Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GottaGoFast

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

Final (1/8/2); ended 20:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC) per WP:SNOW Biblioworm 20:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

GottaGoFast (talk · contribs) – Hello, fellow editors of Wikipedia. I am GottaGoFast, and I immediately fell in love with Wikipedia since my first edit. Since then, I've focused on reverting and reporting vandals, copy editing/wikifying, housekeeping, and doing work like that. I'm familiar with almost all of Wikipedia's policies, and since my first edit my ultimate goal has been to become an administrator, so I can help Wikipedia in any way I can. As this is my first time nominating myself, feel free to give me criticism, as well as advice on how I can become a better editor. Thank you so much! ~GottaGoFast ^Stepitup 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to work in areas of Wikipedia involving anti-vandalism, user management (WP:UAA, WP:ARV, etc.), and housekeeping, as well as banning users who have violated our policies (WP:3RR, final warning, etc.) and also help settle disputes and edit wars.

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

A: I am proud of my many vandalism reversions, for I feel preventing vandals is important for the overall well-being of the wiki. I have contributed to encyclopedic content in the mainspace, and I know much about how the formatting and style on Wikipedia should be, and am very familiar with the many tools that are availible to editors, as well as the wiki syntax.

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 multiple conflicts with misbehaving users who have caused me stress. I usually talk to them in a friendly tone, no matter how threatening they are. I will deal with it the same way in the future, using my administrative rights to help me.

Additional question from ONUnicorn

4. Please describe your understanding of the difference between a block and a ban.

A:

• Links for GottaGoFast: GottaGoFast (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for GottaGoFast can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

1. Moral Support GottaGoFast is an editor with good intentions, and extra eyes on recent changes are always appreciated. Edit counts should not be the be-all and end-all of judging an RfA, but yes, some work on content creation and reading up on policy would strengthen this candidacy. Altamel (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

1. User only has 2,813 edits and has barely 10 months of experience on Wikipedia. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I cannot support yet. Please see User:MJ94/RfA Rationale for the criteria I look for in a candidate for adminship. MJ94 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not enough experience yet. This might be a good time to reverse your username and slow down just a bit and get some more experience in all aspects of Wikipedia. Intothatdarkness 19:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose – WP:NOTYET. While appreciate your dedication to the project, GottaGoFast, I don't feel like you have been here long enough to merit Adminship yet – under 3,000 edits (much of those being "automated" via Twinkle and STiki), relatively low participation at the Admin noticeboards (just, primarily WP:UAA and WP:AIV), minimal content creation... My advice is to keep at it, poke around a bit more, work on content creation, learn more of the ropes, and come back later when you are more seasoned. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose (edit conflict) GottaGoFast, I think you're on the right track but I think this RFA is too soon for you. I certainly recognize that not all editors will be prolific article writers, but I do think that having some writing experience is important. Patrolling vandalism, mostly at recent changes, will give you an understanding of a limited number of policies. Writing and content creation will require you to understand some of the larger policies and how it is applied. Common goldfish is the article you've edited the most, and in the 12 edits you performed, they were mainly gnomish tasks. The majority of your edits are semi-automated and you have very little experience in the project space (to which most are automated reports to AIV). I suggest you read over WP:RFAADVICE and look at some of the RFA standards there. Mkdw^talk 19:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

   You've also stated you're interested in dispute resolution and resolving edit wars, it appears you have not participated at WP:ANI, WP:3RR, or WP:DR. I would like to see more experience there to demonstrate your ability to moderate disputes as well. Mkdw^talk 19:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

5. Oppose and suggest snow close per WP:NOTNOW. GottaGoFast, thank you for your anti-vandalism work, which is something Wikipedia certainly needs doing, but you have nowhere near enough experience to become an administrator yet. Get some serious article improvement (adding referenced content) under your belt and gain more experience with things like deletion policy (one visit to WP:AFD isn't nearly enough), page protection, copyright, ..., as well as continuing with your good work against vandalism. Maybe in a year you could be ready. (By the way, check out the difference between banning and blocking.) --Stfg (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
6. Oppose WP:NOTNOW. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spill beans) @ 19:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
7. Oppose as above WP:NOTYET and way too little experience in admin areas and the edits that I see there suggest that you need a lot more experience. For example the last edit to WP:UAA is this one reporting The trol 0.0.0.0.1 because it "seems to be an attempt at an IP address." Um, no, I would suggest that "The trol" is fairly clearly trying to be something else. I'd also like to see more content creation, either articles or adding sourced content to existing articles. Only 3 articles created, 2 have been deleted and the only surviving one Sunline Inc. is a stub which has been tagged for notability and sourcing since September 2014. Also no experience in deletion areas, so it's hard to judge how you would use those buttons. Don't be discouraged, you're making valuable contributions here, especially with the anti-vadalism work and sometime next year maybe you can try again based on the feedback given here. Valenciano (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
8. Oppose: there's no good rule for what edit count an admin should have, because it varies from person to person. Some users might be ready after 7000 edits; others might take 150,000 edits before they understand the admin toolkit properly. But there are very, very few people who I would consider supporting after less than 3000 edits. I'd also advise you to look at Wikipedia:Hat collecting, because "since my first edit my ultimate goal has been to become an administrator" is not a good reason to apply for adminship. I had the same ambition of becoming an admin when I first joined Wikipedia, but I'm waiting until I know I actually need the tools and have enough experience to be able to prove I know what I'm doing. I hope you don't take any of this personally, and please don't be discouraged by anything anyone has said here. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

1. I have to say you have promise but it may be a bit early. I failed my first RfA due to it being too soon, I passed the second time. Don't be discouraged if it does not go well this time. Chillum 19:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
2. I can't really say whether or not this candidate is qualified at the current time. I see some good contributions, but I'm not sure GottaGoFast has enough experience. Dustin (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2015 (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.