Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Goldom

Goldom

Voice your opinion! (24/0/0) Ending 11:33, 2006-08-12 (UTC)

Goldom (talk · contribs) – I have been working on Wikipedia for some time now, and recently have been finding myself more and more in situations where I feel I could be doing much more good with admin tools. I have been around a long time (registered late 2004), though to be fair, the total active time is actually around 8 months - I didn't do much for most of 2005. For an account of that age, I don't have a ton of edits, (I haven't looked in a while at exactly how many, the count will show up below eventually anyway), but have been getting much more active in the last 4-5 months. I've been putting off nominating myself, trying to wait for the "perfect time" when I'd have the best chance, but realized that I could be doing the site far more good by just asking for your opinions now, and either using the tools sooner, or learning where to improve so that I can request again in a while. My latest mistake that made me think "now I look bad again..." was a confusion over one of the rules of image deletion. I asked for clarification, thought the response agreed with my understanding, then acted on that, and turned out to be wrong. I now understand correctly, and realize I was perhaps a tad too BOLD for a situation in which I was confused. (To avoid being ambiguous, I edited an image CSD to how I thought it actually was, got reverted, and so asked and learned the truth). What this story is getting around to is that I can't promise to be a perfect admin, but will strive to not use any admin actions (or normal editing actions, for that matter) before thoroughly understanding what I'm doing. For example, I would probably avoid deleting any images for the time being, until I'm fully clear on those policies. However, there are enough places I am confidant in my actions (to follow in the questions) that I believe I could be of use as an admin. I've decided to throw out my inhibitions about how I'll look, and just go for it, as after all, this is about helping Wikipedia, not seeing how many people like me. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: The big ones would be backlogs in CAT:CSD and WP:AIV. These are two places that, while not having the biggest backlogs, are rather important to be dealt with quickly. I also have a good bit of experience with both vandalism-cleaning and speedy-tagging bad articles (while I don't know of any way to count how many articles I've tagged for deletion (that have been deleted), my guess would be several hundred, as that is one thing I've been doing since my very beginning here in 04. As for dealing with vandalism, I use the non-admin revert script, so can't really claim I need that tool, but do have experience with it. I report any vandals who persist after the required warnings to AIV, but as with tagging speedy articles, I would rather be helping to reduce backlogs instead of adding to them. Another area I am active in as a user is WP:AFD. I'm not the sort that goes through and does "Delete per nom" on everything, but rather add my opinions only where I feel I have something useful to add to the discussion, and so avoid that much-dreaded "voting". So, with the experience I have there, I could help close old AfDs. I also have no problem with expanding into other areas, once I learn the policies. One I have in mind is Requested Moves, as I have read and understand how to do the admin work in that area.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I'm afraid I have to disappoint some people here and admit I've never come close to working on a Featured Article, and am unlikely to do so any time soon. I don't have anything against them, but I do much, much more work behind the scenes. It may be odd to admit, but one of my contributions I am proudest of is a string of over 1,250 spelling fixes over the course of 3 days. I know it's not something unique or that no one else could have done, but no one else had done it, and so I feel it was an important (though exhausting) contribution. Another task I've undertaken is cleaning up pages to comply with the disambiguation page Manual of Style, as many are nowhere near what it says. It may also seem like a minor task, but I've found that most editors, new and experienced alike, add listings to dab pages in the format already there - so cleaning up a page early on leads to it staying clean in the future. Most of all though, my primary task is vandalism-cleanup, and this is also the reason for my RfA. It may be a task with no net gain to the project (well, that's not totally true, sometimes all a once-vandal needs to become a valued contributor is to let them know what they're doing wrong), but is quite vital to avoid a loss. For those looking for actual article writing, I'll offer my work on the page Earth Girl Arjuna. It's not a great article, but I rewrote nearly the whole thing, and think it is, at least, much better than before. I also have a list of other work I've done that can be seen at User:Goldom/work, if anyone is interested in seeing more.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have never been in a conflict over the content of an article. However, I have had some disagreements over interpretation of policy (in places like AfD). I think the things that stresses me out the most is users being uncivil. I generally deal with this by ignoring rude comments and reminding others to mind WP:CIVIL, if it needs to be said. My only other real bother is when policies are cited to mean things I don't believe they say. I don't assert myself to be a know-all of every rule, and so in cases where I feel others are using a policy incorrectly, in every case I can think of, have simply discussed it with them, explaining why I am reading it a different way. I can't think of any time where I have ever made a personal attack, but rather try to discuss things rationally. I know being an admin does open the door to more stressful situations, and would strive to continue this manner of dealing with them.

Optional question from Viridae^Talk

1. You state you would like to use the admin tools to perform speedy deletions rather than contributing to the backlog. If you come across an article that you think warrants a speedy but you aren't quite sure. What would your actions be in this case?

A: I think the basic idea behind speedy deletions is that they are for cases where there is not only no contention about the case (which would be a prod), but where the article so clearly doesn't belong that there could almost certainly be no doubt. (This is just talking about the CSD for articles - some of the others I can see how there might be confusion, of course. :) So, if I was unsure whether or not an article was speedyable, I think in almost any case it would be better to err on the side of caution and not delete it. When I've come across things like that in the past, I've generally either used a prod, or just stuck it on my watchlist to see what someone else would do, so I'd know next time there was a similar case. As an admin, depending on the case, I would think either a prod, or if I'm really 98% sure, I could always still just tag it as a speedy, and see if another admin agreed with me.

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 06:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Goldom (over the 4725 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 584 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 06, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 30, November, 2004
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.64% Minor edits: 99.55%
Average edits per day: 34.53 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 509 edits): Major article edits: 99.28% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4725 edits shown on this page and last 4 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.23% (11)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.49% (23)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 43.53% (2057)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 85.95%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 4 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3702 | Average edits per page: 1.28 | Edits on top: 18.26%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 30.46% (1439 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 43.94% (2076 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 22.37% (1057 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.61% (29 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 64.76% (3060) | Article talk: 2.05% (97)
User: 5.08% (240) | User talk: 13.54% (640)
Wikipedia: 10.88% (514) | Wikipedia talk: 1.86% (88)
Image: 0.66% (31)
Template: 0.61% (29)
Category: 0.02% (1)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0.08% (4)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.44% (21)

• See Goldom's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Goldom's edit count using Interiot's tool:

Username	Goldom
Total edits	4664
Distinct pages edited	3655
Average edits/page	1.276
First edit	22:12, November 29, 2004
(main)	3033
Talk	94
User	235
User talk	622
Image	31
Image talk	1
Template	29
Template talk	19
Help	4
Help talk	1
Category	1
Wikipedia	507
Wikipedia talk	87

• Goldom's detailed edit count using Ais523's Tool (click the "Show" link below and to the right) alphaChimp ^laudare 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Click Show to View Results

Article namespace: 3061

Manual vandalism reverts: 20

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 621

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 91

Removals: 99

Redirects: 37

Link as edit summary: 57

Proposed deletion-related tagging: 7

XfD deletion-related tagging: 3

Speedy deletion-related tagging: 2

Deletion-related edit summaries: 11

Addition-related edit summaries: 66

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 3

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 41

Unrecognised edit summary: 1965

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 11

No edit summary: 27

Talk namespace: 97

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 6

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Removals: 4

Addition-related edit summaries: 3

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 9

Unrecognised edit summary: 65

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 3

No edit summary: 6

User namespace: 240

Manual vandalism reverts: 2

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 15

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 2

Removals: 1

Addition-related edit summaries: 33

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 1, oppose: 0, support: 0

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 36

Unrecognised edit summary: 105

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2

No edit summary: 40

User talk namespace: 640

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 5

Removals: 3

Link as edit summary: 3

Welcomes: 8

Speedy deletion-related tagging: 5

Deletion-related edit summaries: 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 231

Unrecognised edit summary: 186

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 7

No edit summary: 6

Wikipedia namespace: 512

Manual vandalism reverts: 2

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 11

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 8

Removals: 7

Link as edit summary: 1

XfD deletion-related tagging: 8

Speedy deletion-related tagging: 7

Deletion-related edit summaries: 52

Addition-related edit summaries: 11

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 12, oppose: 2, support: 9

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 18

Unrecognised edit summary: 329

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 29

No edit summary: 6

Wikipedia talk namespace: 87

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Link as edit summary: 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 3

Unrecognised edit summary: 66

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 15

Image namespace: 31

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 7

Removals: 2

Addition-related edit summaries: 1

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 3

Unrecognised edit summary: 17

Image talk namespace: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 1

Template namespace: 29

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 2

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Removals: 7

Redirects: 2

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 16

Template talk namespace: 19

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 16

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2

Help namespace: 4

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 3

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Help talk namespace: 1

Manual vandalism reverts: 1

Category namespace: 1

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Support

1. Me. ;) I've only seen good things from Goldom, I don't believe he'd abuse the tools at all. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 11:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Will not abuse the tools. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:40, 05 August '06}
3. Support, no clear reason to oppose. I'd like to see more Wikipedia space edits in the future, but that'd really be a bonus. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Edit conflict Support Seems to be trustworthy and hardworking. Someone made an unblock request on Goldom's Talk page, thinking that he was an admin already!  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. If I were to choose one word to describe Goldom, it would be... dependable! --Gray Porpoise 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Adequate time and number of edits. See no evidence of incivility. This dif shows Goldom can remain cool under fire and not escalate under provocation. :) Dlohcierekim 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Good responses to questions, as well as reasons above. Dar-Ape 15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Will make a good admin. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. I haven't interacted with him before, but everything that I've seen here appears to be in order. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support First off, Goldom has shown himself to be a strong, hard-working contributor. Second, I love his self-nom and his answers to the questions. It's obvious that he knows exactly what he wants to do on WP, he knowshow he can be helpful, and he knows what his strengths and weaknesses are. Just from what is written above, I can tell quite plainly that he doesn't think he's perfect (which is good, because nobody is), but that he does his absolute best in what he's good at. Despite not having any interaction with him, I think, from what I've seen in the past few minutes, that he'd make a very good admin. -- Kicking222 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per Kicking222. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per above. Newyorkbrad 18:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per above. MichaelZ526 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support looks good to me. —Khoikhoi 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per all good reasons above. The Gerg 23:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per nomination statement. Roy A.A. 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Merovingian - Talk 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Yes. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. Strong candidate. Good answers to questions. Zaxem 03:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support - looks good abakharev 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support good luck! Stubbleboy 05:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 07:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Thank you for running. --Ligulem 09:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (Please don't thank me for "voting", thanks :-)

Oppose

Neutral