Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Soxred93 2

Edit count for Soxred93
User:Soxred93

run at Wed Mar 5 04:30:27 2008 GMT

Category:             16 Image talk:           1 Image:                96 Mainspace             625 MediaWiki talk:       1 Portal talk:          4 Portal:               137 Talk:                 120 Template talk:        20 Template:             78 User talk:            792 User:                 463 Wikipedia talk:       43 Wikipedia:            744 avg edits per page    1.83 earliest              01:45, 16 December 2006 number of unique pages 1717 total                 3140

2006/12 1 2007/1   9 2007/2   0 2007/3   3 2007/4   0 2007/5   0 2007/6   4 2007/7   0 2007/8   0 2007/9   2 2007/10  2 2007/11  430 2007/12  510 2008/1   1156 2008/2   893 2008/3   130

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 12 Robert Cormier 8 MythBusters (season 5) 5 Brandworkers International 5 Bridge and torch problem 5 Homestar Runner 4 Solomon 4 Ranch dressing 3 Phi Gamma Delta 3 Dane Cook 3 Berceni, Bucharest 3 AC/DC 3 Statue of Liberty 3 Adrian Picardi 3 1999 Orissa cyclone 3 Catholicism

Talk: 6 Robert Cormier 5 List of spaceflight records 3 Torrie Wilson 3 Barack Obama 3 Hell Girl 2 Bridge and torch problem 2 Galileo Galilei 2 Long Trail 2 John Knox (meteorologist)

Category: 3 Wikipedia bots with Python source code published 2 Wikipedia Bots with source code published 2 Unassessed Vermont articles

Image: 3 Metro nativitas.gif 3 Chocolate War.jpg 2 Hillary Clinton armed services committee.jpg 2 NY59&US202.jpg 2 2008 Republican Presidential Primaries Results.svg 2 Yamadyev.jpg 2 JesseLee.gif 2 060151.jpg 2 PL Inthesquare.jpg 2 Robert Rich - Music From Atlas Dei.jpg 2 StrongSad DavidBowie.PNG 2 ApologetiX - Wordplay.jpg

Portal: 26 Vermont 11 Vermont/Vermont news 11 Vermont/Selected picture 10 Vermont/Selected article 10 Vermont/Did you know 5 Vermont/Events in History 5 Vermont/Selected biography/2 4 Vermont/Selected article/1 3 Vermont/To Do 3  Vermont/Selected biography/1 3 Vermont/Events in History/Preload 3 Vermont/Selected picture/2 3 Vermont/Events in History/February 14 3 Vermont/Selected picture/4 3 Vermont/Events in History/February 13

Portal talk: 3 Vermont

Template: 11 Infobox Bot 9 Vandalism information 6 User bot owner 3 Project Vermont 2 Ul 2  RMlink 2 Rnb 2 Uw-ifu1 2 XFD Polling Templates 2 The WikiProject Barnstar 2 Bot Top

Template talk: 5 Did you know 3 In the news 3 RMlink 2 Taxobox 2 Wikipedia ads

User: 81 Soxred93/monobook.js 69 Soxred93 41 SoxBot 17 SoxBot/enable 17 Soxred93/icons 14 Soxred93/Sox Commons/Userpage 13 Soxred93/Sox Commons/onlineub 12 Soxred93/userboxes 12 SoxBot/source 9 Soxred93/notice 9 Soxred93/sig 8 SoxBot/onlineub/for 8 Soxred93/moddedtwinkle.js 8  Soxred93/Sox Commons/botuserboxes 8 Soxred93/bag.js

User talk: 82 Soxred93 6 Joseph A. Spadaro 6 207.144.217.162 5  Lidieth 4 MattyC69 4 PunkdPanther 4 MrRodolfoAlbarn 3 66.152.246.54 3  68.238.81.71 3  CoolKid1993 3 Louse101 3 Goillinibball 3 67.86.73.252 3  Ral315 3 GeeAlice

Wikipedia: 47 Bots/Requests for approval 39 Sandbox/Archive 38 Help desk 35 Usernames for administrator attention 23 Images for upload/Current requests 21 Administrator intervention against vandalism 16 Images for upload/Current Requests 14 Sandbox 14 Articles for creation/2008-02-14 14 Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot 11 Bot requests 11 Requests for page protection 11 Requests for adminship/Soxred93 10 Images for upload 10 Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot II

Wikipedia talk: 13 Bots/Approvals group 5 WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle/Bugs 4 Request an account 4 About 2 Template substitution 2 Notability (people)

If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot . Based directly on these URLs: [1]


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 04:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

Responses
This isn't directed at you daniel, just in general. How many pile-on opposes does a simple mistake need to generate? SQL Query me! 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest SQL? That a "reason" to oppose can only be used by one editor? Any-one else opposing has to come up with something else? Should we leave it to the 'crats to work out that plenty of people would have opposed but for fear of a "pile on"? Also I see in 6 opposes 1) Kurt's concerns 2)B. 3) Me agreeing and citing another reason (and if you look I also found the diff regarding RFPP but removed it from my comment post entering it as it had already been identified). 4) Deletionist attitude concerns from DHMO, 5) counterproductive tagging from Lankiveil and 6) "gut instinct" from Daniel. A pile-on is a ton of "per editor x" whereas here the opposes are not all even based upon agreeance with B, but also addition of other opinion, albeit maybe through rewording. Pedro : Chat  14:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have to agree with SQL on this (not just because it's my own RfA), that it was an innocent mistake. However, this is when part of my long response to question 3 comes into play. I'm currently angered at myself, but looking at other RfA's, I can see it happen to other people. Not so much as the specific mistake, as the fact that I made a mistake and I get piled with opposes. Look, if someone would have told me about this on my talk page earlier, then I could have known it, and waiting longer to apply. Either way, I'm working on fixing it, and I hope that some of you may reconsider. For those wondering, I'll answer the questions soon when I'm a little more focused (I just woke up, after getting about 5 hours of sleep).  Soxred93 | talk bot 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But how many innocent mistakes can you make before it is a reason to oppose? This is not just one small mistake, but it appears you have had some deletion tagging issues in the past. Tiptoety  talk 15:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to echo Tiptoety's comment above. Pile-ons can certainly be frustrating for the candidate, especially if the opposition appears to be dwelling on a single issue out of perceived thousands - however, from what Pedro and others have pointed out, this isn't really an isolated incident - it's several. Granted, none of them are devastating (at least in my eyes), but it definitely raises cause for concern, especially the WP:CSD tagging. A few slip ups are acceptable, and if you catch them early that's good, but completely erroneous tagging is a no no.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * SQL, Are you saying that if someone agrees with an oppose rationale they should not oppose on that basis? RfA is a consensus building process, and anyone who finds a reason compelling should "vote" from that basis. As for pile-on, this RfA is a long way from being decided, and if enough Supporters find the oppose rationale unconvincing consensus may still be reached to promote. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim'''  15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My oppose is almost entirely based on others' concerns over SoxRed's apparent propensity toward deletion rather than improvement. My opposition is not set in stone, since I see a lot of good in SoxRed's contributions to the project.  It's just that if an editor is quick to tag a page for deletion, someone else has to judge whether to actually delete; With adminship, SoxRed's judgment is unchecked (reversible, yes, but unchecked).  I want to see as many admins promoted as we can, and I'm eager for a reason to support.  --SSBohio 16:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)