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

Soxred93[edit]

Final (87/7/3); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 03:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soxred93 (talk · contribs) - Part of a co-nomination here. I have seen this user around a lot, and between him and his bots, he really accounts for a lot of positive edits on Wikipedia. I think he has the smarts and everything to become an admin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Cobi - Soxred93 runs several bots and also has been helping out at WP:ACC. I think he would make a good admin. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-transclusion Co-Nomination by SQL: I apologize for the late nomination, but, as I said in Soxred's second RFA, I would nom him myself, had I had the chance to do so. I believe, that it is still early enough in this RFA, to add one more nomination. Had I known about this sooner, I would have added my nomination sooner. If this is inappropriate (I can't see how), please move this to the discussion section.

Soxred93 is in my opinion, an extremely trusted user. He is an approved user, an administrator, and, a developer for the tool we use to help with account creation here. With all those responsibilities, over there, he has not once abused his position there. Nor on the odd case that a mistake been made, has he not been unapproachable, or unwilling to correct it himself. We regularly trust him there with one of the highest levels of access to private data, and, he is mature enough not to misuse that trust. Sysopping here on the english wikipedia entails even less. Based upon a review of his contributions here, he has made a couple mistakes, but, has always been willing to go back, and review and/or correct them just the same here, even if those mistakes are few in number. I personally greatly trust Soxred93, and, cannot see a valid reason that he should be not allowed to help out with the endless maintenance tasks here.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Humbly, I do. Soxred 93 01:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Pretty much I plan to help out at WP:ACC, WP:AFD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, WP:EP, and images with no source/license/FUR/orphaned for over 7 days. With WP:ACC, I have done a sizable amount of developing work for the tool there (I don't know if people remember that I made the original tool), and also have created a lot of accounts. However, I need to be an admin to fill out a large amount of requests there, as they are too similar to an existing username. I already participate at WP:AIV and WP:UAA, and I have both bookmarked. I have made many Editprotected requests, and most of the time, they were implemented. Occasionally, I have even been asked by an admin to help complete an EP request. Part of the reason my last RfA failed was due to the fact that I tagged obvious logos with ((subst:nld)), a mistake I hadn't learned about. Now, I have learned, and I have helped with the upload log once more. I have gotten no complaints since.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As many of you know, I run many bots (see Special:Prefixindex/User:SoxBot). These are probably some of my best contributions. In addition, I am pleased with my work at Portal:Vermont, and other WP:WPVT contributions. A lot of people will notice I have had not a lot of real article building experience. This is due to one reason only: English is one of my worst subjects, I am not very good at article writing. Therefore, I have joined the Wikipedia Spotlight. This allows me to make some good contributions, without worrying about the parts I am not good at.
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: Nothing serious. Just your general conflict. I have recently started to get involved with WP:MEDCAB, and have dealt with conflicts there. Pretty much the same stuff applies from my last RfA, regarding how I deal with it. I don't think there's anything left to say that wasn't in my last RfA.

Additional rather mean but well intended Questions from Pedro

4. You don't appear to have done much, if any, actuall content writing since your last RFA. Do you feel that your lack of recent participation in writing articles could cause problems in being an effective administrator?
A. I do not think so. Being an admin is about the tools, and the judgement placed with them. While I do think that article writing is a good thing to do, there are the few of us who just don't excel in it. That does not necessarily mean that there is a lack of judgement, or misunderstanding of the tools, though.
5. User:Soxred93/Desk#Stuff_to_volunteer_for_in_an_RfA Looks a bit odd to me. Why did you need to remind yourself what to volunteer for during an RFA?
Note:I have removed that section, because the RfA is going on and I don't need that list anymore. For all those that are wondering what it is, it is in the history.
A. That is a list to myself, that I'm not sure why I created. I think that I found that I had some experience in admin related areas I wasn't too aware of until then (like the Editprotected requests). Also, multiple people wanted to co-nom, and I just told them to put it in that list.
6.In case of long term abuse, what are your plans? Do you think you will be able to handle this job? Helping track serial sockpuppeters (AKA Grawp) or the other ones... --Creamy!Talk 03:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. Well, Grawps are pretty obvious. Those, I can handle. In fact, at WP:ACC, we're finding out new ways that we can stop Grawp (yes, Grawp is at the ACC tool). I plan to occasionally check WP:LTA for updates on him especially, but all sorts of those people. Even though it is a difficult job, I feel that I can do it.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support. Believe he will use the tools responsibly. BradV 03:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my nomination. SQLQuery me! 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, no indication user would abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 05:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further review, "Soxred" appears to refer to the Boston Red Sox. Switching to strong oppose. --Rory096 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you wanna, uh, move your vote? CWii(Talk|Contribs) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, are you questioning my infallible judgment? Oh, and oppose for you too. Your sig is way too long. --Rory096 03:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Trustworthy. MBisanz talk 05:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Gah! (next time you should tell me before you do something like this){full support} ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support User has my full trust, and I feel aboslutely certain that they would not abuse tools. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 07:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Although his blatant POV is obvious in his username, that might be a problem within the cabal. · AndonicO Engage. 09:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Per Wisdom89. Thank you for bringing up excellent examples of good reporting! All of those names reported should have been blocked there and then. No serious user would ever make such a confusing username. Al Tally talk 09:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty tall assumption there Majorly. Yeah, let's just hardblock every user who choses a name that looks lazy and random. They couldn't possibly want to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Do you really think we should turn away potential contributors like that? I thought that's how this place thrived. Oh well. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wisdom89's opposition is in accordance with the username policy; Majorly's whining is not. giggy (:O) 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I was promoted to admin, there was no such section in the policy that there is today. That a small group of people decided to implement such a thing a couple of months ago is irrelevant to me. Wikipedia is supposed to be a respectable website. With names like djdyt6u6rdhgfhgf how can anyone take it seriously?
    We aren't that desperate for people that we should accept any old random string of text as a username. There is such a thing as assuming too much good faith. Yes, you can quote examples of users with confusing names who contributed positively, but they would have done so anyway regardless of whether they were blocked. Just a message that says "Sorry, you'll have to pick another name" is harmless. If potentially good contributors quit because they had a confusing username, they should really get a thicker skin. They probably aren't suited to editing anyway if they get offended by something as minor as a polite message asking them to choose another name. There's so many worse things.
    And despite it apparently being policy, admins still continue to block! Good on them I say. Al Tally talk 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suppose I don't have say that I disagree, but I'll do it anyway. What I don't understand then is this. If it's so easy to politely ask a user to change their username with a template (or personal message), and of course there's the existence of WP:RFC, why is it so difficult for you to see my position? Surely these options are better than a report to UAA without any communication. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised, Majorly. I wouldn't have expected you to so baldly assume bad faith from newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I don't think the 'pedia will asplode if the user is given +sysop. ffm 11:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per my esteemed colleagues, above. Sox is a good editor and a skilled bot op, and I think adminship would be a net positive in this case. Full support. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per above. Those usernames were either confusing because of long letter repetitions or appeared to be random. I would have suggested that the user seek a rename before going for the block, but those usernames needed changing. Not enought for me to oppose over. Dlohcierekim 13:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further elaboration. I found one dicey CSD tagging-- looked reasonable at the time, but I would recommend checking prior histories before deleting. Sometimes an article has been vandalized. But I saw lots more accurate CSD taggings. I would discard the plus system you use for edit summaries. Something more conventional and less opaque would be better. Dlohcierekim 13:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Valuable member of the community. MrPrada (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Seems ready for the mop. I honestly don't see the problem with Wisdom's diffs, as I would reported those usernames just the same. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support per nom. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Whilst I have some minor reservations, the lack of article work is balanced by the excellent contributions technically. A dedicated Wikipedian who has worked hard to clear the concerns in earlier RFA's. I'm sure Soxred will tread lightly, so on balance the tools would be a net positive. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per nom. Vishnava talk 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Finally someone who can do the complicated and technical template edits that come up in CAT:PER! Best of luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yup. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Excellent technical contributions, evidently has a clue (which is more important than you might think!) RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:12, June 13, 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support as nom, and my otters support too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support - SQL's nom say's it all! This user is very trustworthy, fixes his errors and is not immature in the way he manages things. Good Luck! The Helpful One (Review) 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support Bstone (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - This guy has to one of the most helpful people I've ever talked to, definete admin material. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support editor has done good work with SoxBot and not shown any reasons to oppose. BJTalk 18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Great bot work, and willingness to act on constructive criticism. xenocidic (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Red Sox Nation Support - I see growth over the course of your RfA's, and a willingness to heed the well meaning advice of the community. Good luck! Hiberniantears (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, Good editor. I don't want to use the cliché, but Adminship is not a big deal, and whether or not Sox has contributed majorly since the last RFA is not much of a reason to oppose. The most important matter is whether or not he can use the tools wisely. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I have no problem with his RfA volunteering list. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. My past interactions have been positive. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Would have co-nommed but lives on the other side of the world support. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, see no problems. Wizardman 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Shapiros10 WuzHere  22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I've seen this user and his bots around the wiki frequently and he deserves it. — Wenli (reply here) 22:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Good user. Bots and portals are off the beaten path, but everything counts. I disagreee with Wisdom89 in oppose number 1. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Seems good. :) Anthøny 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Supper strong support.A brilliant editor. Maintains the best bots on Wikipedia(other than the almighty Clue Bot), wont abuse the admin tools, and only wants them to make Wikipedia better.Gears Of War 23:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Duh. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support great user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I fully support you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Good luck. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Cant see why not, seen him around heaps Fattyjwoods Push my button 00:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - trustworthy editor. Unconvinced by oppose arguments, four of the five accounts listed by Wisdom89 have been blocked indefinitely; the other received a ((uw-username)). Given the candidate has made over a 100 user name reports, an occasional mistake is understandable. PhilKnight (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. We need admins who really know the score. This nominee does. — Athaenara ✉ 01:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support trustworthy, been involved in different areas, will do good with the tools. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 02:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. LIKE OMG U CAN HAZ ADMINZ AND CHEEZBURGER SUPPORT!!!1 CWii(Talk|Contribs) 02:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    .............Bloody hell.--Koji†Dude (C) 02:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Long story.... CWii(Talk|Contribs) 02:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Cheese placed, not dropped. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 03:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support This user's development work to benefit wikipedia (the bots, the tools) is impressive. I see no reason not to trust him/her with the tools. Why not give a great technical contributor the technical buttons? AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. SupportOMG! HE HAS A EXTREMELY STRONG SUPPORT FROM ME! --Creamy!Talk 03:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Quid pro quo, and they're good with bots, helped me out a little, I don't see why Sox wouldnt be a fine admin. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I trust him, enough said. Wow, flashing support sign OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support This should've happened a while ago Alexfusco5 16:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support -- Thought you already were an admin. = ) Best of luck, --Cameron (T|C) 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Trusted user, waited a good amount of time before running another RfA, solid noms and answers, and no convincing opposes. GlassCobra 19:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per noms comments, and answer to Q.4. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support It is quite obvious to me that he can be trusted with the tools. He's been a proven asset to Wikipedia for a quite awhile. If he's not worthy of a mop, I honestly don't know who would be. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Per last time. -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Most definitely.--Kerotan-Have a nice day :) 12:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Seen this user around, and didn't see anything negative recently; improved a lot since the last RfA. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  12:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Even though I thought of making this a "weak support", in many ways I'm actually strongly supporting the candidate. I think he's a great user, perhaps should have been an admin already. ;-) However, while the issues raised in the Oppose/Neutral sections don't concern me very much, as long as he's careful at UAA and with pushing the buttons, I feel very comfortable about Soxred93 as an administrator. Like normal he should just start out slow with the tools, and other than that, I'd think he's very capable and well-experienced. Jamie☆S93 12:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Definitely. Sceptre (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely netural? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys won't let me have any fun :p Sceptre (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support LegoKontribsTalkM 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support – Per above, even though I haven't read much of the above. Trustworthy user, though. —Animum (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Gurch (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - done some good work.   jj137 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I've seen SoxRed around, and have no reason to doubt his trustworthiness with the tools. --Rodhullandemu 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Bwrs (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. miranda 04:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Weak Support as sysop. No major concerns about his wielding the mop, and meets all my standards. My only concern is his deletionism, but I am on record aleady for voting for some others of that ilk, so I will go along. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. This is not an endorsement of his board candidacy. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: He's not running for the board AFAIK SQLQuery me! 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support with confidence that this nominee will use the tools appropriately. — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented per support number 42 ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dang, that's the second time I've done that in the past two weeks — thanks for cleaning up after me! — Athaenara ✉ 04:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. support —DerHexer (Talk) 22:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Yup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support —Reedy 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support - Great editor & vandal fighter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Good editor. I'm sure this user will do great with the mop. SchfiftyThree 23:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Yes I was trying to look for a reason to go neutral other then to article building. However, when I find my self looking at the move log, I know I can't find anything. I would've went neutral, but some people might think that me doing so because he likes the Red Sox would be a personal attack.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  01:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support due to no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support seems good editor and a skilled bot op. valuable admin. BlueQ99 (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Deli nk (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - I was sure I'd supported this already, oh well. Soxred93 is a fantastic guy - knows a lot about the wiki and is extremely helpful, two very important points. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 06:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, seems like a fine user. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Delayed support He'll do fine. --jonny-mt 23:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. I've had good interactions with this user. I think the user's bot did something weird once, and I asked him about it, and user was very friendly and helpful in resolving the problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Sheesh, Sox, I see what this is all about. You just can't wait for Tyler to get the anti-spoof override for Account Creator's working, can you? Well, despite this obvious lack of patience, I'll give you a DIVINELY INSPIRED Super-Strong Support because I can't open my inbox without having at least one accounts-enwiki e-mail from you, and if that's not dedication, I don't know what is! S.A, aka L'Aquatique[review] 06:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support- You are an excellent editor. Keep doing what you do. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - good editor. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support--Húsönd 22:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Weak Support The concerns Wisdom has brought up are valid, and worry me a little worried, however, since I see no other issues with this user, I'm going to support him. The correct way to deal with confusing user names according to policy is to leave a message requesting that the user change his name. After that you should wait, and see if he requests that his name be changed. If he does, then thats great, and if he doesn't, he then should be blocked. An admin must have the right attitude, and some of this users actions indicate he is "BITE|bitty"(which isn't a good trait for an admin or anyone else), thus the attitude of this user probably isn't the best attitude for an admin to have. However, this user has shown a need for the tools, and a solid knowledge of the policies he will be working with as an admin(for the most part), thus I will support his Rfa. Those two things outweigh his possible attitude problem.--SJP (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak Oppose - Candidate believes that "confusing" usernames should be blocked at UAA. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually try not to heckle opposers (especially you, Wisdom) but if those 5 are his only mistakes among the 100 or so edits he's made to UAA, is that really cause for concern? Also, the last three of those (IMO) were good calls. Is there another reason for your oppose that I don't get? (I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with the Username policy or how UAA reports work)--Koji†Dude (C) 04:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Koji, I don't consider questions heckling at all, especially from you. I'll try to explain further. WP:UAA, as I've come to learn, is an extremely sensitive area that requires some thought and discretion. It's not that Soxred has made a few mistakes out of hundreds and hundreds (that would not be enough to garner an oppose), it's that he obviously has the mentality that such usernames need to be blocked immediately, and if he worked at UAA he'd be that administrator. I cannot support this. It's way too bitey to newcomers and it's not fair for them to be knocked out of Wikipedia for such an innocuous reason. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, for a user who has been editing there regularly, he doesn't seem to know WP:U policy. It's been a while since confusing usernames were considered for blocking. There have been many discussions about this before. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay. :-) Thanks for clarifying, I think I'm leaning more towards opposing now... But first, I'm off to bed.--Koji†Dude (C) 04:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is perfect, 100% of the time. 100 UAA reports, if the above is correct, 5 of them in your opinion bad (I should note Wikipedia:U#Confusing_usernames is actually policy) of those 5, I agree with 3 out of 5 of those, per my own interpertaion of WP:U. So, by your math, he's right 95% of the time in that arena, by mine, 98% of the time. Not bad, in my opinion. I bet, if you had caught those as they happened, and noted it on his talkpage, he would have corrected the mistake. I'm just not sure it's really grounds to deny the bit over. Good sysops make mistakes all the time, it's how we deal with those mistakes, that is really important. SQLQuery me! 05:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, of those 5, I should note, I'm not the only one who felt some of them needed to be blocked. Madsciene666666666666666 TommmmmmmyT ZODi90000005555 Gdghdgncfnfgfgfffhfhfhfhfhfh, leaving only WUpD8FS1a0r2R09pzJ which, in my opinion, was probably sufficiently confusing. (that's 4 other independent admins that agreed that those were confusing enough to warrant a preventative block.) SQLQuery me! 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate and respect differences of opinion SQL, but as I explained above it's not a matter of a few wrong reports out of a 100 and then computing a rough percentage. Goodness knows people can make a few errors. My problem is that I do not trust this user to block at UAA because it is obvious that they will turn away potential users for non-violations. In other words, they will most likely continue down this bitey path. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, about the users being blocked. Administrators aren't perfect either (this is not directed at anyone in particular), so they can make bad calls from time to time. They're human. So, just because a few admins actually blocked the users doesn't really change my stance. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with wisdom here. Its an issue we must consider. Is it ok to have new users blocked for a something minor like this which they may not realise is problem?. If I was one of those blocked, I would have a very good opinion of the wikipedia community at all. Soxred's mistake is a small mistake on paper but for the users who were blocked it wouldn't be such a small thing. Ziphon (ALLears) 13:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As the guy who blocked TommmmmmmyT, it was because he was actually vandalising the encyclopedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so it was a mistake for Soxred93 to report him to UAA. Since he needed to be blocked for vandalism (much different in effect from a username block), he should have been on AIV. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think blocks on all five usernames are justified. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. I wouldn't be able to remember the username if I were the account creator. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick note: I would have softblocked all of those, because, yes, they are confusing and/or random. Moreover, in my opinion, the attempts to change the WP:U policy shouldn't be brought to RFA by opposing candidates that don't agree with or are simply unaware of those motions— especially when there is clearly still disagreement over that section as actually reflecting current policy ([6] [7]). --slakr\ talk / 20:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, well we obviously do not agree. Not to divert away from Soxred's RfA, but we allow IP addresses to edit - a rather confusing means of identification if you ask me. Secondly, exactly how would anyone really be confused over the first three examples? Rhetorical perhaps. Anyway, you're missing the crux of my complaint/concern I think. It's a bitey area. New editors (young in particular) will choose these lackadaisical or frivolous looking usernames unaware of our policies. Soxred has obviously made it clear through his actions that he will block these users without warning or notification. I cannot support that. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Q2 and Wisdom. When it comes to blocking newbies for stuff that isn't against the policy we link to (at least, confusing wasn't last time I checked), we should darn well look for perfection. giggy (:O) 08:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose per Q4 and the bitey banner on his talk page. giggy (:O) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose The "stuff to volunteer for list" doesn't bother me much, although you should already know where you want to work. But, as Wisdom said, the UAA reports show a certain bitey-ness that makes me think you might need some more practice.--Koji†Dude (C) 20:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose See my comments above. I think soxred needs a bit more practice with the UAA reports. Its a bit unfortunate considering he'd be a pretty good admin when it comes to other aspects. But I think if he works at UAA for a while and shows a change in the way he approaches it he should be fine next time around. Ziphon (ALLears) 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Wisdom. Soxred93 wants to block newbies for extremely minor problems, without discussion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And, yet you lectured majorly about assuming bad faith. Interesting. SQLQuery me! 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, UAA is for blocking people. What in the world could a UAA report mean besides "I want this person blocked"? There's nothing to assume. Do you think it's only admin candidates with thousands of edits who deserve good faith, and not newbies? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rspeer, same could have applied to tonnes of pages like AIV and open proxies (which is worse than UAA, because they were denied even the chance to register). OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The people at WP:AIV earned their bitey-ness. At UAA, they didn't do anything but violate a policy they've never heard of. When a guy signs up for Wikipedia, and the next day finds himself indef blocked with the block summary "inapropriate username" or "confusing username", all he sees is You've Just Been PWNED. You might as well put up a picture of Jimbo Wales T-Bagging a dead body on COD4 with a little "You →" marker pointing towards it.--Koji†Dude (C) 05:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohana, you make it sound like I'm against all UAA reports. No, I'm against irresponsible ones, where there are better ways to fix the problem than blocking but the reporter hasn't tried any of them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Three RfAdm's in 6 months suggests career mandarinship. Answer to question 3 is evasive. Answer to question two is very non-persuasive. Lack of interest in content writing is a bad sign. These three reasons together add up to an oppose. --Irpen 18:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I almost swallowed my biscuit when I read "Adminship is about the tools, not content writing" below. Some further concerns I have arise from the warning template on Soxred93's user page.
    • "Do not revert the bot's edits to your userpages or templates, because the bot will just do it again." As a programmer, I find this a suprisingly unfriendly way to proceed. While I'm happy to discuss the complexity of this offline, it's unacceptable to me. New contributors (the most likely to make mistakes) are easily driven off. To expect them to do the work of finding/reading that notice and further to accept it gracefully is just too much.
    • "Unfortunately, that is a Pywikipedia error. I have no control over that, sorry." This is the most explicit passing the buck, but there are several on the page. Adminstrator's are required to take responsibility for their own actions, without appeal to developers or IRC or whatnot.
    Adminship is about improving the encyclopedia, the tools are just that, tools. The core business of the encyclopedia is content, and I am unable to locate sufficent engagement with writing content. This combined with the above does not allow me to recomend promortion of this candidate. - brenneman 00:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
While I would like to support as the editor does great work with their bots (R.I.P. SoxBot V, we hardly knew you), I find the tone of item # 4 on his talk page instructions to be rather bitey. Unbecoming of an admin, at the very least. xenocidic (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Switching to support. xenocidic (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't everyone bite from time to time? Now probably isn't the best time for me to make this comment actually, cos I'm annoyed at something in RL, but every editor, admin or not, will have been bitey at some point in their wiki-career, whether it be on-wiki, on IRC, to a newbie, to an admin, on a talk page, on a policy page. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure if it was a random one-off biting of some newbie, I can understand that, but this is standing message on their talk page pretty much assuming that people are coming to "whine and complain" and smacks of arrogance ("I do not really want to go through your contributions just to find that the error was yours, not mine"). If the language were softened, I would reconsider. xenocidic (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made it less bitey, per your comments. Soxred 93 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I have to second Xenocidic's comment, and also point out his curious answer to Pedro's question here. I would think being an Admin is primarily about dealing with people of all ages and levels of emotional passion to Wikipedia; the buttons are part of the responsibility, not the driving force. While I have no criticism on the other responses, I have qualms about giving the tools to this candidate based solely on the response to the fourth question. Sorry. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Being an admin is just the technical matter of having a few more buttons, combined with the responsibility not to abuse them. While being able to deal with people is a big plus, it's something that can be done by any editor. I personally feel that adminship is overrated. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken, but in this case I am getting the sense (based on a couple of responses cited here) that the candidate is more interested in tools than people. Whether he will use them correctly is something I cannot determine. Ecoleetage (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Per that rather strange 'volunteer RfA' list, some dodgy UAA reports and Xenocidic. Rudget (Help?) 15:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you want that in the support section? Soxred 93 20:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so, hehe. :P · AndonicO Engage. 20:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just notified Shapiros about this. -- RyRy5 (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. The candidate's answers to some of the questions, particularly #1 and #4, are unsatisfying. Majoreditor (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In #4, I have to agree with Soxred93 here. Adminship is about the tools, not content writing, so I don't know why this question is unsatisfying for you. macytalk 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship is also about understanding core policy and guidelines in the mainspace. An individual who rarely, if ever, writes content might be unfamiliar with the disputes that arise during article building. This would obviously be beneficial for WP:3RR, WP:AFD, WP:RFPP, WP:DRV and dispute resolution. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category