Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Socks 01

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

Socks 01

Final (1/7/4); Candidate withdrew 09:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC); Scheduled to end 05:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Socks 01 (talk · contribs)

Candidate withdrew. 09:42, 27 September 2007 (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 tend to visit the various XfD projects daily, particularly WP:RFD and WP:AFD, taking note of the various discussions and analyzing the articles. So that will be my first and primary interest, especially at RfD. I'm a person who likes to provide constructive insight during discussions, researching page histories and logs to make sure all sides of the argument are considered. I'm a person who relies on consensus: even if I don't agree with the final result, I'm satisfied if the users involved considered my suggestions. I also browse through the various WP:PROD, reading the pages and either confirming or contesting the proposals, so I'll also dedicate time for those pages.

As for non-article cleanup, I dedicate time to add fair-use rationales to non-free images when I encounter them, unless they're a clear infringement. I have some experience on tagging for CSD because of this, and like I stated before, I always read its history and contact their uploader, usually in non-boilerplate messages, to figure out a solution.

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

A: I've written quite a few articles, including some which, I was surprised to find, hadn't been created yet.

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: Actually, I don't think I've been in a serious conflict before (any users are fully welcome to correct me on this, if I have, I seriously can't remember). That doesn't mean I haven't encountered disagreements, but I've resolved them by talking it out.

General comments

• See Socks 01's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Socks 01: Socks 01 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Weak Support He's a nice guy, he made a Holiday Committee and made more edits to Wikipedia compared to his userpage than I ever will. If he had more edits and uses edit summaries, then I might give some more support. Its just that he is a much more descent contributer than me, and he possibly has work hard to try an become a good contributor. I'd probably give him more time to see if he improves. Efansay---T/C/Sign Here Please 08:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: has very little edit count, and lack of use of edit summaries. Tiptoety 13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'm sorry, but I do not feel this editor has a very broad understanding of policies or guidelines to effectively be an administrator. First, these edits disturb me: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], as this could be considered excessive cross-posting. Additionally, the fact that the editor says "vote for me" further shows that the user does not understand that RfAs are not a "vote", but a discussion to determine consensus. I'm also concerned that the editor does not seem to understand WP:OWN, as these edits would suggest, calling a project "my new commitee": [10] [11] [12] (and 19 others with exactly the same message). While I don't normally nit-pick spelling, when the name of a project is spelled incorrectly, (not intentionally) it does concern me, as spelling is something that comes into play with moving pages and creating redirects. As mentioned below, the lack of edit summaries are also a concern, and to Socks 01, I'd encourage you to go into your preferences, under the edit tab, and force edit summaries when you forget to make one. I'm not sure why the editor blanked the page here, removing a redirect without explanation. If the editor has been watching WP:RFD, I would think that at the least, an edit summary with an explanation would be given, but I still find no valid reason for blanking a redirect page like that. The editor says they have "created many articles", so I went to see what they looked like, and I could find only four, three of which are stubs, and one is an episode for a television show. Looking through the editor's talk page history, I see a repeated pattern of image problems, multiple notices, and multiple instances of the editor blanking their talk page, with no archiving. Wikipedia has an extensive infrastructure of policy, guidelines, and projects, and I do not feel this editor is even aware of many of the most important areas required by an administrator. All of this can change in time, of course, and I'd encourage the editor to watch RfAs for the next several months to get an idea of what is expected, and to find areas that the editor can participate in to get the necessary experience, such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFCN, WP:AFD, etc. I wish the editor much luck in the future, but at this time, I cannot support this request for adminship. ^Ariel♥Gold 06:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose, some obvious gaps in understanding Wikipedia infrastructure and procedures, which is probably simply due to the very low quantity of contributions. Please stick around, join a WikiProject or two, ask a lot of questions and tackle some of the backlogs, and then come back to Rfa when you are confident that complete strangers could put complete trust in you based only on reviewing you contributions. John Vandenberg 08:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose per inexperience, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Holiday Commitee (administrators: 1 2), blatant canvassing (only messaged those who he'd had the support of with the now-deleted HC), ArielGold, and general perception of immaturity and poor judgement. Daniel 08:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Lack of broad editing experience. Canvassing. WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Poor understanding of WP:NFCC - no images contain appropriate fair use rationales. Perhaps later. ~ Riana ⁂ 08:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Apart from the other important reservations raised above, the clicher for me is that Socks01's edit count is far too low to have gained anywhere near enough experience. However, this seems like a friendly and well-intentioned editor, and I'd be happy to consider a fresh nomination at some time in the future when (s)he has much more experience. I suggest that at this point it would be best for Socks to withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Very little experience. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after a few months. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Good user but too few edits and lack of use of edit summaries. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral, Friendly user etc., but too few edits and use of edit summaries. Not many mainspace edits recently either. This edit seems a bit strange, arguing about ownership of something which is gonna be deleted soon. — jacĸrм (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral- He's a good guy, just needs to do a couple more edits. Mabye in a little while --PolarWolf ( sign ) 23:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral per all above. -Domthedude001 20:25, 26 September 2007 (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.