Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Goldenburg111
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The result was: Application declined at this time. BD2412 T 23:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Goldenburg111 (talk · contributions)[edit]
Well, its about time I started thinking about haha. Well, nothing more but I am Goldenburg111. I have been a regular contributor and vandal fighter here for about 5 months now. I feel like I should be trusted with the rights since I have shown a strong interest and need for the rights. I usually complained that they are not a lot of active admins around here to take care of some tasks.
Even though we have promoted Miszatomic (talk · contributions), there is still a chunk of time in which no admins are active and I am. There have been errors I have made in the past, but I feel like they should be left behind since I have definitely changed. With a different tone and attitude I have now presented.
I have also accumulated over 2000 edits on Wikiquote, and have made it a regular practice to edit and stay active on Wikiquote. I have in fact, complained about the admins not being active a lot around. I am also a SWMT member, in which the user fights vandalism across multiple wikis. I have been a member there for about 5 months and have been mentioned as an experience SWMT member.
I hope to pass this, for the better of Wikiquote. For another active, trusted admin. ~Goldenburg111
--Goldenburg111 17:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate's acceptance: Self nomination
Vote ends: 6 September 2014
- Support: I think goldenburg111 will be a great admin. Miszatomic (Talk) 15:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am not sure whether I am supposed to vote on this, because the original edit summary seems to suggest it is a joke.[1]
Goldenburg111's enthusiasm is commendable, and an interest in managing vandalism is always welcome. However, I think Goldenburg111 has yet to acquire some of the technical knowledge that is important for administrators have, such as how to transclude a discussion like this in a main requests page,[2] how parameters are used in a template,[3], and where to place categories on a page,[4] for example. I also think that some of Goldenburg111's editing practices are not quite up to the standard that Administrators need to exemplify, such as creating an article without a category [5] (an article that is long on exposition and history with not so much quotation) inserting garbled English into a policy page,[6], and making a lot of edits without summaries.
If this is really supposed to be a vote then I would have to oppose for the time being, and give Goldenburg111 more time to learn. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your input Ningauble.
I don't really have anything else to respond to unless to the first one. That wasn't a joke, that is how I usually talk like. Actually, the other part where you say "Creating an article without a category". That is only one incident, and the others where from where I joined Wikiquote editing. Plus, I kind of returned from school and exams and I kind of needed and I kind of lacked off there. But the "School exams return" sentence is not a valid reason to forget categories. Also, about the categories thing, I have HotCat in. But it doesn't show up. BTW, some of these links where about 4 months ago. I don't see why we need to bring this up. Thanks for bringing this up. --Goldenburg111 20:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]- Four months is not long in a tenure with a three month wikibreak (described here as five months). Administrators get a lot of scrutiny, no less after election than before, and we all have to stand on our record. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I forgot to change that to school. But my plan, if admin. Since school has started, I would just usually check up to do normal administrative duties, such as deleting pages and blocking vandals. Not editing, since I have no time. But if I return to editing, I can take your advice in heart and keep that in mind. Cheers and thanks for pointing it out. --Goldenburg111 20:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Four months is not long in a tenure with a three month wikibreak (described here as five months). Administrators get a lot of scrutiny, no less after election than before, and we all have to stand on our record. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your input Ningauble.
- Oppose Agree with Ningauble. Appreciate the good work, but needs time before getting this right I think. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting ended on the 6th of September, does Pmlineditor's vote still count. A bureaucrat really needs to hurry up and close this. --Goldenburg111 20:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care if my !vote counts or not, but it is entirely upto the crat, and should not bother you. Anyway, the discussion should last for at least one week; afaik there's no rule stating it can't be extended in case not too many people comment. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thank you. --Goldenburg111 14:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I would like to extend this further, since it seems to have drawn little notice from the community. However, the better part of valor may be to close it now in favor of a future effort. BD2412 T 00:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.