Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Soxred93


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

Soxred93
(5/14/9); FINAL ended 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC) — withdrawn by candidate.  Mønobi 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

- I am nominating myself for adminship because I know there is a lack of admins, and I have been participation in thngs that require adminship attention. I have been around since December 2006. I have reported users to WP:AIV, and WP:UAA. I am an active member of the WP:CVU and the WP:BAG. I currently run 2 bots, User:SoxBot and User:SoxBot II. In addition to all that, I have been patrolling Special:Newpages for speedy delete pages, and the New Images log for no license, no source, and no/disputed fair use rationale. I have been an administrator on another small wiki, so I know at least how the tools work. If I get accepted, I believe that I can help Wikipedia out a lot. Soxred 93 | t cd b 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination
 * I have decided to withdraw at this point. I got some good feedback through this, and know what to work on for my next RfA. Thanks, everyone! Soxred 93  | talk count  bot 01:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to above, I forgot to mention that I have been working with members at the help desk/users with helpme, reported bugs about Twinkle, and kept updated an SVG map of the USA with the presidential primaries until replaced by User:CoolKid1993. In addition, I have given out a few Barnstars, thanking users for their help, especially User:Reaper X for cleaning up a mistake I made with my bot. Soxred 93 | t cd b 23:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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 patrolling the backlogs, for one. I can help with deleting images that have been tagged for over 7 days, primarily. However, I will also look on Special:Newpages for obvious speedy delete pages, and block users reported on WP:AIV. I can also look over WP:UAA, and block if they are against our policy.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions would probably be extending the articles The Lost Boy and Long Trail. Some other pretty good contributions putting a compactTOC on WP:Babal, when the TOC was about 30-50 lines. I have also added an about on September 11, to avoid confusion. I have tagged almost 200 images with no license, source, or fair use rationale, in the course of about a week. It's not as much as it could be, but still significant.


 * 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: None of real significance. Yesterday, I was in a small discussion about Template:In the news. It has been resolved, without anything bad happening. Other than that, not really. I have not been in any edit wars, no blocking for 3RR, nothing like that.

Optional questions by Keeper76:


 * 4. Your userpage states that you are currently on a Wikibreak until Jan. 18th.  While that is perfectly acceptable, do you feel it will keep you from participating fully in your own RfA?
 * A: I doubt it. If there was a semi break template, I would take it. It is just saying I may come on later than usual, because I am studying for exams. After exams are done, I will be on full power.


 * 5. What do you want Wikipedia to look like in 3 years? (Ambiguous on purpose so you can show your creative side :-)
 * A: Hmm...you're right, that's a lot of potential for creativity. I know there are some things that will never change, like vandals, but other than that, I am not sure. I mean, Wikipedia is great as it is, and in my opinion, there isn't much more that could be improved. Maybe some automated extension that doesn't allow you to upload an image if you specify no summary at all. That's not very creative, but it's all I can think of right now.

Optional questions by Trusilver:
 * 6. I notice that you are interested in participating in WP:AIV. Could you explain to me, in your own words, the difference between a block and a ban?
 * A: A block is a method used to prevent someone from editing the wiki, temporarily or indefinitely, to prevent problems on the wiki. A ban is is a statement that lets someone know that their presence is not welcome. A block is one method of enforcing a ban.


 * 7. I'm sure you already know the guidelines for blocking vandalism violations. Under what circumstances would you find it reasonable to block someone who has not been issued a "final warning?"
 * A: For one, not even vandalism can cause a block, such as a username violation. Other than that, I try to assume good faith, and wait until the final/only warning.

General comments

 * See Soxred93's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Soxred93:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Soxred93 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * "I know there is a lack of admins" I never knew there was a lack. There are currently over 1,400 and they get hte job done.-- Phoenix -  wiki
 * Eh, we can always use more. The backlogs frequently swell up for no apparent reason, and then it's great to have more active admins. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support good interactions with this candidate, and he works on maintenence... that's always a good sign. --W.marsh 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, no reason to believe that they'd misuse the tools. Unpopular views re: fair use images may be unpopular, but so long as he stays within the currently established rules I have no problem with the user having them.  Lankiveil (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
 * 3) Support - good editor, no reason why not.   jj137  ♠ 04:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral I think you are a good vandalfighter, but I really think you need more time before getting the tools. You can also assist in creating articles as well. Also, Admin coaching is always open. Cheers.  m ir a nd a   08:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Moral Per Miranda. // F  9  T  18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) From his userpage "This user thinks fair use images should be allowed in userboxes." - clearly not understanding fair use.--Docg - ask me for rollback 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, I was considering switching to neutral, as my reason to oppose was perhaps trivial, but I see NO article contributions worth talking about? Please tell me if that's wrong - I'm 1,000 miles away from a 1FA standard, but I like admins to be editors of some sort.--Docg - ask me for rollback 20:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Doc. I have removed that userbox, as I don't feel that way anymore since I started tagging for fair use. Soxred 93  | t cd b 23:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Experience, and why I'm nuetral. --Niyant (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per doc. The fair use image issues are troubling. &mdash;  DarkFalls  talk 22:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Only had 21 edits since 12/2006 to 9/2007. Since then, there have been a lot of edits. I would probably wait for a longer period of time, just to gain edit experience. Spencer  T♦C 22:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per all the above reasons. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Siva, please see AAAD for advice on adminship discussions. Soxred 93  | t cd b 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, Soxred, while your comment is by and large true, I found it condescending, especially when the candidate is making said statement. — Kurykh  09:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention it's an essay, not a policy or guideline. No need to follow it unless you agree with it. Knowledge Of Self  &#124;  talk  17:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I'm a huge supporter of the mainspace, after all, it's the whole reason why we're here. I just don't see enough experience there.  Only 451 total mainspace edits and no article with more than 7 edits to it. I do like your work, I just want to see more of it. Useight (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Inexperience and a failure to prove discretionary ability. Daniel (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose needs more experience. I will support you in a few months if you have enough experience. NHRHS2010  talk  13:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I'm sorry, good things here but your response to Siva was actually very much not the kind of thing I would expect from an admin. Pedro : Chat  13:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Pedro: an RfA is exactly the kind of place you need to be on your best behaviour, demonstrating your soundest judgement and your coolest head. Responding in this way here does not bode well for other interactions, held further away from immediate scrutiny.  Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  15:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose: Needs more edits -- 1778 is simply not enough. I do like the general direction that you are heading, though.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Per question 7. I believe the user is not knowledgeable enough about the policies to become an administrator yet. Consider investigating WP:BLOCK, and there you will also see things related to open proxies, sockpuppets, legal threats, enforcing Arbcom decisions, evading blocks, etc. There is a lot to think about when becoming an admin. Look over some more material, get some more experience, and you'll have my vote next time! Icestorm815 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, but with moral support. Sorry, but less than 2000 edits doesn't seem to be nearly enough experience for an admin.  Keep editing, and in a few months try again.  Sorry.   WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  play it cool.  20:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Sorry, but 455 edits in the mainspace are not enough. :-( —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Hmm..quite a mind-teaser. I've seen you about and it was mostly good but with low experience in key areas, I fear the tools that may be granted may be misused, but definitely not abused. Rudget . 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Really not presenting himself articulately, can't quite grasp his enthusiasm and true interest. Niyant (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral pending further reading - I think you're a good editor. You certainly keep the place clean. I don't see a huge amount of interaction in your contribs with other user's (Apart from notifying of deletions and warnings to IP's), why is that? One important trait that I, personally, look for in an admin is the ability to communicate with other contributors. I just don't see enough of that to be able to judge how'd you react to different users in different situations. Scarian Call me Pat  20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made some new comments above that show a few examples of interacting with users more than just warning them. Soxred 93  | t cd b 23:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you point some out to me if you're not busy, please? I'd like to have a quick view. Thank you. Scarian Call me Pat  13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, that'd be fine. I have been working with members at the help desk/users with helpme, and I have given out a few Barnstars, thanking users for their help, especially User:Reaper X for cleaning up a mistake I made with my bot. Soxred 93  | t cd b 15:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Was ready to support, but doc's oppose is very definitive that you need more experience and more understanding of the fair use policy. Please keep working with images though, we certainly need more help there. Wizardman  20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I would like to see more experience and at least a little bit of article building. There is also too much evidence that this editor requires much more reading up on Wikipedia policy in several areas. Trusilver (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Neutral.  Sorry.  From the little I've seen of this candidate on this page and some of the candidate's contributions, I get a general impression that the candidate is well-meaning but inexperienced.  I have two concerns with this edit:  first of all, I don't see what it is about "has grown to be one of the most prestigious schools in Nicaragua" that "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject".  Secondly, the user seems uninformed about what I believe is a de facto policy (whether such policy is a good idea or not) that high schools are considered inherently notable. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh... there is no policy that suggests that high schools gain de facto notability. The Notability (schools) specifically states that it is not policy. Trusilver (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's correct. There is no such policy.  I said I "believe" there is a "de facto" policy.  There's also apparently a proposed policy.  Note that the speedy-delete tag was removed.  If the tags generally get removed for that reason, then in practice it's as if there's such a policy.  It would be interesting to read what the candidate's opinion is about it. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The tags got removed per WP:CSD as the school showed an assertion of notability at that time. &mdash; DarkFalls  talk 22:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you say that, since the next edit after the speedy tag was put on had an edit summary of "(remove - high schools are generally considered notable) ".  I don't think the text of the article had changed. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Neutral. There are enough "oppose" votes already.  Moral support.  The candidate is a good editor and a valuable member of the community. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Almost, but not quite; you need just a little more mainspace experience, and perhaps a long, good read through WP:NFC. Copyright, annoyingly enough, is not a matter of support or consensus &mdash; but stringent and capricious laws we must obey.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral As Coren said, Mainspace experience would be good, and a longer time of consecutive edits (no large breaks). Good Luck :)  Cheers, Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 13:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
 * 3) Neutral. The candidate has done good work, and would assist in areas where there is a need for willing admins. However, the comment above to Siva is a little troubling. I can't oppose, but I'm not prepared to support at this time. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. While I don't want to discourage the candidate, I cannot whole-heartedly support at this moment - fair use, argumentation (lack of admins? I totally agree we should aim to the ideal of having all editors trustworthy enough, but I don't think there is any scarcity of admins at the moment...), and perhaps a bit more experience (although I do admit the user is doing great job - keep on!). Pundit | utter  23:42, 13 January 2008 (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.