (importing pages) and better combat vandalism. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination. Goodvac (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Regardless of how active you have been here, I feel you have enough experience to be an administrator. I do agree with Ajraddatz about the soft redirect on user page though. wiooiw (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   As I replied to Ajraddatz, I don't think one's userpage is a testament to one's actual dedication to a project. Does this show your dedication? ;) Goodvac (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It appears like this one isn't going to pass but I would like to throw in a word of support for good work so far. Kansan (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Weak support–I would trust you with the tools, regardless of experience. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - Edits are good, and I think people are making a little much out of the three month thing. As three months is the listed prefer time, and he has good edits within that time. I will support.--  † CR₉₀  03:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
5. I don't know, can he destroy all of wikipedia with the delete and block buttons? —stay (sic)! 07:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
6. No, he can't! I Support Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 20:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Really sorry, but this is two or three months too early for my taste. You've been active since May 2010, but you only really started to be very active last months. and most of your edits are just from this month. Also I've made a kinda bad experience with granting admin rights to people (who are surely trusted), but were only very short active here before making this request. Soon after the user retired. I prefer some more time to be passed. Please keep up your good work and I'm sure you get a nom in two or three months. -Barras (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Per Barras. You fight vandalism well, but like what Barras has said, you really started to be active last month. However, I would also like to use this opportunity to thank you on your excellent work on the articles! Hydriz^Talk 13:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
3. I don't want to pile on, but I agree with Barras. You are doing great work here, but I think you need more experience, and need to actively edit for some more time. Don't get disheartened by the opposes; continue your good work, and you'll surely get admin later. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Regretfully, plus one per all above. Keep helping out, though, and there's no reason why I won't support in the future! :-) Goblin 14:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

   Oppose per Barras.Moving to support --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

5. Hello, who are you? Per above, I think that this comes a bit too early. Also, as an added note, I really don't like your userpage. I think that anyone who is submitting their candidacy for adminship here should show a little bit more dedication and have something other than a soft redirect to their enwp page. What that tells me is that you don't consider yourself to be a dedicated user to this wiki, and as such, why would you need sysop tools? Ajraddatz (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   I disagree that one's userpage is a testament to one's actual dedication to a project. For example, two admins, Either way (talk · contribs) and M7 (talk · contribs), have userpages that do not indicate any dedication to Simple, yet in reality, they are dedicated. Goodvac (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   Then we have a difference of opinion. However, please don't go saying that there is nothing wrong with you because other people do it. To overuse a cliche, if your friends were to jump off a cliff, would you? Ajraddatz (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not saying that other people's doing it makes my doing it right. I'm using them as examples to illustrate my point that dedication is not what your userpage looks like—it's what you do. I should be judged based on not my userpage but my contributions. Goodvac (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   I don't think there's anything wrong with having a soft redirect to en. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to have fancy userpages. If somebody does become an administrator here, I do think it's a good idea for them to have a userpage that indicates they are a Simple admin so that users can know to ask them if they need anything, but this isn't the case as of right now, so no problem in my mind. Kansan (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not saying that we should spend time making a nice userpage rather than improving content - however, it does show (to me, anyways), that this user is not committed to this wiki. Perhaps that comes from my experience on Wikia, where many users are involved in multiple wikis. From there, most candidates who request adminship with either a soft redirect to their "main" userpage or a cross-wiki template (similar to the one on my userpage here) are just requesting the rights so they can say "I'm an admin on x wiki". I guess that that, in combination with the user's low edit count and spread out edits, is what is causing me to oppose. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   I can understand the low edit count concerns, but the userpage almost seems like a no win situation given that people who have spent too much time on their userpage in the past have been accused of violating WP:MYSPACE. Kansan (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'd like to point out that I had two opposes mention my lack of a user page as rationale. I think I turned into a halfway decent admin. Either way (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

6. Not just yet. You are another one of those candidates who, in a few months time, will make a good admin. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Far too early for me. Sorry. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Edit stats on talk --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2011 (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.