Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Audi152

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

Audi152

Final: (1/8/2) closed per WP:SNOW by non-bureaucrat ~ mazca ^talk 09:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Audi152 (talk · contribs) – Audi152, I have been on Wikipedia since May of 2009. I have a good experience with Wikipedia from previous accounts. I have a special interest in automobiles, (hence the name Audi152) although I do not perform much edits to those subjects. I have experience on Twinkle, Friendly, and HotCat. I have performed several edits minor and dramatic edits. I have not been in an editing conflict on this account, but I know proper ways to handle those from again other accounts. Although, some may say that I have not been here very long I feel that I know almost all there is to know. I know that in a case of Vandalism the page is to be reverted and the user who vandalized it is to be warned. I hope that I receive the honor of becoming an administrator Audi152 (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: If I am able to receive this honor, I hope to do my part in continuing to remove Vandalism from the streets of Wikipedia. I also hope to continue the quality and reliability of the articles

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

A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are probably on schools throughout Louisiana. I currently live in Louisiana so I know the schools almost like the back of my hand.

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: No, I have never been in any conflicts on this account. I think that everyone's opinion matters as long as it is backed up with evidence. It they have no evidence and I know that they are wrong I will warn them and protect the page from editing.

Additional optional questions from Vyvyan Ade Basterd

4. You indicated above that this isn't your first account. Can you please tell us what your previous account(s) were?

A:

General comments

• Links for Audi152: Audi152 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Audi152 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Audi152 before commenting.

Discussion

• The outlook for this rfa doesn't appear to be looking all that great...suggest early close by WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Audi 152 supports himself

It's not common practice to support yourself. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry not experienced enough. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose ah, no. Previous accounts? Crafty (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Sorry. 61 article edits is far too little. You need to have a lot more experience. Also, you keep saying "on this account"; You should list your other accounts. Equazcion (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
4. I'm sorry, but the answer to question 3 ("I will warn them and protect the page") indicates you need more experience and knowledge of policy. And what are these other accounts (which I hope are not in violation of WP:SOCK) we are talking about? From your answers, I get the impression that you have got into trouble with them. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose per not-even-three-digits article edits and also response to Q3 - "not on this account". -SpacemanSpiff 05:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose. per the above. Judging by your answers to the questions above, it seems like you have been editing with multiple accounts, otherwise known as sockpuppeting. In case you weren't aware before, Wikipedia policy dictates against having multiple, undeclared accounts registered to one user. Because socking is considered a serious offense in the Wikipedia community, I'm afraid I cannot, in good conscious, support you in this rfa. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

   That is not, in fact, the policy. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, socks are permitted in certain circumstances. Also, we don't know that he's editing with multiple accounts simultaneously; He may just have had a previous account and since created a new one. We need more information before we can determine if he's violating policy. Equazcion (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

   True, there are certain instances where socks are allowed - but I'm addressing the issue in a general sense. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

   Multiple accounts (not socks) are allowed in a number circumstances (and actually pretty useful for keeping separate watchlists); I agree with the comments that suggest not biting him at the outset for having them.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose, have some concerns re above. Would also like to see more experience. Cirt (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose, I think we need a more articulate person to be an admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I advise this be closed… Irbisgreif (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Audi is User:YoMamma6188 (obvious from the edits). Audi, I suggest you start a new undisclosed account; contribute usefully with it and avoid getting caught as a sock. These folks will definitely oppose you if you disclose your alts. given the disruption you have done with the old accounts, no matter how good as an editor you behave with the new one. Sockpuppetry is one of the seven deadly wiki sins ya know.--Omega735 (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

   Note: User:Omega735 was created on 17 October 2009 at 06:20 - Approximately 40 minutes ago. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

   Omega735 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef as somebody's disruptive sock.  Sandstein  09:08, 17 October 2009 (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.